What did the jurors say?

It wasn't directed at you.

however, Freedom of Speech does not guarantee publication of your freedom of speech.

Charlie Hebdo is a magazine that can publish what they choose, and if people don't like it, they don't have to buy it.

If you notice, not every media is printing the controversial cartoons in their publications. That's their choice. Those papers aren't stopping Charlie Hebdo's freedom of speech, they are just choosing not to publish it themselves.

The same is true if your write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. They pick and choose which letters to publish. The same is also true for message boards, comments on message boards all over the internet are censored or deleted.

So again, you have a right to freedom of speech, but you can't expect to have that freedom published, unless you publish it yourself.

In this instance, the DU jury chose not to publish.

or how it is applied to religions?

I'm not trying to bait you, and you don't have to answer. I'm aware that poster's words can be twisted, and posters meanings can be misconstrued. I'm just curious.

that's the *real* "freedom of the press". the freedom of money.

wants to pour their funds into getting out a message, they can, and will, and do.

However, if people don't buy that message, it's moot.

For example, it's conceivable that there's a propaganda value for some in the whole set-up: crusading atheist journalists v. 9th-century backward muslims.

That's a message no one 'buys' exactly; you don't have to buy the magazine to receive it. it comes in the set up, and the fact that the set up is treated as reality by other media.

The media, and big money play a big part in controlling the message. It's up to us to reject that message. That's how we win, and that's how it's always been.

Again, if the message is foolish, the people won't buy it, not matter how much attention, or money they invest.

historical counter-examples galore.

Geez, you can sell anything to a small percentage of the population.

But if the majority reject it, yeah, it won't sell. It then becomes, mostly worthless.

Although Christians do make up a large portion of the population

http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

I would not consider the vast majority of Christians fundamentalists.

Quite a large percentage are non practicing, and the majority do not poll lockstep in any Christian belief category.

members of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Egyptian government and unable to defend themselves against their own compatriots in religion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6055691

The joke is that the holy book (Faith in general) didn't do the radicals any good as a shield against the govt. This is not hate speech, it's biting mockery of religion in general. Since the topic was an Islamic group, the target this time was that faith. This magazine has also poked fun at every other major faith and many other topics.

and I know what that image meant, based on the context (I learned about it right here on DU yesterday)

The context you describe is what I was referring to with my "Koran is shit" reference. My point was that the alerter of 1000Words's post (and most of the jury) was unaware of that cartoon and its context.

I realize a hypothetical "Torah" version of the same cartoon doesn't take into account the specific context of the original, but I think 1000Words tried to come up with a similar scenario in his hidden post.

I took issue with his extrapolation that "DU talks a good game" because his post was hidden - as if that implies that DUers are ok with satire aimed at Islam, but not ok with satire aimed at Judaism.

The "biting mockery of religion in general" is fine with me, regardless of the religion being mocked.

How is mocking those who protest a military coup and get shot in the process "poking fun at (their) faith"?

"Haha, see, the Coran doesn't help you now, you stupid shitheads", that's what it appears to say.

It is triumphalist, shallow assholery if you ask me.

But of course, compared to actual murder of human beings, it barely registers on the outrage scale. I'm sure you realize this, but IMO it bears repeating.

But these cartoons are disgusting and I can not associate myself with them by saying I am Charlie Hebdo.

Oppressed group, huh?

Because you're right.

here, and if they were, there would have been outrage.

The murders are horrific as are all murders, all of our mass murders here, the daily murders we read about, some simply for a few dollars.

All murder is shocking, to take a life is the greatest crime, or should be.

I repeat: nobody in France has ever complained about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons being racist.

I already challenged you to ask any French person about my assertion.

In French culture, obvious lampooning means you don't take offense at the literal meaning.

You are obviously very cautious about some cultures but rigidly judgmental about others.

I'm not talking about French culture, French culture is entirely different to ours. I'm talking about this country's culture.

Who gives a crap about the hurt feelings of a bunch of regressives clinging to their particular version of the tribal sky god?

They can be as angry as they want and nothing will justify their violence.

You should be able to wipe your ass with a Koran or a Bible on the front steps of their tax free center of worship and they are in the wrong if they lay a finger on you.

here no matter how racist it is?

"We" as in the government? Absolutely.

"We" as in businesses and the consumers that buy their products? No, we vote with our pocketbooks.

Je Suis Charlie.

When you feel compelled to qualify your opposition to murderous religious bigots you have conceded some amount of moral authority to those murderous religious bigots, no matter how small an amount that is, you have compromised your opposition to murderous bigotry.

Je Suis Charlie, no if ands or buts.

That opposition does not mean that I must support the gratuitously offensive cartoons published by Charle Hebdo.

I condemn the death penalty as an utterly inappropriate response to murder. That condemnation does not mean that I support murder.

You felt compelled to denounce the victims. You've just equated satire to murder.

but...

Do I have to change my mind and tout them as examples of earth shatteringly great political satire because I'm appalled and horrified by the murders? I don't think I have to do that at all...

that in order to condemn the murderers it is necessary to unite with the victims.

My reaction would be the same if the KKK had been the target of the attack. Murder is wrong - and I would similarly reject near universal calls to support anything the KKK said or did in order to condemn anyone who murdered them.

That concept is nonsense, and it deserves a response.

Believing two actions to be morally wrong does not mean I believe them to be equally wrong.

I see where you are coming from.

And it is dark place.

The sentiment being expressed on DU is that in order to condemn the murders, you have to unite with those murdered ("I am Charlie Hebdo&quot . I don't buy that. Murder is wrong. Period. Full stop. I don't have to like the person murdered, or think they made moral choices - or think that the appropriate response to their murder is to engage in more of the behavior they were engaging in, in order to condemn their murder .

I'm guessing you can't but I'll wait.

If you don't understand their satire that okay but equating them to the KKK is outrageous imho

I really wish you'd retract that.

Most of what I have seen from Charlie Hebdo is offensive merely for the sake of being offensive - not satire.

I didn't equate them with the KKK - I used the KKK as an analogy for the proposition circulating on DU that it is necessary to unite with the victim in order to oppose the murder. I used an extreme example, but if the extreme example makes you uncomfortable, them perhaps you might reconsider whether the proposition itself is sustainable.

I rest my case.

You've used an analogy to a group that has centuries of HANGING people for being black, tormenting neighborhoods for integrating, enforcing Jim Crow etc.

This is NOTHING like the free speech of Charlie Hebdo cartoons who are being deliberately mis-interpreted by non-French citizens. Like you. Are you French? Do you understand the context?

You're not defending your right not to identify with the victims. i doubt anyone has "demanded" you do any such thing.

You are taking a swipe at the people who have said they do.

...or other amazingly illogical stuff like that. I identify with the whole free speech thing and there's absolutely no justification under the sun for murdering someone because of what they write or draw, no matter how repellent they find it. I identify with the staff who were murdered and the cop we all saw executed. I also think after taking a look at a whole lot of cartoons last night that while some were harmless and mild, others were on a par with the crude and clumsy crap that Cox & Forkum and some anti-Semitic cartoonists have come out with. I think they're all pretty shitty, but (OMG, I stuck a BUT in here!) once someone who's offended moves beyond saying they're pretty shitty and maybe firing off a few LTTEs to the local rag and starts to get all maim and kill about it, that's when I think not only does that go far beyond pretty shitty, but also gives a big hint that there's some major craziness happening.

I know as a nation we're not halfway as sophisticated as the French but when I first heard of the murders and that it was a political satire newspaper, I thought it was something like our The Chaser, which with my less sophisticated taste, I think is pretty hilarious...

http://www.chaser.com.au/

I haven't seen anyone suggest everyone has to identify with the cartoonists and writers, but you're right, that's not logical-- I've seen a lot of what I consider ill-timed "criticism" of the content, some of which comes awfully close to blaming the victim.

I'm content, personally, with a full-throated defense of the principle of free speech. That's really the only litmus test I've got.

I'd never heard of 'em until now, either. My idea of Satire, both political and not, is the Onion, which can be downright offensive but they usually - not always- do a pretty decent job of not being obnoxious about it, which I think is a subtle and not always easy to achieve distinction. I fully admit I don't "get" the Charlie Hebdo stuff, but French humor eludes me. I totally don't understand the Jerry Lewis thing, either.

Either I got older and more serious, or it dropped its game a bit, but I no longer get as many chuckles out of it as I used to.

Yeah, it's kind of hard with the timing of the criticism. I've read where people have said its insensitive right after such a horrifying thing happening, but the problem is that very few outside their readership in France would have seen the cartoons until the massacre, so I'm guessing many thought processes would go along the lines of 'Holy fucking crap! There's been a terrorist attack in Paris!' then when the cartoons get seen: 'Urgh. Some of those really cross the line, but still that's nothing compared to what's just happened'. At least that's how it worked for me. I don't dwell on the cartoons, but I can't help dwelling on how horrific those murders are...

btw, if you don't already know, they've got the murderers surrounded and it sounds like they've got hostages...

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-30722098

Hope all the hostages get out okay.

which said in no uncertain terms that anybody who did not declare "I'm Charlie Hebdo" didn't belong on DU, but should go to some "Arab jihadi" site.

There's a whole undercurrent here at the moment that anyone who doesn't phrase their reactions to these events in a certain way is somehow impure or wrongheaded to the point of being digusting.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I'm probably not the only DUer who has shied away from commenting on certain threads at the moment because the events are too raw and there's a lot to process, and there's going to be a whole bunch of conflict and probably more blood shed in coming days and weeks, so I'm not up for a fight about it at the moment.

I have no problem condemning the murders. I condemn them not just because those cartoonists and staff and police and others absolutely didn't deserve to die, but because the murders will provoke more violence and more victims and more deaths.

My "but" is that I wouldn't have appreciated those cartoons I've seen before the murders, and I'm not going to be pressured or bullied into compromising my beliefs to pretend I appreciate them now. That's not saying they should have been banned. That's just an expression of who I am.

But just quietly holding that opinion seems to make people like me some sort of pariah at the moment. It's not a big deal in the great scheme of things, but it's pretty prevalent, and it's overshadowing discussions.

I can't speak about the content of any articles Charlie Hebdo carried as there's been very little focus on them from what I've seen - it's all about the cartoons.

That one was on a roll! I hadn't seen the second hide.

I've had some really good discussions on other threads the last couple of days. There's no concensus on this. I am seeing quite a bit of browbeating and attempted bullying.

One argument I've seen others put forward (on this very thread, in fact) is that if I don't applaud or link to or promote the cartoons in some way, I'm doing what the murderers wanted.

I hold a contrary view: if I forced myself to buy into the tone of some of the worst cartoons I've seen (I'll leave aside their intent as those who know for sure what it was have been murdered), I'd be doing what the murderers wanted. Juan Cole framed it as the terrorists' desire to "heighten the contradictions" - to increase tensions, leading to more bloodshed, mistrust, alienation of those from a different culture. I won't let them manipulate me posthumously and abandon my values. Then they would win.

About prevailing opinion, community standards, etc.

FWIW, again, I disagree that anyone "has to" say anything, OR approve of the cartoons, etc etc. However, I do question the timing of people lining up to 'condemn' the material, along with people making noises about how those cartoons 'incited' violence or the responsibility of the cartoon-makers to "own the result", etc...

I can think of a lot of other situations where any similar sorts of knee-jerk victim-blaming, and that's what it is, would be - have been- roundly condemned by the same folks. The hypocrisy is whiplash-inducing, here.

I understand that people have different opinions on the material itself. I don't have any problem with that.

That in the confines of this community, we place restrictions on "free speech"? Do you agree or disagree with the hide?

That post's an extreme (and pretty amazing) example, but there's similar opinion-shaming still going on (of the "no true liberal" etc. type), and I doubt I really need to draw your attention to more examples unless you've been very selective in your reading, because they're pretty common.

I'm not into inflaming people's raw feelings further at the moment. But there's also a danger of hypocrisy in condemning others for their free speech, let alone free thought - I think you need to be careful with broadbrush allegations of "victim-blaming" if you really think people have a right to their own reactions - while they try to make whatever sense they can of events when their opinion doesn't concur with the most vocal calls for unquestioning expressions of solidarity. You question the timing of people's expressions of misgivings. When would be a good time to express them?

I've also seen a lot of wholesale condemnation of Islam and at least a few illiberal references to "Muslims," as if they're a monolithic group. The response in the aftermath to 9/11 is still too raw in the memory to feel comfortable with that. I spent a lot of time speaking out against it then; I'm sad that it's still necessary now.

undercurrent".

As for victim blaming, that sure as shit is what it sounds like to me. People can say whatever they want, and that's what I'm doing too.

"when is a good time to express them?" I don't know, when is a good time to express the opinion that the principle of freedom of speech is more important than the 'right' of religious people never to have anyone on the planet make fun of their belief systems?

undercurrent.'"

In just the last day or so, I've seen you add considerably to that undercurrent, which undenably exists - indeed, on this very thread, which is why I bothered to pipe up on a point of information that seemed to have escaped your notice, and sought to address you respectfully about it.

I mentioned that the attitude the hidden post betrayed wasn't unique, it's just a relatively extreme example. I don't need to catalogue it here, a glance at a number of the threads on the first two pages of GD right now will be ample illustration of what I mean, as will reading down this thread itself. But apparently you don't want to see that, or don't care, and evidently now is not the time, and/or I'm not the right person to convey it.

As after 9/11 and subsequent atrocities, feelings are running high right now. Unlike you, I intend to express my own reaction in measured terms at the rare times I choose to try to voice it, and let others vent as they feel they need to on their own or in response. If you leap on me or others when they choose to do the same with accusations, that's your choice and your freedom, but the continual cheap twisting of people's heartfelt, searching responses as "victim-shaming" by a number of DU members isn't going to change those people's minds, nor mine, nor bring back the dead, punish or thwart the terrorists, nor forestall more violence to come.

They and I will just keep on trying to find what we feel are more productive ways to process all this and looking for a way to deal with it, while fearing for where it might lead. Again.

That's quite a stretch, Armstrong.

MsToad didn't qualify her opposition to the murders. She merely indicated that she doesn't support the content of the cartoons.

If someone burst into a Republican committee meeting & shot a bunch of people, it would be possible to denounce the murders & still not support the point of view of the victims.

willfully so.

Or they're denouncing the victims? Ridiculous.

It is as relevant as what a woman was wearing when she was raped.

Equating a woman's choice of clothing to offensive speech. Can't say I'm surprised. And no, it isn't irrelevent if someone is explaining why they can't join in in sentements like "I am Charlie Hebdo"

They may be offensive but they dish it out equally.

I however, stand with them NOT because I believe religion "deserves" insult or offense, but because the terrorists who did this tried to impose their viewpoint on everyone else.

Je suis Charlie.

The proper response to this is a letter to the editor, boycott, and or protest.

These were courageous people and bless them for it. I just don't care for what they published.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:48 AM - Edit history (1)

It's like the people who respond to claims that women's bodies are objectified in comics by pointing out that men's bodies are obectified too. But they ignore the fact that the men in question are drawn as powerful, muscular, and dominant -- while the women are drawn as half-naked, oversexed, and often helpless victims who need rescuing by men.

Or it's like suggesting that making fun of rich white men is no different from making fun of poor black women.

Whenever there is a gradient of wealth and power, the ones at the bottom are naturally more vulnerable -- and in today's world, that includes most Muslims.

Muslims are especially vulnerable because their faith is starker than Christianity or Judaism. It doesn't have a lot of traditional myths or symbols or sacred objects. The prophet Mohammed and the Koran are central to it -- so mocking or visually desecrating those is far more devastating than caricaturing the pope or some random Hasid.

In this case, there's a difference that really is a difference -- and saying "they do it to everybody" is not a justification.

Close to a quarter of the world's population are adherents. And if their faith is "starker", that's by their choice. As I've said elsewhere, while I fully respect everyone's religious choice, I have no respect for any of the religious they choose. If anyone's faith is so fragile that a cartoon is threatening, perhaps they should ask themselves why.

the west has been at war with islam for some time now.

this is a magazine with a very small circulation. typically, such magazines have funders in the background. sometimes a capitalist riding his hobbyhorse, sometimes organizations like cia.

I dare you.

Then problem solved

I do stand with Charlie, and if you, and some people find their works offensive and get their feelings hurt, that is too bad. There are too many people who want to quantify and limit others speech because they classify it as "Hate Speech."

would you feel compelled to recite "I am the KKK" had the target of the attacks been the KKK?

(the whole 'je suis charlie' is fake as fake can be)

False equivalence, there.

Whose only offenses are speech.

Would you feel the need to proclaim "I am the Westboro Baptist Church" or to repost their hateful messages as your own just to prove that they didn't deserve to be murdered because they were spewing hate?

I'm pretty sure the response from most people on DU would be more along the lines of "Good. They got what they deserved."

I don't feel satire of religion is comparable to the type of harmful hate speech the WBC uses to make their money. One is a publication which people can choose to purchase, or not. The other is intrusive and insidious and blatantly hateful.

But no, most "Je Suis Charlie" folks probably wouldn't say "I am WBC".

they go after muslims, catholics and jews. Are you saying that everyone's religious beliefs are so fragile that they can't stand up to ridicule?

Je suis Charlie

At best, it's willfull ignorance...

You might want to check out today's Democracy Now, specifically the exchange between Art Spiegelman and Tariq Ramadan (it's in the Video & Multimedia forum). Ramadan explains how, over the last several years, Charlie Hebdo had shifted to an anti-Muslim focus very much in line with France's extreme right.

The links I posted contain information that is important to consider regarding the attacks. The fact that nowhere did I claim it was a false flag attack doesn't matter to you, I'm sure. You'll try to smear me by insinuation.

What you won't do is offer a substantive rebuttal.

Care to offer a rebuttal? (I'm guessing, no)

All I will confidently say is that I believe there is more to the story that is not being widely reported. I won't waste any more effort than that because I don't believe you're interested in an honest conversation here.

reported."

Could you be covering yourself anymore with weasel words? If you want an honest conversation, you're welcome to start attempting one at any moment, buddy.

Imagine my surprise.

Imagine mine.

there's not though, that your neat little narrative is the be all and end all.

"This was some kind of conspiracy theory wherein someone planted I.D's to trick us all".

Which is a disgusting wrongfaced narrative. Just like the sandyhook truthers present a disgusting wrongfaced narrative.

leave it in the getaway car.

or in the rubble of the twin towers.

terrorists are so careless with their IDs.

Expecting rockets scientists?

ID to their terror events, then conveniently misplace them.

I know 10-year-olds who wouldn't be that stupid.

....who believes THAT will get them into paradise? Sounds very sub-par to me.