11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Liep]

I like the footage of the arriving heads of states at l'Élysée, they're painfully aware that it's not suppose to be a photo opportunity and they're desperately trying to fight that instinct, they don't always succeed.

[Martinus]

I like the footage of the arriving heads of states at l'Élysée, they're painfully aware that it's not suppose to be a photo opportunity and they're desperately trying to fight that instinct, they don't always succeed.

Well, they did take selfies at Nelson Mandela's funeral so...

[garbon]

today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.

So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with?  Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?

Sorry, no.  That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.

Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.

I'm okay with leaving trashy cartoon printing to Europe.

[Razgovory]

today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.

So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with?  Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?

Sorry, no.  That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.

Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.

Seriously?  Do you guys print a lot of cartoons from Botswana?  Indonesia?  And I'm sorry but his is not apples and oranges,  The only difference is one is spreading ideas that you are receptive to and the other is spreading ideas you don't like.

[crazy canuck]

... yes?

His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).

I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.

Is this confusing?

I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.

So we have two separate ideas in this tweet.  One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam.  Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim.  So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make?  What is the relationship between these two ideas?

Damn, are you really that dense?  Read the quote in Raz's post:  ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it". 

Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.

Yeah, I have no idea what Yi is on about.

[crazy canuck]

To paraphrase Bill Maher, if there are so many bad apples, perhaps there is something wrong with the orchard.

It worked!  Marti  has started quoting someone other than Picketty.

[Brazen]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

[crazy canuck]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

But of course if one believes Islam and all who follow that religion are tainted in some way then one can read all kinds of other things into that very simple message.   

[Martinus]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?

[crazy canuck]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?

To make the point that even though they said something he didnt agree with their right to say it, ie upholding the law, is what is important.

[dps]

today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.

So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with?  Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?

Sorry, no.  That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.

Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.

I don't believe it the concept of hate speech.  That is to say, while obviously some speech is vile and hateful, no speech should be banned.

Letting them say what they want doesn't mean that you can't keep an eye on known radicals.

[garbon]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?

Contrary to everyone else, I think there was an implicit judgment of the cartoonists's work and think that's fine. The hero worship of the cartoonists reveals many who have forgotten about applying fearless disrespect.

I respect that the cartoonists thought their cartoons were relevant enough and important enough that they were willing to risk their safety in publishing them. I think it is wrong that anyone kill anyone over speech (particularly over speech so trifling as those cartoons). I also think, of the cartoons I've seen, most were pretty shoddy and tasteless*, but I don't think that it anyway diminishes that they had the right to publish them and that right should be protected. At the same time, I don't seek to glorify them as I don't really see them on the battle lines of protecting free speech. As Sheilbh's image blurb said, "There is no high noon and none is coming."

*and I can see if one didn't have the steel constitution that a Languish poster does, that one could easily be offended.

[Brazen]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?

To make the point that even though they said something he didnt agree with their right to say it, ie upholding the law, is what is important.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.

Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.

I think they might mean Islamaphobes.   

[mongers]

This mutual celebration of liberty and free speech in France and the West, is all good and nice, but I'm worried that's it's pulled up sharp with regards to social media and new technology; there seems to be a lot of police attention and prosecutions of people, because others have taken offence at what they posted.

I'd prefer that such people are dealt with by being ignore, much as you might do if you didn't like a particular CH editorial or cartoon, rather than the heavy hand application of vague media/hate speech laws.