France Shoot-Out

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nobody is asking you to support it -- merely tolerate its presence for those adults who do.

I have never checked out the websites of NAMBLA or the Aryan Nation, and were I to do so I suspect it would be with stunned incredulity and a strong dose of nausea. Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech requires that they have a right to speak about their particular brand of filth. ACTING on it, or specific incitement of violent civil disobedience, changes it to a "clear and present" danger and makes it actionable.

I rather imagine that neither you or I would find the Hebdo brand of "journalism" personally valuable -- I certainly have not tossed even one sou in their direction -- but they have their right to speak.

I disagree that they have a right to publish what they do. I do not know about France, but in the UK and the USA we have clauses which prohibit obscenity in public material; in the UK at least, this is extended to laws against material which is grossly offensive, corrupts public morals, or that outrages public decency. Apparently Charlie Hebdo has had frequent clashes with the French authorities because they illegally glamorized drug consumption, so the French government's defence of its anti-religious material seems ironic to me.

Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs. It was never intended to allow for the distribution of such horrific and morally outrageous material with no other purpose than to offend. These concepts are of course subjective, but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.

I condemned the use of public funds for Serrano's "piss Christ" and I find the theme of Ontiveros' cartoons regarding the Holy Father a bit annoying, but both artists are perfectly within their rights to make such artistic statements. Nor was my faith shattered by reading The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. I enjoyed the novels as such and moved on. However offensive or contrarian these depictions may have been, they simply cannot come between me and my faith.

I do not dispute that what Charlie Hebdo printed was offensive -- I rather think that that was their intent. Find it offensive, condemn it, call for civility, counter-attack IN KIND -- all such responses would be reasonable. To respond with violence is abhorrent.

To me, it also suggests some quality of fear. Why do so many radicalized Muslims allow their faith to be challenged by the statements of a non-believer? For, unless it is a true challenge to your faith, how can it harm you? If you have the courage of your own convictions -- a real faith -- then the maunderings of the unenlightened are irrelevant. However, if you fear for your own sense of faith, perhaps you will lash out -- in fear -- to prevent yourself from thinking and fearing more.

Just musing a bit....

I never agreed with this line of thinking, that somehow strong objections to blasphemy come from a place of fear. "P*** Christ" or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons showing obscene images of Muhammad and Jesus don't provide any sort of intellectual challenge to faith. If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.

As I said earlier, violence is a totally unacceptable response. But I'm not going to start saying I am Charlie Hebdo. Let's face it, if Charlie Hebdo said they vomit on the support of the Queen and the Pope and apparently anyone who doesn't share their fairly extreme views, then they will no doubt vomit on a Protestant fundie like me. My thoughts are still with them because they have lost good friends and family to brutal killers, but they were always straight talking in saying who they stood with and so I won't put on a charade either. I mourn the loss of innocent life, but I don't condone what Charlie Hebdo does.

[Gilrandir]

I have never checked out the websites of NAMBLA or the Aryan Nation, and were I to do so I suspect it would be with stunned incredulity and a strong dose of nausea. Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech requires that they have a right to speak about their particular brand of filth.
I rather imagine that neither you or I would find the Hebdo brand of "journalism" personally valuable -- I certainly have not tossed even one sou in their direction -- but they have their right to speak.
I condemned the use of public funds for Serrano's "piss Christ" and I find the theme of Ontiveros' cartoons regarding the Holy Father a bit annoying, but both artists are perfectly within their rights to make such artistic statements.

Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.

[CrossLOPER]

Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.

So? Don't be insulted.

[rory_20_uk]

If things can not be said that might offend someone, obviously nothing ends up being said.

Then one has to take a decision on what is the "culture of the land" and base things on this arbitrary judgement - we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.

If everyone is part of the same culture, regardless of their ethnicity, then this shouldn't be too much of an issue. When this is not the case problems occur.

[Brenus]

Even not one day! It didn’t even one day for the ones to come and say they deserved what happened.

“Superficially, it's the islamists/jihadists/muslems” I though you were a believer in new by youtube. The killer of Jews posted a video of him telling he killed in the name of Islam. The others were shouting Allah U’akbar, so the doubts are quite lifed in this case.
“Euroskeptics” All of them French born, so…
“Russia” as shown by the Ukraine Intelligence Service thanks to a message in social media they were the only one to see?

“it is morally right to do so.” So, like the jihadists, you decide what is moral or not?
“I don't go out of my way to make a mockery of Muslims' beliefs in the most outrageous and disrespectful ways, and I think that to do so would be morally wrong.” Why? Their belief can be ridiculed, as others beliefs were by Charle Hedbo, political included. Why do think Religions should be spared?
“I do not know about France” Well, it might be a shock, it is a right France had even during the Monarchies, i.e. Cardinal de Mazarin having sex with the Queen. News for you: offense of blaspheme doesn’t exist in France. So I can say what I what about all supra-naturel creatures and theirs followers and their fairies tales.
“Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs.” Nope, Freedom of speeches was conquered with weapons and blood to allow the ones without right and voice to stand-up. Religion(s) being part of the oppressive forces, it is natural to attack them. Once upon a time it was Immoral to thing Maria was not a virgin...
However, in this case, you have to notice that religious people being hurt by atheists are in their feeling, when atheists hurt by Religious people are dead.
“but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.” Nope, only by the law based on the common good and a social contract.
“If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.” So, why kill them? Mohamed was married (more than once), had sex, so where is your problem with him having genitals?
“who doesn't share their fairly extreme views” Nope. One (survivor) said he vomit on the one pretending to be their friends when they did all what they could before to shut-down the Hebdo.
“I mourn the loss of innocent life” Excepted they are not so innocent, were they?

“Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.” Having to be censured, accepting to be censured, lead you to dictatorships and Inquisition, and not the Dragon Age one.

“we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.” The last one is a crime, not the first one. Not any more, or not yet as it looks some want to go back to the Middle Ages, or this matter, the Dark Ages.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Even not one day! It didn’t even one day for the ones to come and say they deserved what happened.

Who said that?

“it is morally right to do so.” So, like the jihadists, you decide what is moral or not?

Erm... no. I said that aside from the legal issue, we can question whether or not such publications are moral. We are all entitled to our personal opinion on that point.

“I don't go out of my way to make a mockery of Muslims' beliefs in the most outrageous and disrespectful ways, and I think that to do so would be morally wrong.” Why? Their belief can be ridiculed, as others beliefs were by Charle Hedbo, political included. Why do think Religions should be spared?

What, what? You make so many assumptions about what I believe, talk about putting words into my mouth. I do not think religions deserve any particular special treatment, I believe in being respectful to peoples opinions whether they are religious/political/personal, or whatever. It's about basic decency.

“I do not know about France” Well, it might be a shock, it is a right France had even during the Monarchies, i.e. Cardinal de Mazarin having sex with the Queen. News for you: offense of blaspheme doesn’t exist in France. So I can say what I what about all supra-naturel creatures and theirs followers and their fairies tales.

I didn't mention any laws about blasphemy in particular. France has laws against hate speech, promoting racism, and various other restrictions on free speech, does it not?

“Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs.” Nope, Freedom of speeches was conquered with weapons and blood to allow the ones without right and voice to stand-up. Religion(s) being part of the oppressive forces, it is natural to attack them. Once upon a time it was Immoral to thing Maria was not a virgin...
However, in this case, you have to notice that religious people being hurt by atheists are in their feeling, when atheists hurt by Religious people are dead.

"Nope" to what? You didn't really contradict what I said. Unless you are trying to say that religion is always inherently oppressive and thus should not be freely expressed as other forms of belief would.

“but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.” Nope, only by the law based on the common good and a social contract.

Restrictions on free speech exist in writing in the laws of every country that has free speech. Unless you are somehow saying that you see all the restrictions placed on free speech by the French government to be illegitimate.

“If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.” So, why kill them? Mohamed was married (more than once), had sex, so where is your problem with him having genitals?

What do you mean "why kill them"? Obviously (from the fact that I repeatedly condemned the killings as inexcusable) I don't think they should have been killed, for the basic reason that killing is morally wrong.

And as a non-Muslim, I don't particularly care whether or not people draw Mohammed. My problem is when people go out of their way to offend Muslims, apparently to the extent of picturing a revered figure in obscene/offensive/humiliating images. You shouldn't try to offend people just for shock value, because that is not a very nice thing to do. Is that so difficult to understand?

“who doesn't share their fairly extreme views” Nope. One (survivor) said he vomit on the one pretending to be their friends when they did all what they could before to shut-down the Hebdo.

Expressing sympathy in the face of a terrorist atrocity doesn't mean people are somehow being two-faced because they clashed with Charlie Hebdo in the past over their publications. It is possible to disagree with them without saying they should be killed for it.

“I mourn the loss of innocent life” Excepted they are not so innocent, were they?

Obviously, they did not deserve to be gunned down in cold blood.

[Crandar]

What a clown.

Rhyflewyr is right, don't take the right of free speech for granted. We are one of the older EU members, but a year ago, when a student made a facebook post with a pun concerning the food pasticcio and Father Paisius (a famous deceased monk), he was immediately arrested for violating our laws about blasphemy.

[Strike For The South]

At the end of the day, these men represent nothing. They come from the same criminally insane element that is responsible for taking innocent life 9 times out of 10. All this attack points to is the fragility of life. Automatic weapons and dirty bombs make it easy for disgrunteld young men to kill a lot of people. Youtube and wordpress make it easy for them to be filled with hate. The tragedy is not islam but hoplessness.

It's becoming quite clear that muslims in France are beginning to feel the same sort of institutionalized rascism that blacks in America do. A disgrunteld underclass may just be something France is forced to live with.

[Kralizec]

At the end of the day, these men represent nothing. They come from the same criminally insane element that is responsible for taking innocent life 9 times out of 10. All this attack points to is the fragility of life. Automatic weapons and dirty bombs make it easy for disgrunteld young men to kill a lot of people. Youtube and wordpress make it easy for them to be filled with hate. The tragedy is not islam but hoplessness.

It's becoming quite clear that muslims in France are beginning to feel the same sort of institutionalized rascism that blacks in America do. A disgrunteld underclass may just be something France is forced to live with.

Every society has an underclass of some sort, though in some societies it's obviously more of a burden to be a member than in others. For obvious reasons it's not good when "underclass" largely overlaps with an ethnic or cultural group.

Terrorism has been with us in some form of another for centuries. A couple of decades ago European terrorism was largely about marxism and ethnic nationalism. It's a mistake to think that islamic terrorism is somehow special, or that islam is somehow more prone to terrorism than other group identities.

The Spanish are one of the few nations that don't need to be lectured, because ETA is technically still active and have committed acts of terrorism in the not too distant past. Other Europeans have, for some reason, extremely faulty memory in this regard.

[Hax]

when a student made a facebook post with a pun concerning the food pasticcio and Father Paisius (a famous deceased monk), he was immediately arrested for violating our laws about blasphemy.

I think that's completely insane.

[Kralizec]

What a clown.

after doing a google search for jesuisnico

He's probably better than the arse that took his job, though.

[Beskar]

IRA is still within living memory. I was in Manchester during their bomb-attack there.

[Fragony]

What Fragony seems to forget here is that Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing magazine.

I know that

edit: http://www.liberation.fr/societe/201...rcredi_1179193

[a completely inoffensive name]

Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.

This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!

If things can not be said that might offend someone, obviously nothing ends up being said.

Then one has to take a decision on what is the "culture of the land" and base things on this arbitrary judgement - we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.

If everyone is part of the same culture, regardless of their ethnicity, then this shouldn't be too much of an issue. When this is not the case problems occur.

And here summed up wonderfully, is both the moral and pragmatic reason why European countries need to dial down their multicultural experiment if they do not wish to change fundamental outlooks on the relationship between the individual and society.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.

And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.

This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!

Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

[Viking]

Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

Not so much about content as about intensity, prevalence, context and avenue. Compare this with what it means to 'harass' somebody.

[Leet Eriksson]

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?

I'm Muslim, the problem isn't really the imagery, alot of people miss the fact they're using the racism as satire of racists, not really to be racist themselves. Its not even about reading on to it, look at the Taubira article where she is depicted as a monkey, with an FN motto of sorts being twisted, it wasn't mocking Taubira it was mocking FN, she also thanked them.

French humour is certainly something, but the CH magazines are not racist at all, they're anti-racist, and i think with french leftists they also uphold anti-clerical views, that about covers all beliefs.

Also the cover for their latest release is great, its basically a gigantic "Fuck You" to everyone.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

I too find such zones annoying. The original goal was to have a designated location where protesters could protest without prior permit and without interfering with the proceedings. Mostly these zones have been established at Party conventions, at Economic summit conferences, and -- more permanently -- on college campuses. To me, the last is particularly galling since free exchange of ideas is the whole blinking point about college.

In general, the only requirement for free assembly in the USA is a permit. The permit mostly serves as advance notice so that the authorities can cordon off streets or otherwise see to the safety of the assembly. Denial of permits has been abused, but such denials are only generally accepted where the gathering is considered likely to result in violence.

In general, free speech is not restricted unless such speech would create a "clear and present danger" to the community thereby.

[Brenus]

“I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression” And who define what is offensive or not? I find offensive religious (some) stories. I find offensive the slaughter of individual depicted in the Bible, I find offensive the concept of the Land of War and the Land of Submission. I find offensive the basic inequality in each religion. But I don’t censure the Bible or the Koran. Believers in theses Faith have to deal with them, not me.
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.
To be frank, I didn’t like Charlie Hebdo, or its predecessor Hara Kiri. I didn’t like the style of drawing, sometimes their sense of humour. No killer scum bag will force me to buy tomorrow one of them. That is my freedom of choice.
Now, I share with them the fight against obscurantism, against the belief of god, and/or others superstitions.
As I mentioned before, until the First Republic, it was grossly offensive to pretend that the Christ’s mother was not a virgin.
Some of you as Puritans do not believe in it. So do we have to send the Dragoons in your home until you convert to Catholicism, like Louis the XIV did? Or do we have to agree that: “the Liberty to every man to speak, write, print, and publish his opinions without having his writings subject to any censorship or inspection before their publication, and to worship as he pleases” followed by “The legislative power may not make any laws which infringe upon or obstruct the exercise of the natural and civil rights recorded in the present title and guaranteed by the Constitution; but, since liberty consists of being able to do only whatever is not injurious to the rights of others or to public security, the law may establish penalties for acts which, assailing either public security or the rights of others, might be injurious to society.” Note: The Law, not the decency, not others outlaw powers, the Laws, voted by a Parliament, not a group of self-promoted representatives of various groups or/and lobbies.

“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it. Because the vast majority of them are atheists any way, as the vast of the others so-called confession are. They follow Ramadan as I follow X-mas, for the cakes and the celebration that follows (the arabs receipes for cakes are absolutely diet free: 1 kilogram each time you look at them).
And once again, France not being a Religious Country, we don’t have a State Religion, there is no blasphemous cartoon. The maximum is bad taste cartoons, but, hey, don’t look at them. If some are more shock by drawing that by the killing of 4 Jews just because they were Jews, well, I am really happy and hope they will suffer more in their feelings.

"atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate" Well, I don’t give a damn as there is no hell. And even in the absurd hypothesis there is one, the idea to share a Paradise with this kind of lots… Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are. Imagine sharing Rice Pudding with Mother Theresa with Harps (or Richard Clederman)music in the back-ground… Just the thought...
And opinion of idiots tends to make me laugh anyway. What really up-set me is when believers start to kill non-believers. Remind me Torquemada, don’t know why…

[Husar]

What a clown.

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy was the butt of Internet jokes on Monday after he managed to shimmy his way to the front of the historic march in Paris on Sunday.

Ehehehehe, that's the real question, the front of what march?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-9972895.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.2074629

They led the march from so far ahead that they ended up alone, that's true leadership.

Oh, and everybody who attended obviously supports a Free Press.....in France, but not always at home....
http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ms--gkvcJDoscx

Just more farce for everyone!
And people think we have no propaganda in the West...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wisdom?

[CrossLOPER]

Wisdom?

Two minutes later, you posted a sub-sophomoric come-back in the Ukraine thread.

[Fragony]

you tell them https://mobile.twitter.com/JessicaCh...565760/photo/1

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites.

A. What is offensive? If I think a picture of the queen being pissed on is hilarious, why is my view disregarded and yours codified in law?
B. What good is the government doing by protecting the minority by policing what the majority say? Why do you think that will change the attitudes of the majority? Personally, if the US government had banned the n-word, the problem of tackling racism would have been exacerbated, because all those thoughts simply go underground and unchallenged in the public sphere. By allowing "shameful" or "offensive" material to be published you actually now have a mechanism of reaching the public by pointing to concrete examples of "this is wrong".

Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Might be somewhat similar to pro-choice people in present day US seeing aborted fetuses on billboards every 40 miles in the South (certain regions). People continue to go about their day. Every week a man stands on a soapbox at my Uni and tells me I am going to hell, I am not emotionally distressed.

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

I have experienced that to a degree, and I don't want those sad men to be silenced. I want them to continue saying what they want, and I want to continue ignoring them.

To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.

It is more decent to let an individual say what he wants and let him deal accordingly with the consequences of his actions than to "save" others by making sure he knows what is proper to say and what isn't.

And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.

The UK suffered many internal conflicts and civil wars because of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Free speech arose because it was the solution to having cohabitation. The more liberal the laws regarding speech became, the more peaceful the divisions became. Now we are at a point where two random strangers, one Catholic and one Protestant can simply agree to disagree and have a pint together. The solution is not to maintain restrictive laws but to make them even more free.

Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

Seamus answered this pretty well. Even if there is a hypocrisy in what I say versus what my country does, I would say that US laws could and should become even more liberal. There is nothing more blatantly subjective than the phrase "I know it when I see it." And yet, this is the standard on what constitutes art vs pornography. This should be exposed for what it is, and dismantled.

[Crandar]

Ehehehehe, that's the real question, the front of what march?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-9972895.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.2074629

They led the march from so far ahead that they ended up alone, that's true leadership.

Oh, and everybody who attended obviously supports a Free Press.....in France, but not always at home....
http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ms--gkvcJDoscx

Just more farce for everyone!
And people think we have no propaganda in the West...

Even the Emir of Qatar, who funds the "moderate" islamist groups in Syria, has joined the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. Then he sent a couple of AKs to Al-Julani, who'd love to impose sharia in Syria, but not as harshly as ISIS, who are the bad muslims.

[Gilrandir]

we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.

Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.

What, what? You make so many assumptions about what I believe, talk about putting words into my mouth.

That's the usual game of Master Brenus. Have been having it for half a year.

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society.

This is a sure way to chaos as people wil never know where to stop in there obsession not to limit the freedom of speech. Thus insulting vs not-insulting criterion is the one to gauge how free you should be in what you say.

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law.

People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.

And who define what is offensive or not?
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.

Offensive and immoral are two incomparable categories as they don't match completely. For example, a nude picture on a lamp-post is immoral, but not offensive.

“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it.

You make an assumption without having asked them. How typical.

Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are.

If there is the hell as you described it, then one certainly won't be allowed to do things you would like to do with funniest men and hottest women.


Generally speaking, if you feel so free to disregard the sensitive issues, be smart enough to take precautions against adverse consequences. Otherwise you a woman in a mini-skirt who goes out at 11 p.m. to have a walk about a dangerous neignborhood (can I say Harlem, or will it be offensive?)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Two minutes later, you posted a sub-sophomoric come-back in the Ukraine thread.

My momma didn't raise any fools.

Daddy raised me.



I remembered this little clichéd plea by Mr. King because it was strikingly simple and wise while at the same time being an utterly inadequate response to a complex and frustrating situation. As Ferguson MS shows, sadly, that context has not altered.

Is it relevant to this latest glaring episode of violence stemming from Wahabist radicalism? I think so, and for the same reasons: It is both simple wisdom and utterly inadequate.

[rory_20_uk]

Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.

People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.

On the first point perhaps there is. I am not bothered one way or the other as long as it is not the UK.

And the latter point is indeed the whole issue - if people tacitly abide by the common niceties of society then all is fine. Increasingly people don't want to do so - or bring very different cultural norms along with themselves rather than desiring assimilation or having very similar cultural norms.

[Husar]

And European politics continue to support freedom of speech.

France does it by defining what exactly freedom of speech means in the modern world and what you really shouldn't say:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-9976667.html

Anti-semitic French comedian Dieudonné was arrested after he seemingly compared himself to the terrorist who murdered four people at a kosher supermarket in Paris last week.

Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala, 48, who was being held for questioning at a Paris police station, could face possible charges of "apology for terrorism".

A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?

And our friendly neighborhood Cameron thinks that speech should be truly freed by removing the shackles of encryption so that it is truly free to be read by the government:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ssaging-terror

“[I]n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”, the prime minister asked rhetorically.

About time for the government to put microphones into our beds, though tooth implants might be more practicable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And European politics continue to support freedom of speech.

France does it by defining what exactly freedom of speech means in the modern world and what you really shouldn't say:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-9976667.html


A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?

And our friendly neighborhood Cameron thinks that speech should be truly freed by removing the shackles of encryption so that it is truly free to be read by the government:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ssaging-terror


About time for the government to put microphones into our beds, though tooth implants might be more practicable.

Actually, I have read that the chip/speaker would work better on the mastoid bone....teeth do get misplaced albeit infrequently.