11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[jimmy olsen]

Laudable sentiment, but just that, sentiment as you live many thousands of miles from the problem.

I'd suggest to you that the reality is these terrorist outrages can lead to self-censorship as Brazen alluded to.

Given the situation in this country, with it's increasing numbers of islamists, I think the gay muslim guy who does a drag act, sometimes in a hijab is particularly courageous. And maintaining the spirit of freedom of expression. I'll see if I can find a link.

I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.

I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.

[garbon]

I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever.

It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)

Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.

[DGuller]

I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever.

It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Good for him, he's now dead, so how do we defend it now? 

[Martinus]

I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever.

It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)

Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.

This analogy is so wrong I will not even grace it with a response. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.

[Brazen]

I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.

I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.

Even if your colleagues could die in the any retribution attack?

[Ideologue]

Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
.....

I'd have thought freedom of the press, by definition includes allow journalist do do what you've described as "stirring up ..... ire"

It's not your principles that would be stretched, but the very natural and understandable fear that you, as a journalist would be targeted by these terrorists.

Perfectly understandable and I think I'd be with you, in that I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do what these journalists were doing.

I would absolutely republish their cartoons tomorrow if I had a paper or magazine. I've been on death's door before. I am not afraid of them. I have principals that I value, and I won't let them suppress them even under the threat of death.

Laudable sentiment, but just that, sentiment as you live many thousands of miles from the problem.

In fairness, whenever we get any closer, you start screaming "draft war"... well, you know how that tune goes.

[garbon]

I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever.

It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)

Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.

This analogy is so wrong I will not even comment on it extensively. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.

That's why I noted they are not the same.

The comparison is that you seem happy to restrict the ability of others to note their point of view as long as a) that restriction doesn't come via murder and b) what is being restricted is something you are happy to have restricted.

[jimmy olsen]

I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.

I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.

Even if your colleagues could die in the any retribution attack?

If they don't want to take the risks they can resign.

[Martinus]

Not really. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from criticism (and criticism involves ostracism). I have a choice not to associate with someone who expresses views I disagree with (and this includes boycotting a company if its high ranking representatives express views I disagree with). Same goes for telling a company that if it chooses to give a high ranking job to someone I disagree with, I will take my business elsewhere. Voltaire wouldn't have been a hypocrite if he chose not to invite the person, whose right to say things he would have defended to death, to his dinner parties either.

This is a completely different thing (not just a difference of degree) from either committing illegal, violent acts against someone for saying things I disagree with - or prosecuting someone for saying such things (for the record, I disagree with hate speech laws and the like as well).

This is so obvious to me, I am not sure if you are trolling or suffering from a brief spell of idiocy.

[garbon]

Not really. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from criticism (and criticism involves ostracism). I have a choice not to associate with someone who expresses views I disagree with (and this includes boycotting a company if its high ranking representatives express views I disagree with). Same goes for telling a company that if it chooses to give a high ranking job to someone I disagree with, I will take my business elsewhere. Voltaire wouldn't have been a hypocrite if he chose not to invite the person, whose right to say things he would have defended to death, to his dinner parties either.

This is a completely different thing (not just a difference of degree) from either committing illegal, violent acts against someone for saying things I disagree with - or prosecuting someone for saying such things (for the record, I disagree with hate speech laws and the like as well).

This is so obvious to me, I am not sure if you are trolling or suffering from a brief spell of idiocy.

So defending to the death the right to say something only covers preventing someone from being killed or prosecuted for your statements? But penalties like losing one's job, losing one's business, having one's life all but destroyed are all okay?

[Martinus]

Wow, you are really stupid.

[Viking]

Wow, you are really stupid.

This is what I've been putting up with.

[garbon]

For questioning the sincerity in which you hold the line on freedom of speech? I hardly can see you getting outraged if someone was to say off one of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church specifically because of what they say.

[Neil]

This analogy is so wrong I will not even grace it with a response. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.

Indeed.  The analogy is unacceptable because gays are a cause (The cause) that Martinus support, whereas Muslims are not.  Of course, the analogy is apt, but he could never see it.

[HVC]

Wow, you are really stupid.

hes not comparing boycotting to murder, he's questioning the sincerity of your belief in what you quoted.