#JeSuisCharlie

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'm not sure what to think of this. I mean, aside from it being a tragedy committed by lunatics. Its basically taking one of most offensive things possible to a certain culture/religion and waving it in their face. Then when something horrible happens, doing it even more because free speech(?).

I can't help but think there's someone somewhere that thinks the anger over the depictions is absurd yet is secretly happy whenever an abortion doctor gets gunned down. Without seeing the irony.

I'm moving the context here to American to respond just because I can't really respond from a French perspective. We all have flavors of Western democracy here for the most part.

The problem is, as an American you have to pick which priority you're supporting. That doesn't mean some douchebag isn't going to say the same thing for a racist reason. It's like when Chris Rock did his black people hate _____ routine and he felt he had to stop doing it because too many white people were laughing too loudly for the wrong reasons.

I'll speak for myself exclusively. To me, Amendment 1 is the one I get really, really gung ho about. It's the amendment to where all criticism becomes protected and for every bad thing the United States has done over the years, it's the amendment that allowed the discourse that eventually exposed it. It's one thing we do very right and every time we've gone against it has been a fairly dark chapter in American history. But part of that is understanding that you are going to have to hear things you don't like, let alone defend people who do things you find offensive. It's why the ACLU often is an island defending the KKK even though they do have the correct thought process on it. If you're not willing to do that, you cross the line of defending free speech to being "ok" with it. Being "ok" with it is what makes cartoonists a target. It tests a culture's resolve.

Sidebar - it's kind of why I hate that xkcd comic re: the first amendment. Yea, you personally have the right to ostracize for things you find offensive, but many truths we hold now were exceptionally offensive at one time. What you're basically doing is normalizing tyranny of the majority so long as the majority doesn't use the government to do it.

So to your statement I say, I am sorry that people are having to deal with offensive speech the way my grandmother had to deal with people saying "god damn" (the single most offensive thing a Christian she could ever hear and guys like George Carlin were just fine with) or the way a Catholic has to deal with all priests reduced to pedophiles. I think it is hurtful and it's not kind to do those things.

But whether or not I find those to be distasteful, there isn't a question as to whether or not someone should be free from harm to do them. Ditto speech against cops. Ditto speech against business. And because that's exactly what these extremists are trying to call into question, YES it is necessary to continue the use of that kind of inflammatory speech. The fewer targets there are, the easier it is to suppress. That's exactly how terror is supposed to work.

Separate topic -

If you want to get right down to the historical reason for the prohibition on images of Mohammed, the terrible irony is it existed to prevent the subsequent deification of Mohammed as an icon at the level of Allah. What these terrorists have actually done is reduce Mohammed to an idol worthy of that level of veneration for which death becomes an acceptable punishment. Yes, for many Muslims a sense of offense will be very real because the distinction between "in the Qur'an" and "Islamic jurisprudence" got lost. But the image issue is essentially an issue not of actual faith and one of choosing to enforce Sharia law over the laws of your actual country.

So it's not even a really small issue. It is in fact an existential question for Western democracy's as to how they deal with the line between respecting multicultural beliefs and allowing those beliefs to contradict the law of the land. Here specifically is an area where at least in the United States Islamic law and US law cannot both exist at the same time. One has to be given priority. Obviously the entire ordeal here is French, not American but the same questions are going to come up with the specific nuance that applies there.

[Hyena Dandy]

it's kind of why I hate that xkcd comic. Yea, you personally have the right to ostracize for things you find offensive, but many truths we hold now were exceptionally offensive at one time. What you're basically doing is normalizing tyranny of the majority so long as the majority doesn't use the government to do it.

What does that have to do with XKCD?

[siead_lietrathua]

i read an article in the paper today from a local Imam, and it hit well for the explanation why in the west we have less of these problems with muslim extremists. i would link it, but it kinda has city name, so i'd rather not. but i'll give a paraphrase.

for someone to enter canada or the US, it requires alot of paperwork, visas, and a boat/ plane ride, so requires $$. it also comes loaded with work requirements and etc. so it's more likely that muslim immigrants in the west would be more educated. they also are aware they are moving to a culture with more political/ social freedoms, and want to, because they tend to be moderates.
whereas the muslims in europe tend to be illegal immigrants, moving through the borders on land. they tend to be laborers/ lower classes/ refugees. think it comparable to mexican illegal immigrants to the US that don't know the language or culture in the states.
to the illegal-immagrant muslims, mockery of political/ religious figures are things that they only understand as carrying a death sentence, and they never learned that it a) doesn't have to be that way and b) it's NOT that way in other countries. they're so trained by the society they are trying to escape that they don't know how else to act when confronted with something that insults their religion/ religious leaders/ politics.

the imam wasn't excusing their behavior, he was abhorred by their actions. but he was trying to explain both why they act in the way they do, and that people shouldn't let their actions effect how they treat muslims in our local area.

i thought it gave a bit of perspective, though to me it rings a bit like he was excuse making. ie: oh, they're too poor/ uneducated/ low class to know any better, so don't be too harsh on them.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I like xkcd comic in general, but I'm referring specifically to the differentiation between free speech the you are protected from the government by vs. society. That gets plastered all over any thread where there is some sort of boycott or ostracism going on. The overall theme of that comic tends to be used in a context of normalizing oppressive societal behavior that is not government sanctioned.

It's the DeToqueville reader in me. It is why he posited that perhaps in a Democracy people would find less freedom of expression. The logic goes, because power is deriving from a majority, oppression of speech occurs because offering an opinion in contradiction of the majority can come with an extraordinarily high cost since all structures of power will align against you. The police, the judiciary, and the legislative already being controlled by the majority is disinclined to offer protection for those contrary views.

I'm not sure I agree that Monarchy offered a better record, but it is fairly common to see fringe viewpoints persecuted and we've normalized shaming to the point someone actually wrote a book about it called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed."

[wolfie]

Extremism for any subject invites mockery, whether it be extreme religious, political, or social views (look how we make fun of PETA, for instance).

That's a given - after all, sacred cows make the tastiest steaks.

[Andara Bledin]

Someone on another forum mentioned something else that describes why we don't get so much of this sort of thing in the US and Canada:

Here, you're an American or Canadian first. In Europe, integration doesn't necessarily happen, and actually becoming a citizen can be so difficult that there are whole communities of individuals who are not only not citizens but who aren't considered part of the society they participate in.

It's like the American superiority thing is inclusive: America! Fuck yeah! Come join us!
And in western Europe: We are very important people. Prove to us that you deserve to be one of us.

This is, of course, a massive generalization, but I'm not sure it isn't pretty close to how a lot of people feel.

[Greenday]

It's like the American superiority thing is inclusive: America! Fuck yeah! Come join us!

I don't think I've EVER seen an American with this attitude.

[Gravekeeper]

No they're not.

Sooo....what? You linked some depictions without actually reading the websites in question for historic or cultural context. I mean, just going back to the actual website instead of the image link reveals the historical timeline on the banning of depicting Mohammad and which denominations still commonly practice depictions ( Shi'ite, or roughly 10% of Muslims ).

free speech cannot be limited by "someone got offended", because then we would all be unable to say anything. and comedy, even tasteless, does NOT deserve a death sentence.

I didn't suggest it should and in a perfect world it wouldn't. But sadly we don't live in a perfect world. To borrow from Stewart, comedy should not be an act of bravery. But, sadly, here we are. Terrorism exists because terrorism works and I'm kind of iffy on the idea of giving terrorism more material to work with.

Going out of your way to try and offend religious terrorists helps them, not the ideals you're trying to stand up for. That's kind of the problem. Terrorism is an attention whore. Attention is the entire point of it. Giving it attention plays right into its hands. Its ignoring it that defeats it.

[Hyena Dandy]

depicting Mohammad and which denominations still commonly practice depictions ( Shi'ite, or roughly 10% of Muslims ).

In other words, 160 million people. Which is my point. There's a LOT of Muslims, and they're not really unanimous on anything. 9/10 does not count as unanimity, or even 'pretty unanimous.' So to talk blanket about Islam as if Shi'ites don't exist is a mistake.

[Gravekeeper]

In other words, 160 million people. Which is my point. There's a LOT of Muslims, and they're not really unanimous on anything. 9/10 does not count as unanimity, or even 'pretty unanimous.' So to talk blanket about Islam as if Shi'ites don't exist is a mistake.

Are we really going to do this pedantic picking apart words and making assumptions about what the person really meant shit again in another thread? Let me know now so I can bail on the thread and save myself the headache.

[siead_lietrathua]

Terrorism exists because terrorism works and I'm kind of iffy on the idea of giving terrorism more material to work with.

except when it comes to social media, it doesn't. i mean, look what happened when the dutch artist got threatened to be killed for his cartoons a while back. "Draw Mohammed Day" was born. and in the face of all those people pushing back, the terrorists backed off.

the same thing will happen here. they went after a small publishing office, sadly with success. they will back down against the dozens of comics and the thousands backing them because it's too big/ spread out of a target.

terrorism works against small groups, or a group with monetary interest (like mainstream media) it does NOT work against a group spread out to a global level.

[Greenday]

the same thing will happen here. they went after a small publishing office, sadly with success. they will back down against the dozens of comics and the thousands backing them because it's too big/ spread out of a target.

And now after all these shootings and hostage taking situations, the French are much more pissed off at the terrorists and are going to take an even firmer stance against them.

[Gravekeeper]

except when it comes to social media, it doesn't. i mean, look what happened when the dutch artist got threatened to be killed for his cartoons a while back. "Draw Mohammed Day" was born. and in the face of all those people pushing back, the terrorists backed off.

That was spurned by a Southpark episode not the Dutch cartoons. Also, no, they did not back off. The cartoonist that started it was forced to change her name and go into hiding with the FBI's assistence.

The Dutch cartoons on the other hand were a complete international disaster. They resulted in international protests, violent riots and terrorist attacks. The cartoons were directly used by extremists ( as well as governments such as Iran ) to incite more anger towards the West. Resulting in more recruits and more terrorism.

So no, they didn't back off at all.

And now after all these shootings and hostage taking situations, the French are much more pissed off at the terrorists and are going to take an even firmer stance against them.

Which will likely not pan out well. Sadly, France has a major problem with xenophobia. Especially towards Muslims.

[Greenday]

Which will likely not pan out well. Sadly, France has a major problem with xenophobia. Especially towards Muslims.

That was pretty much my first thought.

Someone tried to light a German newspaper company on fire for reprinting the French comics.

[fireheart17]

That was pretty much my first thought.

Someone tried to light a German newspaper company on fire for reprinting the French comics.

ANd the current trend over here is to get a particular section of the racial discrimination act repealed that would allow people to racially villify others.
I've managed to point out that as long as they're OK with other races mocking and discriminating against them repeatedly, then go for it.