11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[11B4V]

Can't read French.  Though the big slogan I'm seeing is "I am Charlie"

Lots of older Parisians carried signs, "I stand with Charlie" that were left over from late 60s/early 70s protests.

doesnt that go back to the shut down concearning deGalle?

[crazy canuck]

In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here?  They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.  They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen.  That is why more protection was provided to them.  That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway.  I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication.  But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.

Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.

Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?

[crazy canuck]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.  You can disagree with what is being said all you want.  But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.

[Martinus]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

And for the record - and I realise this is not an entirely rational position but it is driven by emotions - if someone showed me Charlie Hebdo cartoons two weeks ago I would probably find some of them somewhat distasteful and over the top. But exactly because these cartoonists died for that, these cartoons somehow become detached from their original meaning and become a symbol - and reprinting them becomes an act of defiance, a "fuck you" to the murderers.

I will give you another example. There is a square near I live where about 3 years ago some modern artist put together an installation - a large rainbow made of artificial flowers - in front of the Holy Saviour Church. It was not very pretty and, overall, was a bit kitsch. But then it was burned down by neonazis who saw in it a LGBT symbol and wanted to get rid of a "faggot rainbow". So by now it has been rebuilt and burned down maybe 5 or 6 times. It is no longer a kitsch piece of street art - it is a symbol of something else.

They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

[The Brain]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.

[Martinus]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.  You can disagree with what is being said all you want.  But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.

I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.

[crazy canuck]

They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

Fair enough.  But in this case the murdered cartoonists (or at least their editors) knew there was a significant risk to publishing their cartoons.  It is open to debate whether that was an act of stupidity (B4's position) or bravery (yours and many others).  But I see nothing wrong with having that discussion in a free and open society.

[Malthus]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

And for the record - and I realise this is not an entirely rational position but it is driven by emotions - if someone showed me Charlie Hebdo cartoons two weeks ago I would probably find some of them somewhat distasteful and over the top. But exactly because these cartoonists died for that, these cartoons somehow become detached from their original meaning and become a symbol - and reprinting them becomes an act of defiance, a "fuck you" to the murderers.

I will give you another example. There is a square near I live where about 3 years ago some modern artist put together an installation - a large rainbow made of artificial flowers. It was not very pretty and, overall, was a bit kitsch. But then it was burned down by neonazis who saw in it a LGBT symbol and wanted to get rid of a "faggot rainbow". So by now it has been rebuilt and burned down maybe 5 or 6 times. It is no longer a kitsch piece of art - it is a symbol of something else.

Yet, when Larry Flynt was shot for publishing 'pink shots' in Hustler ... 

[11B4V]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.  You can disagree with what is being said all you want.  But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.

I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.

For fuck's sake.

[crazy canuck]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.  You can disagree with what is being said all you want.  But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.

I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.

The problem with the rape metaphor is that we have rejected the notion that what a woman wears causes her rape.  In this case the editors and the government certainly knew that the publication of those cartoons would create risk.  This is not blaming the victim, this is identifying the fact that they knew they were taking significant risks and published anyway.  Whether you look on that decision with admiration or condemnation, you cannot ignore the fact they knew they were taking a significant risk.

[Martinus]

They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

Fair enough.  But in this case the murdered cartoonists (or at least their editors) knew there was a significant risk to publishing their cartoons.  It is open to debate whether that was an act of stupidity (B4's position) or bravery (yours and many others).  But I see nothing wrong with having that discussion in a free and open society.

Well, it's not like they worked for a pigeon fancier magazine that suddenly decided to "insult the Prophet". They all knew what they were getting into. As the chief editor said in an interview, if he feared about that, he would never print anything - because everything in a satirical newspaper could be offensive to someone who could kill them.

Or, are you saying they should have specifically refrained from offending Muslims only because (however islamophobic it sounds!) there is something special about Muslims that no other religion has?

[Martinus]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?

You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things.  That is nonsense.  You can disagree with what is being said all you want.  But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.

I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.

The problem with the rape metaphor is that we have rejected the notion that what a woman wears causes her rape.  In this case the editors and the government certainly knew that the publication of those cartoons would create risk.  This is not blaming the victim, this is identifying the fact that they knew they were taking significant risks and published anyway.  Whether you look on that decision with admiration or condemnation, you cannot ignore the fact they knew they were taking a significant risk.

The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.

I find the analogy with the cartoonists quite apt in this - I think we reject a society where one should be afraid what one says (no matter how offensive) because one can get murdered. Such a model of a society is an anathema to our beliefs just as it is an anathema to argue that we live in a society where it is a woman's responsibility to avoid being raped.

[Razgovory]

In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here?  They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.  They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen.  That is why more protection was provided to them.  That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway.  I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication.  But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.

Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.

Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?

Proportional response.  Let's say instead of killing all the people, one of these Muslim gunmen just walked up to the cartoonist and said "Stop being such a fucktard", a punched the guy in the nose.  In that case, the cartoonist might have had it coming. Or maybe something less violent and more French, like a bunch of people line up an shit in his mail box.  Everyone should expect protection under the law even if they draw crummy cartoons.

[11B4V]

In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here?  They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.  They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen.  That is why more protection was provided to them.  That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway.  I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication.  But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.

Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.

Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?

Proportional response.  Let's say instead of killing all the people, one of these Muslim gunmen just walked up to the cartoonist and said "Stop being such a fucktard", a punched the guy in the nose.  In that case, the cartoonist might have had it coming. Or maybe something less violent and more French, like a bunch of people line up an shit in his mail box.  Everyone should expect protection under the law even if they draw crummy cartoons.

Who has stated CH doesn't have the right of protection under the law????

BTW @ the French thing shitiing in the mail box. 

[Martinus]

Or to put it even differently - you can't have it both ways.

As I said before when I said people are not dogs - you can be culpable for provoking a deadly response generally when you are provoking a dangerous animal - usually not when you are provoking another person who takes responsibility for his or her actions (there is, of course, a spur of a moment/crime of passion type of thing but for that the provocation and the response must be instantaneous).

So either you can argue that these men were simply madmen who had nothing to do with the true Islam - in which case, there is absolutely no culpability on the side of Charlie Hebdo's staff - because you never know what can provoke a madman to murder you. For one madman, it could be a caricature of Muhammad, for another it could be you singing a specific tune. And you can't really predict that.

OR you can argue that one should know that publishing caricatures of Muhammad is more likely to get you killed than other stuff - in which case you have to conclude that a certain not statistically insignificant portion of Muslims behave like rabid dogs who can kill you if you insult them - and you should plan your life around it.

You can't have it both ways.