That's no excuse for violence, of course, but in terms of pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech, it's all a question of taste.

Very few would promote the anti-Semitic cartoons of the 20th century for example, or caricatures of black people. And many of the Anti-Israeli cartoons in Arab countries are offensive to most people.

So, while freedom of speech is sacrosanct, the actual content in every case is not always something to be lauded.

But then of course, someone might come along and publish all of these different kinds of offensive cartoons to make an even bolder statement.

im pretty sure offensiveness has been thoroughly explored, but never was its stock so high.

both at the social level (dominant culture vs minority) and geopolitical level.

However, the French cartoonists were not part of the state like the Nazi cartoonists, so they very much didn't deserve what happened to them. No cartoonists should suffer those consequences.

His words capture how I am feeling about this but, until reading this, was having difficulty in articulating my thoughts.

This bit in particular:

People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one's speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong--always--I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of people whose job appears to have been to insult people they considered inferior to themselves.

That pretty much brings it home for me.

I can and do condemn the murders without extolling cartoons I find offensive and insulting. Those murdered were victims but that doesn't make them heroes, imo.

it isn't possible to fight for the right to publish satire and simultaneously denounce the content of that satire.

To denounce both the murders and the content of the satirical cartoons is not inconsistent nor is doing so blaming the victims of the murders.

And now, thanks to your post, I have discovered Tim Wise, with whom I was not previously familiar. I've been reading his site a little bit and he seems awesome. Many thanks!

Boy does this need to be said. Again and again.

and thinks that they only made fun of Islam. Plenty of DUers ridicule all religions; are these folks "sort of shitty"?

And while it was an equal opportunity offender its Islamic crap also played into Far Right sentiments.

And it's the dominant oppressor in plenty o societies and worthy of criticism. Maybe Wise will defend the KKK next as a beleaguered minority.

Wise is defending religious privilege.

Showcasing a total misunderstanding of these cartoons.

the message being made.

Here's a whole page of satirical images you can not only fight for their freedom of expression but you can also support the message being made. Have fun!


http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+depicted+as+a+monkey&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nBWwVIj1KNWAsQToqYGwAg&ved=0CAUQ_AU

To me, that shows a complete misunderstanding of these cartoons.

As does your comparison of these cartoons to Obama depicted as a monkey.

Christianity and Islam are ideologies that can and should be satirized.

Just because an ideology is labelled a "religion" ought not to shield it from spoofery.

to march in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood -- without saying that I think the neo-Nazis are "heroes" or even more worthy than dog shit.

Defending free speech does not mean that you agree with the speech or even like the people making the speech.

Criticizing religion is not bigotry. Wise's religious privilege is showing.

Neither should be off-limits to satire.

Maybe Mormons and Scientologists since they are both tiny minorities ought to be afforded such protection.

As it is in the US. The wish to protect some minorities and demonize others is bigotry.

Islam is a religion. Like Christianity. It's an ideology.

Should it be off limits to poke fun of an ideology?

Tea Partiers are a minority in the United States - can we not make fun of their ideology?

Methinks all religions should be ripe for satire. If we can make jokes about Scientology and Mormonism we should certainly be able to make jokes about Islam.

Make them as juvenile and tasteless as the other cartoons. Lampoon atheists too. Some of them are just as preachy as the worst amongst the fire and brimstone Christian preachers.

That's why I used those two examples.

Get to work on those atheist ones then.

If someone thinks Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, the ideology, is stupid - they ought to be able to express that perspective freely.

If someone thinks that Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus are <insert negative stereotype here> than that, to me, is something else entirely.

Don't you perceive a difference between being critical of an ideology as opposed to people?

For instance, don't you think we can make fun of the ideology of right-wingers?

poverty. The reason for the demonstrations a few years ago. And since these cartoons were aimed at a French audience, I don't see how you could describe France's Muslim population as powerful.

Would it be okay to aim similar 'satire' in this country, at minorities?

Very often the reason for adherence to religion is poverty and ignorance. People with no other hope often clint to their 'faith' for some comfort. After all, when they cannot depend on earthly relief, it is comforting to them to believe in a higher power.

So to target what may the only comfort of the powerless, doesn't seem like traditional satire to me.

I think that the two largest religions in the world by far ought to be allowed, and even encouraged to be ridiculed.

If you say that mocking Islam, the ideology, is off limits than I am not sure why you can't say the same for any ideology - at which point you no longer can satirize anything.

There are, for instance, a lot of very poor people in the US who fervently believe in the existence of angels. Or, to use another example, there are a lot of very poor people who are have views about climate change or gun control or immigration that many of us find to be ridiculous and even repugnant.

I don't think their poverty and lack of power ought to put their views on such things under a protective shield.

Please explain what you mean by that. Organized religion is not weak.

But that's what he's doing here. He doesn't get the satire, because he can't comprehend religion being on equal footing with other ideas.

since apparently we must not only defend the right of satirists to express themselves we must also support every piece of crap they create and every message they deliver no matter.

http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+depicted+as+a+monkey&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nBWwVIj1KNWAsQToqYGwAg&ved=0CAUQ_AU

Many of the Hebdo cartoons I saw were aimed up the power structure, Islam is the dominant, oppressive force in many societies, and Tim Wise is a bit too provincial to get that.

And his equation of "religious slurs" with racial slurs shows he thinks religion should get special treatment. It would be similar to the term "conservative slurs". And Conservaphobia, don't forget that. DU would be guilty of both.

No, Wise is defending religious privilege, and he and many on the left in the U.S. don't see it.

Religion is an idea. It gets the same protection as an inherent trait because of religious privilege. It's why other ideas aren't given similar protection, like political persuasion. Why is that? Religion is given greater weight in our society than other ideas, and greater leeway. It's privilege.

In fact, religion gets an exemption from anti-discrimibation laws on the same privilege. That's why Churches routinely discriminate against women, and no one bats an eye because of the privilege associated with it.

Religious privilege is what allows people to continue to discriminate in the US legally, and what the right uses to continue discriminating against groups they don't like.

In the case of Charlie Hebdo, their work is not about insulting people who they think are inferior. It's about attacking and bringing organized religion (not just Islam) to its knees, because they view religion as oppressive, a means to control the masses, which of course is the antithesis of freedom.

Tim needs to read about the Catholic Church and French Revolution and learn that history, otherwise he needs to shut up.

I view those killed as heroes; there is no rule in satire that says it must be palatable. The intention is to jar people out of their conformity. The world would be a horrible place without people brave enough to do it.

"To satirize people who are the targets of institutionalized violence (whether for religious or racial or cultural or linguistic or sexual or gendered reasons) is not brave. It's sort of shitty, in fact."

Hahaha! I get it! It's funny because by "targets" he means "perpetrators," because the paper was a left-wing satire rag which mocked authorities who cut off people's heads and rape altar boys. Now, Mr. Wise, THAT is ironic satire!