how to respond to the attacks

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

Boy, you're really reaching there. How would you know what "almost all of those claiming to be Charlie" feel about other issues? Do you think for instance you're the only person alive who ever criticizes Israel or AIPAC? Pray do tell: where do you get your information then? And how about all the Jews who also speak out against the Israeli occupation?
Your modern-day Saladdin role of the moment is likely blinding you.

[Anonymous]

He has the right to free speech. The university also has the right to fire him.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

I do not think the people shouting "Je suis Charlie" are hipocrits. I think they are French citizens who feel their liberty and freedom of expression have been attacked; they are saying "we will not be intimidated by these terrorists."

Do you think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved? Were they in any way at fault?

Really? How about Dieudonne? The French comedian who's been banned by the French government for performing his show over and over because his jokes are offensive to jews? Where are the jesuisDieudonne? How about his free speech?

Manuel Valls, the minister of the interior, has sent out an edict to the mayors of all the cities in France where ‘Dieudo’ is planning to appear on tour: ‘Ban him or else.’ In doing so, Valls has the full support of the French president, François Hollande. The whole of the state apparatus is baying for Dieudo’s blood and screaming that Republican values are being held in contempt. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to be of any importance when it comes to Dieudo.
The latest stage of this farce occurred in Nantes yesterday, where Dieudo was due to play the opening night of his tour. A local judge suspended the interdiction order, allowing the show to go ahead. However, Valls made a successful last-minute appeal to France’s highest court, the Council of State, to reinstate the ban. The result was thousands of booing fans left standing outside the concert hall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-deibert/in-comic-dieudonne-france_b_4604633.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.


I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.


Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast...ts-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.


Boy, you're really reaching there. How would you know what "almost all of those claiming to be Charlie" feel about other issues? Do you think for instance you're the only person alive who ever criticizes Israel or AIPAC? Pray do tell: where do you get your information then? And how about all the Jews who also speak out against the Israeli occupation?
Your modern-day Saladdin role of the moment is likely blinding you.
[Report Post]

You know the French do not have the same freedom of speech as the U.S. enjoys. You will be arrested for hate speech or if you burned a French flag as a protest. As for Israel, speeching out against the settlements will get you death threats and will get you killed. There are many radical Jews in Israel.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

So? OP, I think it's a great idea!

[Anonymous]

What is the purpose of antagonizing and insulting an entire religion comprised of millions of mindful, caring, compassionate people just because a couple of wack jobs got bold? I'm black...my grandfather was nearly lynched in North Carolina by "proud Christians" who didn't approve of him being educated and independent - did he see that as cause for contempt for the entire religion? No - he knew the few racist f%ks that refused to recognize his humanity were not exemplary of all Christians and he eventually became a Baptist minister and spent his life trying to enlighten others of the true message.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

I do not think the people shouting "Je suis Charlie" are hipocrits. I think they are French citizens who feel their liberty and freedom of expression have been attacked; they are saying "we will not be intimidated by these terrorists."

Do you think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved? Were they in any way at fault?

Really? How about Dieudonne? The French comedian who's been banned by the French government for performing his show over and over because his jokes are offensive to jews? Where are the jesuisDieudonne? How about his free speech?

Manuel Valls, the minister of the interior, has sent out an edict to the mayors of all the cities in France where ‘Dieudo’ is planning to appear on tour: ‘Ban him or else.’ In doing so, Valls has the full support of the French president, François Hollande. The whole of the state apparatus is baying for Dieudo’s blood and screaming that Republican values are being held in contempt. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to be of any importance when it comes to Dieudo.
The latest stage of this farce occurred in Nantes yesterday, where Dieudo was due to play the opening night of his tour. A local judge suspended the interdiction order, allowing the show to go ahead. However, Valls made a successful last-minute appeal to France’s highest court, the Council of State, to reinstate the ban. The result was thousands of booing fans left standing outside the concert hall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-deibert/in-comic-dieudonne-france_b_4604633.html

It's pretty simple, and I don't know why you don't see it (actually I do know). Dieudonne targets Jews. Charlie Hebdo targeted everybody.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Boy, you're really reaching there. How would you know what "almost all of those claiming to be Charlie" feel about other issues? Do you think for instance you're the only person alive who ever criticizes Israel or AIPAC? Pray do tell: where do you get your information then? And how about all the Jews who also speak out against the Israeli occupation?
Your modern-day Saladdin role of the moment is likely blinding you.

This is a very interesting response. The issue at hand is freedom of expression. I provided an example of where one person's expression had resulted in his losing his job. So, you turn this into an attack on me. Where did I ever mention anything about my criticizing Israel or AIPAC? Why would you ask that question? Why are you asking about Jews who speak out against the occupation? Did they have any impact on Professor Salaita? Your question really doesn't make sense. Finally, saying I have a modern-day Saladin role? What is that about? Saladin captured Jerusalem. I have no designs on Jerusalem. Saladin was a Muslim and a Kurd. I am neither. Saladin led an empire. I run the Mommy Fight Site. I am at a complete loss to see the connection. Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that anyone whose opinion might be sympathetic with Muslims must be a Muslim so he is Saladin? I guess when I write in favor of full rights for gays, you call me Harvey Milk? When I support civil rights for people of color you call me Martin Luther King, Jr. or Cesar Chavez? Is that how it works? I am also a dog lover. I guess you should call me Fido as well.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

The prof is free to say whatever he wants to say. But he doesn't have a right to a tenured position. The school was not obligated to hire him.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

The prof is free to say whatever he wants to say. But he doesn't have a right to a tenured position. The school was not obligated to hire him.

Right. No argument there. But, given that his offer was withdrawn for nothing other than how he exercised his right to free expression, I would expect all of the new-found free speech absolutists who are claiming free expression is so important to them to be outraged. I am absolutely not surprised that nobody has weighed in here on the professor's side while two posters have sided with the university. We have internalized all kinds of limits on free expression. The OP should be demanding that we all retweet Salaita's tweets. He says his proposed protest "has to be equal opportunity, for all threats to free expression." Losing your job due to tweets is obviously a threat to free expression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting idea. What do you think? From another forum (I edited out some crude words):

So here's what we do. On Sunday at 12 noon everyone, everywhere, posts on their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram exactly the kind of free expression the Paris killers did not want to see. Spread the word and use the hashtag #letsblaspheme. Forward this note as wide as you can. Post it everywhere.

We make this a general policy anytime something like this happens. If a Christian lunatic kills an artist for ****ing on the cross, we post millions of pictures and videos of ourselves ****ing on the cross. If anyone kills anyone, anywhere, for saying something or publishing something, we all say and publish exactly that thing on Sunday at noon after the murder.

It has to happen immediately, the Sunday after the event, to make it clear that it's caused by the event. It has to happen *only* in response to murders caused by the exercise of free expression, not to any other kind of provocation. And it has to be equal opportunity, for all threats to free expression.

Pouring fuel on the fire? No, this is the only way to take the oxygen out of the fire. The violent do not get a veto over free expression in a liberal society. Their actions have to lead to exactly what they do not want.

Is it safe for you to take part? Make it safe. Spread the word. If the hashtag starts trending, if newsmedia pick up the story, if the pundits start saying how this is not wise, you know you'll be safe.

How about #weloveyouanyway

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

Jeesh, there is no need to defend Steven Salaita's right to speech because he can still say whatever he wants. He is just not guaranteed to have the job he wants.

Now if he were put in jail -- or murdered -- for his speech, then yes I would consider repeating his tweets and hope that others would do the same.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

The prof is free to say whatever he wants to say. But he doesn't have a right to a tenured position. The school was not obligated to hire him.

Right. No argument there. But, given that his offer was withdrawn for nothing other than how he exercised his right to free expression, I would expect all of the new-found free speech absolutists who are claiming free expression is so important to them to be outraged. I am absolutely not surprised that nobody has weighed in here on the professor's side while two posters have sided with the university. We have internalized all kinds of limits on free expression. The OP should be demanding that we all retweet Salaita's tweets. He says his proposed protest "has to be equal opportunity, for all threats to free expression." Losing your job due to tweets is obviously a threat to free expression.

Well, yes, absolutists should act like...absolutists, lest they turn into hypocrites. But I'm not a free speech absolutist. As for the merits of the prof's tweets, I have not analyzed them, so I just can't say.

[Anonymous]

There is such a lot of phoniness when it comes to defending free speech rights in Europe.

Holocaust denial is a crime in several states. From the NYT:

Laws against denying the Holocaust exist in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain, and in many cases the national legislation goes much further than the new EU rules. In a recent high-profile case, the British historian David Irving spent 13 months in jail in Austria for challenging the Holocaust before being released in December.

Abhorrent as it may be to deny the holocaust, those who defend the right to free speech should be up in arms about such laws ...... but you will usually not hear a peep from them.

[Anonymous]

^^"states" should be "countries"