France Shoot-Out

[Gilrandir]

You couldn't make it up. A debate about freedom of speech and Charlie Hebto at a school for journalists banned images of Charlie Hebdo because OFFENCE. The one who decided that was a proud jesuischarlie. No you idiot you are not Charlie. Worst is that he probably doesn't understand that. Gutmenschen are so weird.

Prudence, nothing more. They at least made sure no obscurantist scum will have a pretext of starting a new shoot out.

[rory_20_uk]

If you want to avoid confrontation it is always prudent to give into those who might take offence and turn to violence.

But that rather undermines most of Western Democracy and the very free speech we apparently pretend to have.

[Fragony]

Prudence, nothing more. They at least made sure no obscurantist scum will have a pretext of starting a new shoot out.

Than don't pretend you are in favour of free speech, tu n'est pas Charlie

[Gilrandir]

Than don't pretend you are in favour of free speech, tu n'est pas Charlie

Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The whole point of the freedom of speech is to be able to offend -- especially those holding office on my behalf.

The correct point of curtailment is when the exercise of the freedom of speech represents a "clear and present danger" to those around me -- and not before. I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[Fragony]

Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.

Freedom of speech ends when calling for violence, untill there and no further.

[Greyblades]

The whole point of the freedom of speech is to be able to offend -- especially those holding office on my behalf.

The correct point of curtailment is when the exercise of the freedom of speech represents a "clear and present danger" to those around me -- and not before. I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Addendum: Freedom of Speech protects speakers from censorship and retaliation from the government, that protection does not extend to private individuals and companies denying you access to thier property in response to said speech.

[Gilrandir]

I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.

... or to sue you. But one always gotta consider who one choses to offend. Like it is stupid to yell offences at a group of hoodlums in a dark lane of a criminal neighborhood and claim they have right only to yell back at you. This seems what CH tried to do.

[Husar]

... or to sue you. But one always gotta consider who one choses to offend. Like it is stupid to yell offences at a group of hoodlums in a dark lane of a criminal neighborhood and claim they have right only to yell back at you. This seems what CH tried to do.

Yes, but laws and rights are about ideals usually, not about representing the reality. And when you break a law, law enforcement should hunt you down and punish you. So unless you're saying that we should change all laws to say that thugs will beat you up anyway so it's fine for them to do that and remove the right to free speech from our constitutions, you just look like you're playing Captain Obvious.
CH did what they had to do and they suffered the consequences. That is not ideal, but I don't think most people in the west would argue with that. The idea of the protests is probably to stand behind that ideal and somehow put public pressure on people who plan to do such things not to do them. Probably futile, but maybe that's why I don't participate in these things.

[Gilrandir]

CH did what they had to do and they suffered the consequences.

Not "had to do" but "chose to do". They had freedom to choose what they publish, but failed (or didn't want) to see what it may lead to. Free but reckless.

That is not ideal, but I don't think most people in the west would argue with that.

Some people here (from the west) didn't see it that way and said that they suffered for naught.

[Brenus]

“This seems what CH tried to do.” You have no idea of what you speak of. The offence existed only on people who choose to take this pretext in order to achieve a political gain. And, well, succeeded, at least with you, as you prefer to shut-up instead to rise to the threat. To be fair, you are not alone as the majority of the western media did exactly this.
Let’s submit and perhaps, perhaps, they will let us live.

Would you say that the Jews are responsible to anti-Semitism? No Jews, no anti-Semitism. Probably not, but in the case of CH you blame the victims (forgetting the Jews killed by the same Fanatic Islamic group). So, what were the Jews guilty of, in your eyes, to deserve to be killed? What provocation should have they stop to carry-on?

By the way, the Danish attack was carried out on a country which has a total opposite policy than France. Girl aged 12 are allowed to wear burka at school, and where blaspheme is an offence. So, give-up to bullies (be polite, as you wrote it) didn’t work apparently. Ooops, what a shame, these terrorists never know when to stop indeed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start.

I agree Chaplin should have been locked up for that Hitler movie he made. I heard the Fuhrer cried in his bunker for 3 days after watching it.

Is this why Eastern Europe is such a shit hole? Did everyone learn Western European values from their uncle who spent a holiday in France?

[CrossLOPER]

Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.

I find your posts offensive. Shut up.

[Brenus]

"I find your posts offensive. Shut up".You forget "or I kill you". I am sure that Gilrandir will run to buy a bulletproof-jacket, start to fortify his house, hiring bodyguards for his family, well, taking caution now.

[Gilrandir]

“This seems what CH tried to do.” You have no idea of what you speak of. The offence existed only on people who choose to take this pretext in order to achieve a political gain. And, well, succeeded, at least with you, as you prefer to shut-up instead to rise to the threat. To be fair, you are not alone as the majority of the western media did exactly this.
Let’s submit and perhaps, perhaps, they will let us live.

I didn't offend anyone (except CrossLOPER, evidently) so I don't have to shut up. If you still don't see anything wrong or reckless in what CH did (and evidently is doing), well, carry on. Just don't bump into armed cops while threading your way through a crowd of policemen on your way home or shopping. And don't complain of social programs being cut down in favor of security expenses.

Would you say that the Jews are responsible to anti-Semitism? No Jews, no anti-Semitism. Probably not, but in the case of CH you blame the victims (forgetting the Jews killed by the same Fanatic Islamic group). So, what were the Jews guilty of, in your eyes, to deserve to be killed? What provocation should have they stop to carry-on?

Anti-semitism is a groundless antipathy to Jews. They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO. But you again distort my attitude: more that once I said I was sorry for the victims and called terrorists what they are. I just wanted you to see... well ... what you evidently never will. So, reap what you sowed.
As for "no Jews - no antisemitism", I have an opposite attitude to the problem: no emigrants - no terrorism. Once (although in a different thread) I expressed my view: I don't like people from foreign countries settling in Ukraine and I don't like Ukrainians settling abroad. Everyone should live where he was born.

By the way, the Danish attack was carried out on a country which has a total opposite policy than France. Girl aged 12 are allowed to wear burka at school, and where blaspheme is an offence. So, give-up to bullies (be polite, as you wrote it) didn’t work apparently.

It is true, such things may happen even in the most friendly environments. But the chances will grow when you behave the way CH did. It is like vaccination: even if you are vaccinated you may contract a disease, but if you are not the odds, that you will fall ill, enhance.

Ooops, what a shame, these terrorists never know when to stop indeed.

I'm as much angry at what Russia is doing in Donbas as you are.

I agree Chaplin should have been locked up for that Hitler movie he made. I heard the Fuhrer cried in his bunker for 3 days after watching it.

So you equate Mohammed and Hitler?

Is this why Eastern Europe is such a shit hole? Did everyone learn Western European values from their uncle who spent a holiday in France?

I don't know, you tell me. Never visited Eastern Europe, never had an uncle visiting France.

I find your posts offensive. Shut up.

If you kindly point to what you find offensive in my posts I would consider your claim. Until then I will do as I like and speak as I please.

[Gilrandir]

Edit: redundant post.

[Husar]

If you kindly point to what you find offensive in my posts I would consider your claim. Until then I will do as I like and speak as I please.

If I'm allowed to guess: Your limiting of his freedom runs counter to his religiously-held belief that he should have complete freedom. The idea of freedom is sacred to him and he firmly believes that the tree of liberty has to be watered with blood once in a while...

[Fragony]

Meanwhile in Norway, 1000 muslims encircle a jewish house of prayers.

To protect it and show solidarity.

Good.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"I find your posts offensive. Shut up".You forget "or I kill you". I am sure that Gilrandir will run to buy a bulletproof-jacket, start to fortify his house, hiring bodyguards for his family, well, taking caution now.

Your real Montana survivalist won't trust hired bodyguards....and stocks unhybridized seed for when things REALLY get interesting.

[Don Corleone]

Meanwhile in Norway, 1000 muslims encircle a jewish house of prayers.

To protect it and show solidarity.

Good.

I was just about to start a thread about this. And sure enough, Fragony of all people scoops me on a story about what Muslims are actually doing to maintain peace and civility and peace in their new homes.

For those of you that are wondering what we're talking about, here's a link.

Best ray of hope I've seen in this mess for a long time. What brave guys... They know better than we do that the extremists will have particular anger towards them, being seen as traitors.

[Fragony]

What's the out of all people part, did I ever say anything bad about muslims, I only did about islam, which I disgust. And will keep finding disgusting.

[Don Corleone]

No offense intended my friend. It just struck me as ironic was all. You're clearly more open-minded than I give you credit for sometimes.

[Fragony]

meh, leftist hoax. There were only 20. Reality: the funeral of the Copenhagen-killer was attended by 400. Not that it isn't a nice gesture from those who holded hands but making this much bigger than it is only feeds my cynism.

@leftist journalists

/joker voice

Why so desperate

/joker voice off

Could as well have wrote about the courage of these twenty, instead of lying about it being a thousand.

[Brenus]

“They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO.” Nope, they killed the Jews because it is a holy duty written in the Quran. In fact, to kill unfaithful and atheists is a duty (and CH team were part of the second category), where some rightly argue that an offence to the Prophet is not worth death penalty.
That is the problem with most of the people believing in a so-called offence: it doesn’t exist in the Quran; I repeat: there no command in the Quran about images, not interdiction to represent (draw a picture) the Prophet.
So, the offence was groundless (in terms of what Quran demands), the killing of Jews not. The first fatwas against the representation of Mohamed date from the beginning of the XX Century.

http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-n...prophet-298298

[Fragony]

The ring of peace hoax gets even more hilarious, the organiser is a notorious antisemite who thinks jews are behind 9/11. Thank you for your bedtime-stories quality media, I am back to blogs.

A shame it was a hoax.

[Gilrandir]

“They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO.” Nope, they killed the Jews because it is a holy duty written in the Quran. In fact, to kill unfaithful and atheists is a duty (and CH team were part of the second category), where some rightly argue that an offence to the Prophet is not worth death penalty.
That is the problem with most of the people believing in a so-called offence: it doesn’t exist in the Quran; I repeat: there no command in the Quran about images, not interdiction to represent (draw a picture) the Prophet.
So, the offence was groundless (in terms of what Quran demands), the killing of Jews not. The first fatwas against the representation of Mohamed date from the beginning of the XX Century.

I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me". By way of variety it may include something like: "Don't wait until I punish those that don't believe in me, do it yourself will ya".
From my observation of the Bible texts, they are the worst to refer to if you want to prove any point since they are so versatile that any point may be proved by referring to them. Consequently, people who try to look for justification for whatever nasty things they do find in it everything they were looking for. On the other hand, people who try to become "better Samaritans" find in it plenty of justification for whatever nice things they do. Conclusion: people see in holy texts what they like, focusing on what chimes with their preconceived intent and disregarding what contradicts it. Thus it is useless to blame religion(s), one must blame people who apply their (i.e. religions') muddily intertwined tenets in the way they like "enriching" their understanding of the tenets with the attitudes they bring in.

[Snowhobbit]

I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me". By way of variety it may include something like: "Don't wait until I punish those that don't believe in me, do it yourself will ya".
From my observation of the Bible texts, they are the worst to refer to if you want to prove any point since they are so versatile that any point may be proved by referring to them. Consequently, people who try to look for justification for whatever nasty things they do find in it everything they were looking for. On the other hand, people who try to become "better Samaritans" find in it plenty of justification for whatever nice things they do. Conclusion: people see in holy texts what they like, focusing on what chimes with their preconceived intent and disregarding what contradicts it. Thus it is useless to blame religion(s), one must blame people who apply their (i.e. religions') muddily intertwined tenets in the way they like "enriching" their understanding of the tenets with the attitudes they bring in.

The issue is that modern Christianity does not follow most of the old Testament, I think Jesus rejected parts of it too? As opposed to Islam where the book was not written by men but by Allah himself, and as such the word by word faithfuls are a very large group of the Muslim population.

[rory_20_uk]

The issue is that modern Christianity does not follow most of the old Testament, I think Jesus rejected parts of it too? As opposed to Islam where the book was not written by men but by Allah himself, and as such the word by word faithfuls are a very large group of the Muslim population.

Exactly. Christianity has a massive amount of wiggle room (if it wants it - some denominations also state it is the literal word of God such as the Seventh Day Adventists) and people can even leave the faith without being labelled apostate and deserving of death.

Many groups such as the Cathars testify to the fact Christianity can be just as intolerant as the next group of Zealots but one is not disobeying God by not undertaking a Holy War.

[Brenus]

“I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me"” Well, I did and I did, errr ,most of it, as these 2 books are really boring.
However, I do not hate books (or religions) as such. So again you assume. To be against an ideology or a religion (core or teaching) is not hatred, but perhaps you think in this kind of terms, so you think that everyone does.
So I assure you solemnly here that I do not hate the Quran, the Bible, Star Wars and the Force or the Nordic Tales, nor their followers. They are all about fiction more or less well written.

However, in this debate you try to derail by attack against my person (again: It is a bit draining. Each time you are running out of intellectual arguments, you resort to this. You should do something about it), the facts are stubborn. We have a saying in French which have probably equivalent in all languages: Spoken words blow with the winds, words in writing stay.
You explained that the killers have grounds to be offended because the Quran said so, but the Quran doesn’t. If fact, you, as you admit, didn’t read the Quran, but were well happy to support the extremists claims pretending to be offended on inexistent writing, whereas you evacuated the killing of Jews when this is written in the Quran. You didn’t bother to check.
And I have no quail about the others books (holly ones) as you are right, they all claim to be THE real religion worshipping THE only God, and that is why in our times you can’t have the offence of blaspheme in modern constitutions, as one religion is blaspheme to the other (and even within the main stream of religions i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern European Christians, but not only).

But I am sure you find a way to rebound in your claim that the killers, even if the book they refer to said nothing about the cause of offence, still had reason to kill. Com’on…

[Beskar]

meh, leftist hoax. There were only 20. Reality: the funeral of the Copenhagen-killer was attended by 400. Not that it isn't a nice gesture from those who holded hands but making this much bigger than it is only feeds my cynism.

@leftist journalists

/joker voice

Why so desperate

/joker voice off

Could as well have wrote about the courage of these twenty, instead of lying about it being a thousand.

It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.

Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.