Je Suis Charlie?

[Igzilla]

I think if you are unable to cope with a viewpoint or opinion that directly challenges your own, then that says more about your level of confidence in your own beliefs than anything else.

 

[mikeyjh]

I think if you are unable to cope with a viewpoint or opinion that directly challenges your own, then that says more about your level of confidence in your own beliefs than anything else.

That's easy to say isn't it, but what if someone posts pictures of Igzilla's 8 year old daughter on Facebook in provocative clothes and some inviting comments, I suspect a lot of people would be upset. You can't just ignore the belief system of 1.6 billion people.

 

[brightn'ove]

This cartoon is taken massively out of context and has caused a shitstorm out of nothing. Sensationalist bollocks.

[tweet]687415698008764421[/tweet]

[tweet]687417175481671680[/tweet]

[tweet]687421791996870656[/tweet]

[tweet]687422972160782340[/tweet]

[tweet]687424322248507394[/tweet]

[tweet]687425170328412160[/tweet]

It is CRITICISING french racism, satirising the changing of opinions on refugees since the cologne attacks.

 

[Igzilla]

That's easy to say isn't it, but what if someone posts pictures of Igzilla's 8 year old daughter on Facebook in provocative clothes and some inviting comments, I suspect a lot of people would be upset. You can't just ignore the belief system of 1.6 billion people.

Not quite the same as I suspect there would be some specific offence that has been committed. Free speech isn't free if it is slanderous or libellous. You can't go round killing people for challenging belief systems through satirical cartoons. On that basis, Have I Got News For You would become death row.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's easy to say isn't it, but what if someone posts pictures of Igzilla's 8 year old daughter on Facebook in provocative clothes and some inviting comments, I suspect a lot of people would be upset. You can't just ignore the belief system of 1.6 billion people.

You are right we can't, if we don't adhere/submit to Islamic blasphemy law there's a reasonable chance some of it's followers will try to kill us.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

How many calling for 'freedom of speech' are/would be happy for radicals in this country to say what they want without fear of censure - all under the umbrella of 'freedom of speech'.

They already do they are called hard line preachers which is why we have this problem in the country.

 

[Acker79]

I quietly made the point a year ago, (not here), that the producers of Charlie Hebdo were being held up as pillars of free speech when they suddenly became everyone's favourite publication despite the fact the virtually no-one had ever seen or read any of their content. I admire their stance on the far right and their supporters etc but I can't abide their deliberately provocative publications. Much of it serves no purpose other than to offend or to show that they can publish whatever they want, it's free speech right?

There should be a proverb - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

I had assumed they were left leaning liberals, and their mohammed thing was somehow linked to that (possibly via emphatic atheism). So when I saw this in the other stuff, I had assumed they were satirising the lack of sympathy some people have for asylum seekers and refugees, painting them all in the worst light to the point that even something as sympathy-worthy as a drowned child would be dismissed with those prejudices. It was only after I posted that suggestion on the other thread it occurred to me, I really don't know that much about Charlie Hebdo.

 

[nwgull]

I think your post is a bit patronising - I am for 'free speech' regardless of whether I agree or not, but it's the definition of free speech that we may not be aligned on. There is the free speech = say what you want without fear of recrimination school of thought, but that is obviously unrealistic and not what most people want. To me free speech means (vaguely) that freedom to express your views in the confines of what society on the whole finds broadly acceptable. It's not binary and it is difficult to nail down, but it certainly doesn't mean the former.

Point 2 is just a get out of jail free card, say what you want then tell people that they don't understand the (post fact) satire....

Free speech means that you can say what you want; it's fairly clear.

 

[symyjym]

This is satire

https://youtu.be/9kOiaXN-egg

Her lawyer said it wasn’t her, it was someone else wearing a burka.

 

[mikeyjh]

Free speech means that you can say what you want; it's fairly clear.

So which country has this 'free speech'?

 

[alfredmizen]

I'm not saying I agree with the religion, or any relgion for that point.

But millions do, and basically all of Europe celebrating a magazine publishing something that they knew would be offensive is just ridiculous.

I work with a couple of Muslim guys and grew up with a couple more, none of them torture people, none of them abuse people, but they took offence that a big part of their religion was mocked like that.

yes and this ''tiny'' percentage you mention in your other post is 27 % when it comes to having sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists

: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-behind-charlie-hebdo-attacks-10068440.html

 

[Perfidious Albion]

"Free speech means that you can say what you want; it's fairly clear."

In French , it is not clear whether the satire of the run of three images comes through clearly. I fear that the image and message of the one we saw first depicting the dead kid as a potential sex abuser if he were not thwarted by death, is the one that resonates.

That is sick . Freedom brings responsibility . The publishers of Charlie Hebdo have not my sympathy

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Not quite the same as I suspect there would be some specific offence that has been committed. Free speech isn't free if it is slanderous or libellous. You can't go round killing people for challenging belief systems through satirical cartoons. On that basis, Have I Got News For You would become death row.

Quite. Free speech does not include the right to launch a personal and slanderous attack on me or my family, this is addressed by other laws and conventions, but it does mean that anyone is at liberty to criticise my beliefs and values and me theirs.

 

[mikeyjh]

Not quite the same as I suspect there would be some specific offence that has been committed. Free speech isn't free if it is slanderous or libellous. You can't go round killing people for challenging belief systems through satirical cartoons. On that basis, Have I Got News For You would become death row.

It's not slanderous or libellous to mock your children or to caricature them, it's just probably a bit offensive.

 

[Jimmy's gonna get ya!]

This is a completely subjective matter. You don't get to choose what is generally offensive or not. You decide what is offensive to you. Why is this any different from Muslims being offended by images of the prophet? It's exactly the same thing except you have chosen to be offended.

It leaves a simple question, do you believe in free speech or not?
If you do, you must accept that people may have opinions (or cartoons) that are not only different to yours, but you might find them highly offensive too.

Get over it. If they are trying to offend, don't let them.

 

[carlzeiss]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54296638

Charlie Hebdo: Two hurt in stabbing near magazine's former office