11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Eddie Teach]

A civilization is not a monolithic entity.

[Grallon]

Now who is hating on French speakers?

I'm certain I speak for everyone when I say we would all appreciate if you could please pop in some more pills, and try to regain control of your shallowness, before you post next... 



G.

[garbon]

Now who is hating on French speakers?

I'm certain I speak for everyone when I say we would all appreciate if you could please pop in some more pills, and try to regain control of your shallowness, before you post next... 



G.

[The Minsky Moment]

Misplaced certainty is a hallmark of fanaticism.

[Eddie Teach]

Grallon's anti-garbonism has reached fanatical proportions? 

[The Minsky Moment]

I am not certain of very many things, but I do have a high level of confidence that Grallon does not "speak for everybody"

[Martinus]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

But now you are doing exactly what CC just accused Yi of doing - treating all "West" as a monolith. I doubt the staff of CH approves of the arrest of Dieudonne (by the way, hasn't someone already said he was not arrested, just being "investigated"?)

Also, remember that when CH reprinted Mohammed cartoons few years ago, the reaction of the French government was more akin to that of CC and B4. So in a sense they are consistent and hate freedom the same way Canadian lawyers do.

[Martinus]

Sheilbh's article touches on a valid point, which I think many people here who were critical of Charlie Hebdo are missing.

The extremist Muslims are not *just* threatening violence if someone publishes, say, a caricature of Mohammad being naked and on all fours, sucking a dick of a little boy and being fucked in the ass by a goat.

The extremist Muslims are threatening violence if someone publishes a drawing of a bearded human wearing a turban and standing still, if it is implied he is/may be Mohammed.

So, a question to B4 and others - is your position that publications that know what's good for them, should refrain from ever drawing the latter, because otherwise they should expect getting attacked?

The latest Charlie Hebdo cover is a good example. There is absolutely nothing remotely offensive about it to an average person - yet there are Muslims out there who are already saying that it is "troubling" that the "offensive trend continues".

[CountDeMoney]

If only Muslims had more Cecil B. DeMille flicks in their culture, maybe they wouldn't have such hang-ups over idolatry.  "Morty at the studio says the Prophet stays in the picture, no matter what Chuck Heston thinks!"

[The Brain]

OTOH they do embrace idiotry.

[Sheilbh]

The extremist Muslims are threatening violence if someone publishes a drawing of a bearded human wearing a turban and standing still, if it is implied he is/may be Mohammed.

So, a question to B4 and others - is your position that publications that know what's good for them, should refrain from ever drawing the latter, because otherwise they should expect getting attacked?

The latest Charlie Hebdo cover is a good example. There is absolutely nothing remotely offensive about it to an average person - yet there are Muslims out there who are already saying that it is "troubling" that the "offensive trend continues".

Mohammed is literally a dick in the Charlie Hebdo cover so it's fairly offensive.

But I agree. As I say my view is that there's no point in publishing the cartoons in solidarity if they don't already match the style of that paper (the NYT: 'In cartoons, offence found') but they should be published as part of the news story in newspapers and on news channels.

However I do think that aside from offence there is a bigger issue of blasphemy which perhaps should be addressed by a paper publishing a very respectful sketch of Mohammed. See the furore and counter-furore of Maajid Nawaz tweeting a Jesus and Mo cartoon ( http://www.jesusandmo.net/ ).

[Martinus]

To be honest, I havent realised he was a dick until you told me.

[Malthus]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Yep. Alas, je suis Dieudonne

Incidentally on US papers/news sources publishing the pictures I totally agree with this by the NYT public editor:

With New Charlie Hebdo Cover, News Value Should Have Prevailed
By MARGARET SULLIVAN  JANUARY 14, 2015 8:00 AM January 14, 2015 8:00 am 713 Comments

Readers responded passionately, and in large numbers, to my post last week about The Times's decision not to publish the now-famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. (In fact, I've never had more comments on a post or column.)

A vast majority of readers were critical of The Times's decision, feeling strongly that both because of news value and in order to reinforce free speech and show solidarity with a publication under attack, The Times should have published them.

Just Monday, a new decision came along and The Times stayed with its earlier determination, showing no image of the new cover of Charlie Hebdo, which features a tearful Muhammad, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign, with a tagline that says "All is forgiven." Instead, a Times article described the cover image and linked to an article that showed the cover illustration.

But that's of little help to the print readers, who — if their only news source was The Times — could have gone through this whole tumultuous week without much sense of what the offending cartoons look like. That does them a disservice.

I can understand why The Times would not have published "the most incendiary images," as the executive editor, Dean Baquet, described them last week. He felt those extreme cartoons would not have been necessary to illustrate the story about the terrorist attack that killed eight members of the satirical newspaper's staff. (The Times did publish a number of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but none that pictured Muhammad; in addition, a short documentary video, published by the opinion side in The Times last week, showed the cartoons.)

Mr. Baquet made a tough call, which included safety concerns for Times staff, especially those in international posts. (Those concerns are far from frivolous; just days ago, a German newspaper's office was firebombed after it published the cartoons following the attack, and now new concerns have arisen about reprisals.)

I certainly don't think that decision was "cowardly," as many have charged. Mr. Baquet told me repeatedly in recent days that he was paying attention to reader comments on last week's blog post, and that he found them thoughtful and, in many cases, eloquent. He also passed along to me examples of correspondence from readers who thanked him for The Times's restraint and sensitivity last week.

In my post last week, I called for a review of The Times's standards, which Mr. Baquet told me were the basis for not publishing any examples of the Muhammad cartoons. One question, surely, is whether guidelines on offensive images are applied rigorously across the board; many readers have doubted this. Another is at what point news judgment ought to trump the likelihood of offending some readers.

I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition's cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.

Here's my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world's attention over the past week.

The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.

With Charlie Hebdo's expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.

I dunno. I'm of the camp that you can support freedom of speech without republishing what the controversy is about - it all depends on whether the thing being published is, in fact, subjectively impolite to a significant group.

For example, I myself am not offended by porn; I don't think porn should be illegal to publish; however, I acknowledge that, to some, porn is impolite in public. When Larry Flynt of Hustler was shot by an assassin during his obsenity trial, that would certainly be news - nasty as Flynt is, that was a significant moment for free speech. But if I was publishing a newspaper, I would not necessarily have republished the porn pics that were the subject of his trial (even assuming that there was no question of my being arrested for doing so) - even though, otherwise, the readers would be left somewhat in the dark as to what the controversy was about. 

OTOH, you don't want politeness to absoluely rule, or you would be able to publish nothing. As always, it's a balancing act. I'd be more willing, I think, to cut some slack for the sensitivities of minority groups that have traditionally had a rough time at the hands of the majority - for example, if Native Americans sincerely held the view that pics of native grave artifacts were upsetting, I'd refrain from displaying them in a publication to the general public, even though as an amateuer into archaeology and anthropology I find them most interesting and not in any way "gratuitously offensive".

[Capetan Mihali]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

But now you are doing exactly what CC just accused Yi of doing - treating all "West" as a monolith. I doubt the staff of CH approves of the arrest of Dieudonne (by the way, hasn't someone already said he was not arrested, just being "investigated"?)

Also, remember that when CH reprinted Mohammed cartoons few years ago, the reaction of the French government was more akin to that of CC and B4. So in a sense they are consistent and hate freedom the same way Canadian lawyers do.

I think the correction that his arrest was really an investigation was retracted, that it was an actual arrest (hardly his first). 

And I'm sure the CH staff are 100% on the side of Dieudonne: I don't question their anti-censorship bona fides.* (Not to mention they seem to share a certain amount of aesthetic strategy, i.e. trying to inhabit what remains of the genuinely outrageous in this day and age, even as it endangers them personally, as well as a trajectory of believing more intensely in their strategy's righteousness the more approaches sheer trolling).

I'm addressing the comment to the participants in the whole public spectacle that opposes "Western" liberty and freedom of expression and "Muslim" extremism and intolerance -- including the officially-adopted "Je suis Charlie"-dom of the  French government at this moment in time.

*EDIT:  Though they did lead a charge to get the FN banned as a political party, didn't they?  Of course that's electoral politics, so one can distinguish, but still a little discordant with the current image...

[Capetan Mihali]

France is "tackling hate speech" in the wake of this tragedy, reports the BBC:

Controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala has been detained by police for a Facebook comment appearing to back Paris gunman Amedy Coulibaly.

His is one of dozens of cases opened by authorities in a crackdown on condoning or threatening terrorism.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said words of hatred and contempt had to be fought with the "utmost vigour".

Dieudonne already has convictions for inciting anti-Semitism and the courts banned several one-man shows last year.

A judicial source quoted by AFP news agency said he was due to be released on Wednesday evening but would face trial at a later date.

[snip]

Some fast-track custodial sentences have already been handed down under anti-terror legislation passed last November

A man of 22 was jailed on Tuesday for a year for posting a video mocking one of the three murdered policemen
A drunk driver was given four years in prison after making threats against the police who arrested him
Three men in their twenties were jailed in Toulouse for condoning terrorism
A man of 20 was jailed in Orleans for shouting "long live the Kalash[(nikov]" at police in a shopping centre

[snip]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30811401