satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Dieudonne is also practicing his right for free speech. Why ban him?

The problem is, when it's against muslims, it's free speech, but when it's against any other race/religious group, it becomes hate speech. Hypocrisy at it's best. Disgusting.

Close to home recent example:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/connecticut-brewery-apologizes-gandhi-beer-28003869

We haven't seen people tossing and turning over this brewery apology, but we sure raised a hell over muslims speaking up against South Park and Charlie Hebdo.

No one legally restricted their speech. They CHOSE to issue an apology b/c they are a company and it is in their best business interest not to offend potential customers. I also doubt that the brewery received death threats from Hindus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:There. You just drew a line on FREEDOM of speech. Why do you get to draw the line on what is acceptable and unacceptable? Why can I insult, satire and deeply offend billions of Muslims & Christians but I can't do the same to holocaust survivors? Because they're more offended by it? Ridiculous, a complete hypocritical definition of 'freedom of speech! If you are going to have freedom of speech to insult the prophet of Islam, then you do have a right to say anything you want about the Holocaust, no matter how much offense you or anyone else takes with it.

As has been repeatedly mentioned in this forum, and as any French person knows, CH mocked everyone -- including Jews. As any French person also knows, they were anti-racists, who used seemingly racists cartoons precisely to make their points. We can argue that their cartoons are distasteful and offensive. But if you can't see that Dieudonne is fundamentally different -- HATE speech, to incite hatred against a particular religious group, as exemplified by the quotes above, which are just a sample of what your "comedian" routinely says -- then you are part of the problem.

What troubles me the most is that you don't see that this vitriol is received by frustrated and impressionable young kids from the banlieues as a role model -- and then you see them doing the quenelle in front of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. I thought you thought radical ignorance was the problem. You should denounce Dieudonne as even more dangerous to your community than some silly cartoons. You are choosing not to.

And when you repeatedly imply that the only reason Dieudonne was banned was because he simply said "Jews are crooks," and nothing else, as your earlier posts indicate, then you are dishonest.

By the way, when I read some of your earlier contributions in the other thread, I thought you were bringing a useful perspective. I agreed with you that the burka ban is wrong, and defended your position. I also agreed that there is increasing xenophobia in France and Europe, and highlighted that the fact that Front National (Dieudonne is pal of some FN bigots, like Le Pen father, by the way) getting 30% is a problem. But you are now ranting. As someone said, you have lost all credibility and the good will of many people like me who wanted to agree with you and wanted to support your views. You have alienated lots of people here. Of course you can say whatever you want. But you had an opportunity to bring a useful perspective to this forum. You squandered it. I am sure you don't care.

I won't be replying to your post anymore, but I am sure you are going to call me an hypocrite and the like. Feel free to do so.

Slow clap. A-freaking-men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I think Muslima's positions have been more consistent than some of her critics.

It is outright hypocritical to defend the right to insult Mohammed on the grounds of free speech and yet have no issue with those who attempt to restrict the right of someone who chooses to offend Jews or challenge the holocaust.

"challenge the [H]olocaust?" Didn't know it was up for debate.

Whether there is merit to the claims by those who deny the holocaust or feel the numbers are exaggerated is neither here nor there. We are talking about free speech and freedom of expression which is what those who defend the cartoons depicting Mohammed say is the essence of the issue.

How does one make this argument and then in the next breath not condemn any laws that restrict the right of those who choose to question the holocaust or in some other way offend Jewish sensibilities?

Here is a historian who was jailed for denying the holocaust:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

At least one of his fiercest critics had the intellectual honesty to defend his right to say what he wished about the holocaust and opposed his imprisionment.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

[Anonymous]

I'm new to this discussion, but if I get your point it is that you agree with the intent of Hebdo but not Dieudonne. That would not pass muster in the US legal system.

Furthermore Charlie Hebdo may be anti-racist but it could be considered anti-religious. If you accepted the notion that hate speech should be legally prohibited, which it is not in the US, one could easily make the argument that Hebdo and Dieudonne are equivalent in that regard, even though their target differs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this discussion, but if I get your point it is that you agree with the intent of Hebdo but not Dieudonne. That would not pass muster in the US legal system.

Furthermore Charlie Hebdo may be anti-racist but it could be considered anti-religious. If you accepted the notion that hate speech should be legally prohibited, which it is not in the US, one could easily make the argument that Hebdo and Dieudonne are equivalent in that regard, even though their target differs.

I do agree that the US and France (or other EU countries) have a different approach to hate speech. I don't agree that CH and Dieudonne are equivalent but have different targets. as for "blasphemous" cartoons, there is no law in France prohibiting blasphemy, which is not considered hate speech (and CH was a equal opportunity offender, just look at the cartoons on the Catholic Church). Dieudonne is accused of promoting terrorism and acts of violence, which is very different. the day after the attack he publicly expressed support for the killer who took hostages at the Jewish market and killed several of them. this is hardly religious satire or blasphemy, it's support for an act of terrorism resulting the murder of innocent people. I understand why people are troubled by his arrest (I am too frankly, and also by the prohibition of his shows), but I think it is disingenuous to say that he CH had the right to publish its cartoons then Dieudonne has the right to express support for an act of terrorism. in 2011 Eric Zemmour, a journalist and writer, was found guilty and fined for inciting "racial discrimination" against Blacks and Arabs based on French law for some statements he made during a TV show.

it is a fine line in some cases IMO to determine if something is free speech or a threat or hate speech. after the cops were killed in NY several people were charged for Facebook postings where they expressed support for the killers with statement like let's kill more cops or something similar, but without taking any actual action to do it.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I think Muslima's positions have been more consistent than some of her critics.

It is outright hypocritical to defend the right to insult Mohammed on the grounds of free speech and yet have no issue with those who attempt to restrict the right of someone who chooses to offend Jews or challenge the holocaust.

"challenge the [H]olocaust?" Didn't know it was up for debate.

Whether there is merit to the claims by those who deny the holocaust or feel the numbers are exaggerated is neither here nor there. We are talking about free speech and freedom of expression which is what those who defend the cartoons depicting Mohammed say is the essence of the issue.

How does one make this argument and then in the next breath not condemn any laws that restrict the right of those who choose to question the holocaust or in some other way offend Jewish sensibilities?

Here is a historian who was jailed for denying the holocaust:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

At least one of his fiercest critics had the intellectual honesty to defend his right to say what he wished about the holocaust and opposed his imprisionment.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

That's just the result of double standard that is so obvious and pathetic. People are prissy about their own importance and sensibilities and flippant about the importance and sensibilities of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Dieudonne is also practicing his right for free speech. Why ban him?

The problem is, when it's against muslims, it's free speech, but when it's against any other race/religious group, it becomes hate speech. Hypocrisy at it's best. Disgusting.

Close to home recent example:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/connecticut-brewery-apologizes-gandhi-beer-28003869

We haven't seen people tossing and turning over this brewery apology, but we sure raised a hell over muslims speaking up against South Park and Charlie Hebdo.

just to set the record straight, since you sound confused: nobody has anything to say about Muslims speaking up against Charlie Hebdo. they are free to do it, as anybody else. the issue is rioting in Europe when cartoons came out, committing a massacre, generally trying to impose censorship against perceived blasphemy with violence. we "raised hell", to use your words, after a massacre that wiped out the writers of the magazine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Dieudonne is also practicing his right for free speech. Why ban him?

The problem is, when it's against muslims, it's free speech, but when it's against any other race/religious group, it becomes hate speech. Hypocrisy at it's best. Disgusting.

Close to home recent example:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/connecticut-brewery-apologizes-gandhi-beer-28003869

We haven't seen people tossing and turning over this brewery apology, but we sure raised a hell over muslims speaking up against South Park and Charlie Hebdo.

just to set the record straight, since you sound confused: nobody has anything to say about Muslims speaking up against Charlie Hebdo. they are free to do it, as anybody else. the issue is rioting in Europe when cartoons came out, committing a massacre, generally trying to impose censorship against perceived blasphemy with violence. we "raised hell", to use your words, after a massacre that wiped out the writers of the magazine

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I think Muslima's positions have been more consistent than some of her critics.

It is outright hypocritical to defend the right to insult Mohammed on the grounds of free speech and yet have no issue with those who attempt to restrict the right of someone who chooses to offend Jews or challenge the holocaust.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad with a fused bomb in his turban DOES represents hate speech by representing his followers as war-waging bomb-blowing monsters. Don't pretend that it had a rosy message.

I dont see this as hate speech. Sorry.
To me, its connecting an interpretation of Islam to terrorism. Which happens everyday.

See...and that is part of the disconnect. I am Christian and I would say that cartoon is hate speech. It offended (and was meant to offend) the people it portrayed but it also offended Muslims who are NOT terroritsts. It was meant to generalize the entire group as terrorists and it is NO different than a cartoon (or someone saying) that all Jews are crooks. If one is wrong, then the other is just as wrong. I get the sense that some of you are taking this position because of a prejudice against Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad with a fused bomb in his turban DOES represents hate speech by representing his followers as war-waging bomb-blowing monsters. Don't pretend that it had a rosy message.

I dont see this as hate speech. Sorry.
To me, its connecting an interpretation of Islam to terrorism. Which happens everyday.

See...and that is part of the disconnect. I am Christian and I would say that cartoon is hate speech. It offended (and was meant to offend) the people it portrayed but it also offended Muslims who are NOT terroritsts. It was meant to generalize the entire group as terrorists and it is NO different than a cartoon (or someone saying) that all Jews are crooks. If one is wrong, then the other is just as wrong. I get the sense that some of you are taking this position because of a prejudice against Muslims.

Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. Does that work for the charge of hate speech as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

be honest. if you had to choose between 1) publicly burning the US flag or expose your "piss Christ" work of art on , or 2) publish a "piss Mohamed" cartoon or publicly expose a "piss Mohamed" statue, which one would you choose?

be honest and don't say neither because I respect everybody and so on. (hint: you would likely choose the first because be "attacked" by Jesse Helms is preferable than be attacked by an AK-47)