11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[The Brain]

I know who that is.

Obi-Juan has taught you well.

[Jacob]

You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.

Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.

[Razgovory]

You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.

Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.

They have been shown in the news.  I don't think they will become a regular feature in the New Yorker though.  While their cartoons are often bad, they rarely depict the President of France talking to his exposed penis.  It's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.  Now there may be some self-censorship in not showing cartoons about a man playing with his balls, but that's hardly "the Muslims won!!!!!1111eleven".

[Ideologue]

The President of France is Otto Skorzeny, right?

[Razgovory]

The President of France is Otto Skorzeny, right?

You know how some people talk to plants to encourage them to grow?  I think it's the same idea.

[Sheilbh]

Somewhat incidently, perhaps the major reason why most if not all major UK newspapers and TV channels haven't reproduced much of CH. cartoons is someone in this country has already been convicted of distributing religiously offensive cartoons.

Background, a few years ago we ceased to have Blasphemy laws, because these had been replaced by a racial and religious hatred act in 2006.

This is the second conviction for this man, it's not immediately clear which piece of legislation he was prosecuted under, but I'd be interested if any lawyer here could clarify this, as the various news reports vary somewhat from one another:

I doubt that's any part of the reason.

I think he was prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act which was passed in the dying days of John Major's government. It was largely in response to there not being sufficient legal recourse for the victims of stalking. It can be racially or religiously aggravated which can carry a higher sentence and moves it from a summary to an either way offence. My guess is this guy wanted a jury trial so opted for the Crown Court.

It's nothing to do with incitement to religious hatred.

[Sheilbh]

It's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.

Americans

But yes, they do:

[Ideologue]

Well, anyway, I'm looking forward to Houllebecq's Submission.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, not something a lot of American papers are going to pick up.

[Martinus]

You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.

Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.

Yup, especially as some news sites (like Associated Press) went so far as to publish the slain chief editor holding up a copy of the magazine - with the contents of the cover pixeled out.

And saying that the matter is not interesting is just bizarre - this has been referenced on pretty much every American media, with extensive analytical articles on opinion media and satirical shows from Daily Show to Conon dedicating whole segments to it.

[Martinus]

That isn't to say America doesn't have a stronger commitment to free speech than most European countries. There is a distinct difference between government actions limiting free speech and terrorist actions limiting free speech.

I think it is debatable. I would say the accents are on different things. America has broad freedom of political speech, but is much more censoring and self-censoring when it comes to freedom of speech and expression on matters of sex and "public decency" for example.

[Eddie Teach]

 

FCC regulations are kind of different though, as they aren't about what you're allowed to say so much as where you're allowed to say it. Which is still a limitation on free speech, sure. But nobody is saying it's an absolute freedom.

[Martinus]

FCC regulations are kind of different though, as they aren't about what you're allowed to say so much as where you're allowed to say it. Which is still a limitation on free speech, sure. But nobody is saying it's an absolute freedom.

Yeah but they are more restrictive than comparable tv regulations in many European countries. So the point stands.

Where Europe is definitely more restrictive, it's freedom of "religious expression". But I would say that in freedom of "artistic expression" Western Europeans are generally free-er than Americans.

[Razgovory]

Europeans are freer to show nudity.  However, actual political messages are restricted.  For instance in France you can't incite hatred against gays, which I'm sure you'll agree is an important component to freedom of speech.

[Martinus]

Europeans are freer to show nudity.  However, actual political messages are restricted.  For instance in France you can't incite hatred against gays, which I'm sure you'll agree is an important component to freedom of speech.

At the risk of breaking my rule of not responding to you, isn't that exactly what I just said?