Founding Member of Charlie Hebdo Says Slain Editor "Dragged' Team to their Death

[Anonymous]

The fault lies solely with the perpetrator and not the victim.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Let me refer you to a little passage young lady;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We in this country believe Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute. And when I say ‘We’ I’m quite certain that includes occupants of the Left and the Right. If you disagree perhaps the USA is not the place for you??

+1

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Let me refer you to a little passage young lady;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We in this country believe Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute. And when I say ‘We’ I’m quite certain that includes occupants of the Left and the Right. If you disagree perhaps the USA is not the place for you??

+1

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

What's with the petulant children today? Anyway dear child, spare us the Zinn sophomoric revisionism...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Let me refer you to a little passage young lady;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We in this country believe Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute. And when I say ‘We’ I’m quite certain that includes occupants of the Left and the Right. If you disagree perhaps the USA is not the place for you??

+1

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

OK, I hate slavery and what we did to the Indians too, but this is completely irrelevant.

Re Jeff's point, freedom of speech includes the freedom to make yourself look like an idiot or hypocrite, without dying. And Jeff is free to point out thd hypocrisy. I don't really understand the point here, because it can't be that it's hopeless to have freedom of speech because some people are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Let me refer you to a little passage young lady;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We in this country believe Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute. And when I say ‘We’ I’m quite certain that includes occupants of the Left and the Right. If you disagree perhaps the USA is not the place for you??

+1

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

We were the first democracy in the world since the limited ones of Greece and Rome. Compared to what was out there, we in fact were a shining beacon of freedom. And we've only improved with time, like wine. Happy MLK Day!

[Anonymous]

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

The Constitution's structure made changes possible.
We were hardly the only place there was slavery.
Where were women voting in 1776?

[Anonymous]

Gimme a break. He doesn't believe that for a second. He made that statement because he's scared of being killed by terrorists. He's trying to distance himself.

[Anonymous]

I saw some of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published. I was expecting some cutting edge satire and instead I found drawings that would be commonly found in a dirty public gent's rest room. They were crude and created to offend.

However, I believe that the killings were neither religious nor against the freedom of speech. This was done to cause terror, and garner at least some sympathy from peaceful muslims who probably were getting offended by CH. The recent acts of terrorism ( for eg - killing of school children in Pakistan) had actually backfired on the terrorists - and most muslims are fed up with the violence and death toll. This time around the terror masterminds chose yet again a soft target and mentally disturbed individuals who were easily manipulated BUT they were clever enough to target CH. CH is offensive for the sake of being offensive.

I do not think that CH was a great voice of lone dissent or stood for freedom of speech, I think that it stood for freedom to offend. That it was such a perfect target for the terrorists was due to their business model and marketing strategy. I have my profound sympathies for all the people who lost their lives, but I also wonder if there was another way for CH to entertain the masses?

Not Muslim or Christian

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

I tried to find one of the existing threads for this post, but they've all gone so far off-topic that none of them seemed appropriate.

"One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo has accused its slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons, as five million copies of the “survivors’ edition” went on sale."

Not only is this criticism interesting, but the reaction of Charlie Hebdo's lawyer was interesting:

"The accusation sparked a furious reaction from Richard Malka, Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer for the past 22 years, who sent an angry message to Mathieu Pigasse, one of the owners of Nouvel Obs and Le Monde. 'Charb has not yet even been buried and Obs finds nothing better to do that to publish a polemical and venomous piece on him.'"

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of an advocate of free expression. Promoting "freedom of expression" as a slogan is easy and, as we've seen, is easily done even by political leaders whose jails are full of journalists. But, in actual practice, just about everyone draws lines somewhere and nobody likes when there own personal lines are crossed.

Of course. Every single person has a line they don't want crossed, whether it's saying "OMG!" or attending children's parties naked. That isn't the issue. The issue is, did one French person publicly say these things, and another French person publicly answered him, and nobody died? Yes, yes and yes. That's free speech in action.

Not when you get fined or imprisoned for it.....

Who exactly has been, or might be, fined or imprisoned?

Just to name one, the Comedian Dieudonne has been fined and arrested by the French government numerous times on the basis that his shows were anti-Semitic and when he put on his Fbook page after the Paris attack "I am Charlie Coulibaly", even after he indicated it was satire...

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

I tried to find one of the existing threads for this post, but they've all gone so far off-topic that none of them seemed appropriate.

"One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo has accused its slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons, as five million copies of the “survivors’ edition” went on sale."

Not only is this criticism interesting, but the reaction of Charlie Hebdo's lawyer was interesting:

"The accusation sparked a furious reaction from Richard Malka, Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer for the past 22 years, who sent an angry message to Mathieu Pigasse, one of the owners of Nouvel Obs and Le Monde. 'Charb has not yet even been buried and Obs finds nothing better to do that to publish a polemical and venomous piece on him.'"

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of an advocate of free expression. Promoting "freedom of expression" as a slogan is easy and, as we've seen, is easily done even by political leaders whose jails are full of journalists. But, in actual practice, just about everyone draws lines somewhere and nobody likes when there own personal lines are crossed.

Of course. Every single person has a line they don't want crossed, whether it's saying "OMG!" or attending children's parties naked. That isn't the issue. The issue is, did one French person publicly say these things, and another French person publicly answered him, and nobody died? Yes, yes and yes. That's free speech in action.

Not when you get fined or imprisoned for it.....

Who exactly has been, or might be, fined or imprisoned?

Just to name one, the Comedian Dieudonne has been fined and arrested by the French government numerous times on the basis that his shows were anti-Semitic and when he put on his Fbook page after the Paris attack "I am Charlie Coulibaly", even after he indicated it was satire...

Which is an application of France's LAWS and begs the question: why didn't the terrorists sue in the COURTS instead of taking matters into their own hands? Or at least do some form of LEGAL passive resistance, which is also perfectly LEGAL in France.

France has LAWS exactly for this purpose. I don't know why this difference is so hard to understand. Every country sets parameters around free expression, including obscenity, nudity and hate speech. These parameters are highly unlikely to address everybody's pet concerns, instead they're some sort of middle ground arrived at through the ballot. If you llive in France, you abide by its anti-semitism LAWS (Coulibali) and you address your own concerns through France's LEGAl SYSTEM instead of taking matters into your own hands and killing people. If you think there should be an anti-Islamophobia LAW, then lobby for it.

(Sorry for the caps, but I don't get why this distinction between LAWS vs. vigilante/mob justice is so hard to understand.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Re Jeff's point, freedom of speech includes the freedom to make yourself look like an idiot or hypocrite, without dying. And Jeff is free to point out thd hypocrisy. I don't really understand the point here, because it can't be that it's hopeless to have freedom of speech because some people are hypocrites.

The point is that hypocrisy backfires. When you invite a bunch of autocrats to parade in defense of freedom of expression, it sends the message that you don't really care about freedom of expression. When you are a lawyer who has made a career out of defending the publishing of offensive material, but object to the publishing of offensive material, it suggests that you really aren't committed to the freedom to publish offensive material. Instead of demonstrating a true commitment to freedom of expression, what is demonstrated is that the slogans are hollow.

What the Muslim world hears is that the principle being supported is not freedom of expression, but freedom to be offensive to Muslims. That perception is only reinforced by the arrest of Dieudonne.

[Muslima]

'Oh, how terrible, a German Newspaper accidentially published an antisemitic cartoon instead of an antimuslim cartoon. The drawing is exactly the same, but in the first case they apologized. If we need any more proof of the double standards, here they are.'

http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.637128

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Which is an application of France's LAWS and begs the question: why didn't the terrorists sue in the COURTS instead of taking matters into their own hands? Or at least do some form of LEGAL passive resistance, which is also perfectly LEGAL in France.

France has LAWS exactly for this purpose. I don't know why this difference is so hard to understand. Every country sets parameters around free expression, including obscenity, nudity and hate speech. These parameters are highly unlikely to address everybody's pet concerns, instead they're some sort of middle ground arrived at through the ballot. If you llive in France, you abide by its anti-semitism LAWS (Coulibali) and you address your own concerns through France's LEGAl SYSTEM instead of taking matters into your own hands and killing people. If you think there should be an anti-Islamophobia LAW, then lobby for it.

(Sorry for the caps, but I don't get why this distinction between LAWS vs. vigilante/mob justice is so hard to understand.)

The terrorists do not sue in the court of law, because they are not in the business of righting some political, legal, social, cultural wrong. Terrorism is a full-fledged business. Their economic (and political) agenda is to create disruption through terror and then to hide behind a cause as a lip service. This has made their leaders and puppet masters very rich. What purpose would it serve for the terrorists to actually solve ANY issues? Solving issues through legal or diplomatic means, means that they are out of business. They thrive on chaos.

If they wanted to actually help the cause of muslims they would have gone and rescued the muslim girls who are being raped and abducted by Boka Haram.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is an application of France's LAWS and begs the question: why didn't the terrorists sue in the COURTS instead of taking matters into their own hands? Or at least do some form of LEGAL passive resistance, which is also perfectly LEGAL in France.

France has LAWS exactly for this purpose. I don't know why this difference is so hard to understand. Every country sets parameters around free expression, including obscenity, nudity and hate speech. These parameters are highly unlikely to address everybody's pet concerns, instead they're some sort of middle ground arrived at through the ballot. If you llive in France, you abide by its anti-semitism LAWS (Coulibali) and you address your own concerns through France's LEGAl SYSTEM instead of taking matters into your own hands and killing people. If you think there should be an anti-Islamophobia LAW, then lobby for it.

(Sorry for the caps, but I don't get why this distinction between LAWS vs. vigilante/mob justice is so hard to understand.)

The terrorists do not sue in the court of law, because they are not in the business of righting some political, legal, social, cultural wrong. Terrorism is a full-fledged business. Their economic (and political) agenda is to create disruption through terror and then to hide behind a cause as a lip service. This has made their leaders and puppet masters very rich. What purpose would it serve for the terrorists to actually solve ANY issues? Solving issues through legal or diplomatic means, means that they are out of business. They thrive on chaos.

If they wanted to actually help the cause of muslims they would have gone and rescued the muslim girls who are being raped and abducted by Boka Haram.

Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

[jsteele]

Muslima wrote:Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

As I've said before, terrorism is often used -- as the communists used to say -- to "heighten the contradictions", meaning to create a backlash that will widen divisions between groups. The terrorists' greatest nightmare is for Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and members of other religions to stand in unity against the terrorists' methods. Their goal is to have non-Muslims attacking Muslims in retaliation and pushing more Muslims into the extremists' camp.

With that in mind, going to court and winning a case would be the exact opposite of what the terrorists want because that would show that Muslims can work within the system. They prefer to have pissed off French people fire-bombing mosques.