11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Admiral Yi]

Of course not, who said that?

You say the dead French dude is culpable.  How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not?  They both had the right to do what they did.

[11B4V]

Of course not, who said that?

You say the dead French dude is culpable.  How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not?  They both had the right to do what they did.

Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. 

and to be clear CH had the right to publish.

[CountDeMoney]

This internal debate in the Muslim community on how to think about satire of Islam could end up being the great upside of this attack.

I bet the ones with the most guns and suicide vests win.

[Eddie Teach]

That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.

I've got my eyes on you. 

[Admiral Yi]

Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. 

I was unaware of that.

[11B4V]

Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. 

I was unaware of that.

It is the attempted tie in you posted.

[The Minsky Moment]

Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech.  On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue.  That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.

On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction.  In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.

So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance.  What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I was with you Minksy until your misuse of they're.   

[Admiral Yi]

It is the attempted tie in you posted.

No it's not.  I wrote, in a language that you ostensibly read, that the convenience store owner created a risk that an armed robbery will be committed.

[dps]

If you can't accept that there is a link between what was published and the attack then I am not sure what can be done to remove that logical block.

Of course  there's a link. But even if it was a stupid decision to publish the cartoons in light of the known risk, that doesn't make CH morally culpable for the murders, and it certainly shouldn't make the magazine liable to other victims of the attacks for civil damages.

[Razgovory]

Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech.  On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue.  That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.

On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction.  In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.

So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance.  What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.

Under this theory is still acceptable to shit in the cartoonist mailbox?  Or throw a pie at them?

[11B4V]

It is the attempted tie in you posted.

No it's not.  I wrote, in a language that you ostensibly read, that the convenience store owner created a risk that an armed robbery will be committed.

Put it in context of you're statements;

You could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner.  After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed.  And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.

You say the dead French dude is culpable.  How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not?  They both had the right to do what they did

Your attempt to tie in the convenience store is stupid. Again tell me, how is the convenience store inflammatory? You can come up with something better.


But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.

CH has culpability

[11B4V]

Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech.  On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue.  That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.

On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction.  In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.

So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance.  What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.

Under this theory is still acceptable to shit in the cartoonist mailbox?  Or throw a pie at them?

The former over the latter would be my preference.

[Admiral Yi]

But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.

CH has culpability

It came out of the blue exactly to the extent the convenience store robbery did.

[11B4V]

But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.

CH has culpability

It came out of the blue exactly to the extent the convenience store robbery did.

So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?

2006

Controversy arose over the publication's edition of 9 February 2006. Under the title "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"), the front page showed a cartoon of a weeping Muhammad saying "C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons" ("it's hard being loved by jerks"). The newspaper reprinted the twelve cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and added some of their own. Compared to a regular circulation of 100,000 sold copies, this edition enjoyed great commercial success. 160,000 copies were sold and another 150,000 were in print later that day.

In response, French President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could inflame passions. "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided", Chirac said. The Grand Mosque, the Muslim World League and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) sued, claiming the cartoon edition included racist cartoons.[14] A later edition contained a statement by a group of twelve writers warning against Islamism.[15]

The suit by the Grand Mosque and the UOIF reached the courts in February 2007. Publisher Philippe Val contended "It is racist to imagine that they can't understand a joke," but Francis Szpiner, the lawyer for the Grand Mosque, explained the suit: "Two of those caricatures make a link between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. That has a name and it's called racism."[16]

Future president Nicolas Sarkozy sent a letter to be read in court expressing his support for the ancient French tradition of satire.[17] François Bayrou and future president François Hollande also expressed their support for freedom of expression. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) criticized the expression of these sentiments, claiming that they were politicizing a court case.[18]

On 22 March 2007, executive editor Philippe Val was acquitted by the court.[19] The court followed the state attorney's reasoning that two of the three cartoons were not an attack on Islam, but on Muslim terrorists, and that the third cartoon with Muhammad with a bomb in his turban should be seen in the context of the magazine in question, which attacked religious fundamentalism.[20]
Debris outside the paper's offices following the November 2011 attack
2011 attack

The paper's controversial 3 November 2011 issue, renamed "Charia Hebdo" (a reference to Sharia law) and "guest-edited" by Muhammad, depicted Muhammad saying: "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing."

In the early hours of 2 November 2011, the newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement[21][22] was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were presumed to be linked to its decision to rename a special edition "Charia Hebdo", with Muhammad listed as the "editor-in-chief".[23] The cover, featuring a cartoon of Muhammad by Luz (Renald Luzier), had circulated on social media for a couple of days.

Charb was quoted by AP stating that the attack might have been carried out by "stupid people who don't know what Islam is" and that they are "idiots who betray their own religion". Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, said his organisation deplores "the very mocking tone of the paper toward Islam and its prophet but reaffirms with force its total opposition to all acts and all forms of violence."[24] François Fillon, the prime minister, and Claude Guéant, the interior minister, voiced support for Charlie Hebdo,[22] as did feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who criticised calls for self-censorship.[25]
2012

In September 2012, the newspaper published a series of satirical cartoons of Muhammad, some of which featured nude caricatures of him.[26][27] Given that this issue came days after a series of attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, purportedly in response to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims, the French government decided to increase security at certain French embassies, as well as to close the French embassies, consulates, cultural centers, and international schools in about 20 Muslim countries.[28] In addition, riot police surrounded the offices of the magazine to protect it against possible attacks.[27][29][30]

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius criticised the magazine's decision, saying, "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"[31] The U.S. White House stated "a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this."[32] However, the newspaper's editor defended publication of the cartoons, saying, "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation."

Lest we forget the recent one.

2015 attack
Journalists, policemen, and emergency services in the street of the shooting, a few hours after the January 2015 attack
The Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") slogan became an endorsement of freedom of speech and press.
Main article: Charlie Hebdo shooting

On 7 January 2015, two Wahhabi Islamist gunmen[35] (directed by an "Al Qaeda cell in Yemen"[36]) forced their way into and opened fire in the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve, including staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski,[37] economist Bernard Maris and two police officers, and wounding eleven, four of them seriously.[38][39][40][41][42][43]

During the attack, the gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) and also "the Prophet is avenged".[35] To Sigolène Vinson, a female visitor to the offices, one of the attackers said "I'm not killing you because you are a woman and we don't kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu'ran and wear a veil".[44] President François Hollande described it as a "terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity".[45] The two gunmen were identified as Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi, French Muslim brothers of Algerian descent.[46][47][48][49]

Well dont forget about the hostages in the deli connected to this.