of Europe appreciate it. Hebedo was never about making political points, it was about being as outrageous as possible to stir up religious hatred, which, as we all know, can be politically exploited.

Heroes of free speech? I think there are better role models for free speech around.

And, yes, it is possible to both condemn the murders and condemn the vulgarity and pointlessness of the hateful and pointless poorly drawn caricatures repeated over the years in ever increasing "look at me, how vulgar and pointless is this one?"

Insult all you want, be as vulgar as you like, if you can not have a reasoned argument without constant insultng and vulgarity did you really have much of an argument in the first place?


The cartoons were vulgar and pointless before the pointless murders and they remain the same.

strive home a point, that religions suck, but the way they chose to do it....these are not the heroes of free speech thst I would lay down my life to protect.

Bad facts make bad law, bad "satire" makes for......well, bad satire.

the same way Larry Flynt was.
It is offensive speech that is the most important to protect.

wagon to images that you would not show your mother or children?

"Look kids, Jesus fucking Moses cartoons, which is teaching you the absurdity of religion, see how important free speech is"?

Now run along while I find the Holy Trinity fucking Mohammed cartoons, very instructional....

Insert Reverend Lovejoy's wife pic here.

SEE? That wasn't hard, was it?

that is exactly what we want to hitch it to.

It is offensive speech that needs the protection most.

sake of pornographic and vulgar, the message kind of gets lost in the vulgarity, so what really was the purpose or point?

Seems to me if you have to resort to out of this world offensiveness to make your argument, maybe you did not really have one to begin with.

I dunno, maybe the French like that kind of stuff, they still think Jerry Lewis is hilarious.

Show me one cartoon from Hebdo, one each for Chritisnity, Islam and Judaism that. is particularly enlightening and/or slapstick comedy genius?

Save you the bother...there is none.

Anyway, Chai time!

or if it is offensive to you, it shouldn't be protected.

Your taste should arbitrate what should be protected?

I think that which is most offensive to me should be protected.

The right to offend is the very core of the First Amendment.

Have a nice cuppa.

I might (albeit reluctantly) fight to protect the right to manufacture smut but I do not have to support the manufacture and distribution and consumption of gang rape porn.

free speech to?

what we hitch Free Speech to.

It is exactly what we should hitch free speech to.

Unoffensive things don't usually need protection.

What would you, or him say is what we should hitch Free Speech to?

less vulgar and pointless and no hate free speech warriors..I recall the little girl attacked and almost killed for voicing free speech in Afganistan, education for girls...Malia?

She is my free speech hero...no comparison.

world would find fault with, you want to protect.

That's a brave choice.

Have your last say, you clearly don't understand freedom of speech.

Now you want to change the game so that this decent one needs to erase all the vulgar ones...

The point of satire is to BE vulgar, to rock the boat, to exercise your freedom of speech and all...

I applaud this newly released cartoon that did not exist when I made my "demand".

Message received, no vulgarity or pornography for the sake of a "look at me because of how vulgar and pornographic I am" is required.

Not the 1st publication of it

DU skills very rusty, must practice

let's remember this the next time some kid kills himself after years of offensive speech because of his sexual orientation.


"It is offensive speech that needs the protection most"

If you are asking if someone saying publicly that gay people are sinners or perverted or deviant, that is protected, as offensive as it is.

The answer is to respond fully and call them out as bigots and hateful, which would also be protected.

that very speech. At least that is the debate position......I don't get it.

Perhaps we should modify the 1st amendment to appease the Par Robertson types?

If they can't handle it, then they don't need to read or look at it.
People don't have the right to not be offended.

losers who don't like blasphemy? Never. Fuck them.

tradition. One of my majors in University was Art Criticism. It isn't about saying "I don't like this or that".

It's about viewing art in contexts. Societal, historical.

And considering it in relation to other work.

And also seeing its effect and weighing its message or lack of message and how that message is presented.

Using your state sentiment… why have DemocraticUnderground at all. If you don't like republican politics just ignore it.

And if you say that politics impacts society while art does not… then you are really very, very wrong.

I have been making a steady living as an artist since 1995. I am very well about the role of art in society.

is like dancing about architecture."

Laurie Anderson

I hope you're wearing an asbestos suit.

I, and a few others, have called the publication of these vulgar cartoons reckless and dangerous, only to be attacked for blaming the victims.

No, I don't blame them and the violence was NOT justified, and I ask my attackers this question and get crickets:

"Was it foreseeable, and was it OK that there would probably be innocent victims?"

Where will it end?

and you have expressed ZERO outrage at the murder of the cartoonists.

If the murder of the blasphemous cartoonists upsets you in any way, you have kept it a secret.

The fact that you refuse to label people murdered for their cartoons "innocent victims" shows that deep down you really are okay with them being killed for drawing cartoons you find icky.

I've never said any such thing.

The murderers are murderers, no doubt.

Please don't make crap up like "I'm okay with them being killed".

Stop that, it's just not true.

You want me to share your outrage in equal measure?

It won't happen. This was clearly a war of the pen against people with weapons and the bad guys used them against the cartoonist and publishers.

Nothing but sadness resulted.

before keyboard warrioring.

Sometimes I think CNN is fucking genius for latching on to one story for days and days and then after endless days of circling the airfield, coming in to change rides, folks seem to like one lane thinking.

I'm all for free expression, but when cartoons are rude and mean and graphic and insulting, there should be a payoff, a benefit, beyond, "Look what I did!" and "Look how bad those people are!"

What good did these cartoons ever do?

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that satirical speech necessarily lacks any hatred or anger. That's is simply not the case... from Lewis Carroll to George Bernard Shaw to Dorothy Parker, the wit of anger, the barbs of their frustrations, and the juicy targets of their pens are fundamental part and parcel of their bodies of work... who coincidentally, were each and all accused of being outrageous as possible for its own sake.

Regardless of whether you yourself are unable to recognize humor or see only vulgarity in their works is on you and you alone, as no one person defines humor or satire for the whole.

...but innocent people get hurt and then while the violence is at the hands of others, the useless piece of shit becomes something a little different.

With free speech comes responsibility.

inflame and incite "on the edge of crazy people" to take the leap and go full metal crazy?

I say no.

All I can come up with is unpretty and revealing of ethnocentrism, to put it mildly.

Giving perpetrators of provocative free expression a pass in the name of free expression, absent some return on investment, doesn't seem to be helpful.

All were victims, every one, and the murders are not justified.

But I don't see where any good whatsoever came from these publications.

More harm than good, IMHO.

Cartoons are the low hanging fruit. The next targets will be "offensive" music, books, movies, television shows and internet discussion boards.

But just because it's not illegal to dine butt naked in parts of San Francisco doesn't make it a smart or a good thing to do.

I think my statements have been pretty clear about this, despite others trying to twist them into something else.

Just because I can walk up to a person and call them, literally, any offensive thing I want to, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that there won't be consequences.

I'm waiting for someone to explain in simple terms what specific good came from these cartoons.

thugs. Blame those who fired weapons at those people. They are the only ones who deserve blame. You're stlll blaming the victims for the crime against them. Still. Unbelievable.

NOBODY WAS KILLED BY A MAGAZINE COVER!

All those who died at the offices of Charlie Hebdo died because of men with guns who shot them. Only that killed them.

None deserved to die, none of the murders were justified.

The simplistic moral math people are using here to try to say I'm blaming the victim is absurd.

The difference I'm pointing out between the cartoonists, say, and the three bystanders is that the bystanders were not engaged in the years-long war.

The cartoonists were taking a calculated risk, as is their right, but it seems particularly wrong that people uninvolved in the thing were also killed by the extremist nuts.

You should be able to discern the difference.

I can discern that you are blaming the Charlie Hebdo staff for what has happened. How? You keep saying so, over and over again. You've said so in many ways, in many posts. They are responsible, you are saying, for the death of the "innocents" you keep referring to, and for their own deaths as well. It's fairly clear, and doesn't require a great deal of discernment to see.

You are wrong, I also discern. I have said so a number of times. That you do not see the victim blaming in your posts is not of concern to me, as obvious as it is. You're the only one responsible for your own words. I disagree with your words and what lies underneath those words. If you keep saying the same things, I will keep responding. I will speak as I understand. This is DU. People say what they want here, and I do as well.

Oh well, I guess you fit well with the others who don't get nuance.

Ciao.

I get nuance in several languages, actually. I can see the nuance in your posts, as well. It's fairly clear.

As much as a handful would like for me to be.

The supportive replies and PMs I've received more than make up for the attacks.

Until this war ends, there will continue to be victims.

We stand at a moment in time in which a lot of "interests" would like to see a holy war of unprecedented magnitude.

I stand in that small group of people who refuse to help that happen.

There's room for more.

plainly and openly. I have not alerted, and will not alert on any of your posts. I'm not in favor of censorship. You should say what you think, and it appears that you are doing so.

By the same token, I will continue to say what I think. You may well disagree with what I think, and that's fine by me.

In my opinion, MineralMan, the years long war between Hebdo and Islamic extremists was a game with no possible winners.

Some of their other targets and actions had winning results, but not this particular war.

No good seems to have come from this one.

Instead, it was a deadly serious thing. Satire often deals with deadly serious things. Charlie Hebdo satirizes a lot of things. There is much reason to be found in their satire. It remains to be seen what the end result of this incident will be.

On the other hand, everything is a game, if you choose to see it as that. Just as satire is not necessarily funny, games are not necessarily peaceful.

In my opinion, NYC_SKP, you are on the wrong side in this discussion. Far on the wrong side. This incident is not about a satirical image, really. It's about something far more important. It is about individual freedom of thought and expression. Wars are often fought over disagreements in thinking and expression. We had one of those here in 1776. Truly, we did.

I can appreciate the satirical point of view of Charlie Hebdo. I share much of their viewpoint when it comes to the hypocrisy and subterfuge of organized religion in our societies. Expressing negative views of religions has often led to violence throughout history. Asking why that is represents some important concepts. Satire is one of the ways people ask that question and respond to that hypocrisy and subterfuge. Many have died for asking that very question.

Blame attaches only to those who use violence in response to questions being asked. It does not attach to those who ask the questions, in whatever way they choose to do so. It simply doesn't.

Now, I'm going to walk away from this discussion with you. You've made yourself quite clear, and I believe I have as well. I see no benefit in continuing the conversation.

folks on the Internet might be also rather enraged by vulgar, slanderous and pointless images directed at their religion.

And some of those folks, out of billions of folks in the world, are already crazy enough to murder...just one more push...like Palin and Fox pushed a crazed man over the edge, the murderer who shot Gabby Gifford.

The pen is mightier than the sword, sure, but you wouldn't recklessly and purposely swing a sword around in a crowded room, would you?

And I wonder if what I'm seeing is a form of swarming or if it's just that people are incapable of accepting that actions, even noble actions, have consequences.

If an air force carpet bombs a city occupied by noncombative enemy operatives and civilians, all are victims.

But the infant in the crib is a different sort of victim from the radio operator broadcasting on the radio in support of their cause.

This is or was a war, and all were victims, but the infant in the crib and the radio operator are not the same kind of victim.

I'm going out for a walk now.

Take care.

Our differences and our similarities define us, but more than that trust is developed in how these are revealed and handled.

I would sooner break bread with you than most.

"With free speech comes responsibility..."

The responsibility to write down to the lowest common denominator and self-censor anything which may be construed by them as incitement?

If not, what is the contextually relevant and precise responsibility you are referring to; and does that responsibility apply to all writers... indeed, all artists?

My own discovery (or lack of discovery) of humor in Hebdo's, Carroll's, or Parker's works are irrelevant to whether the humor exists or not-- as humor is subjective. Should I fail to find a lack of humor in Lewis Carroll's writings, that does not invalidate the status of his works as satire-- it merely illustrates what I personally may or may not find funny.

As you appear to be working off a personal, rather than the standard definition, this may help (and play close attention to its synonyms)...

Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn...

theory of gravity is topical.

Religion is topical. Again, the standard definition of the word... and again, pay attention to the synonyms.

Topical: (of a subject) of immediate relevance, interest, or importance owing to its relation to current events.
Synonyms: current, up-to-date, up-to-the-minute, contemporary, recent, relevant.

Let's now apply that definition to religion...
Religion is of immediate relevance.
Any arguments with that statement?.

Religion is of interest and importance owing to its relation to current events
Any arguments with that statement?.

Religion is topical.

Hebdo cartoon in the past year, before the murders, related to current events?

Then anything from science to gravity to education to war to.......is topical, do not think so, that is not what it means....I know this argument is the last resort to defend the "satire" meme, but it is weak. Arguing the definition of words that define another word is an interesting line of attack, debate wise speaking, never tried it myself.

Airline safety is a topic, a plane going down today in the sea is topical.....

So, again, Hebdo cartoons slamming religion year after year after year....not satire, not topical.

they were the victims of this type of lampooning.

Well, the tide has turned and France now has to deal with another group of Fundamentalists - Muslims.

They'd better look at history and grow thicker skins and realize they have no right to ask people to adhere to their beliefs - in this instance, no mocking of their prophet.

...seeing as she was lampooned on the cover on more than one occasion.

...featured his daughter shaving her pubic hair in the style of toothbrush mustache. Another implies an incestuous relationship between them.

Yeah, I'm sure he's a HUGE fan. In fact, he's probably buying subscriptions as we speak.

Your point isn't lost on me; it's just stupid.

If Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen are capitalizing off of anything, it is the attack itself--not the fucking cartoons.

Hate speech against fundamentalist Christians.

Hate speech against various politicians.

Was all that satirizing really hate speech?

Now, the ox being gored is Islam, maybe because Islam is more of a problem than Catholicism or Judaism at the moment?


No, it was raunchy cartoons of a type that I don't exactly appreciate, but it was definitely a type of satire, and definitely worthy of free speech.

I think you need a refresher on what the word free means.

"...we have to stop saying, well, we should not insult a great religion. First of all, there are no great religions. They’re all stupid and dangerous — and we should insult them and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/bill-maher-on-paris-massacre-there-are-no-great-religions-theyre-all-stupid-and-dangerous/

Religious insanity richly deserves all of the mocking and derision that we can give it. It is to blame for many of the great evils of civilization. If it weren't for the religiously insane, we'd all be peacefully whizzing around in flying cars on Mars by now.

It would instantly get locked because DU treats all religions the sam... Oh wait, never mind.

As the Catholic Church has diminished to a "lesser" problem, Islam has grown to a greater problem.