satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CH was widely regarded by the French as hard left, anti-racist, anti-fascist, equal opportunity "mocker" -- which explains the outpouring of support. It looks like many Americans don't understand, and don't try to understand it, and are rushing to judgment.

Maybe Westerners just don't understand female genital mutilation, (which is regarded as pro-female by its proponents/practitioners), and the West is rushing to judgement?

We all see the world through the prisms of our own cultures and experiences. I can deem CH as sickening while still decrying the slaughter

you may find CH cartoons sickening because you do not understand them. most of them are satirical comments on current French events people in the US know nothing about and judge without understanding. the person who wrote the blog in the link poster by OP appears to be in bad faith instead, trying to depict as racists cartoons that are not (and then going on talking about "the Whites" oppressing others and so on).

the cartoon of the monkey with the face of a black woman, that may a racist cartoon without any background, was actually a strongly anti-racist cartoon and a satirical critique of the racism of the Front National party, that had compared a black French cabinet member to a monkey. the cartoon is clearly recognized by French people, who understand the references in the cartoon and its background, as satirical mockery of the racism of the Front National. I found this post that explains maybe more clearly. http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/107589955860/dear-us-followers . the cartoon about the Boko Haram kidnapped girls as welfare queens has a similar origin, put together different issues that were discussed in France, is far from a racist statement that victims of sex crime are happy welfare queens.

I saw many other cartoons that non-French mistook for racists because they did not understand them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CH was widely regarded by the French as hard left, anti-racist, anti-fascist, equal opportunity "mocker" -- which explains the outpouring of support. It looks like many Americans don't understand, and don't try to understand it, and are rushing to judgment.

Maybe Westerners just don't understand female genital mutilation, (which is regarded as pro-female by its proponents/practitioners), and the West is rushing to judgement?

We all see the world through the prisms of our own cultures and experiences. I can deem CH as sickening while still decrying the slaughter

I have never heard anyone describe that as pro-female.

http://academics.smcvt.edu/africanart/Maureen/FGM/defending.htm without the FGM, you are shunned by your society, considered unfit to be wed. For some, refusing to have fgm is a sentence to a life of abuse and exclusion, therefore a loving family will ensure this rite occurs. It is 'pro-female' because it's the pathway to respectable wifehood and motherhood. Just as hijab and purdah are 'pro-female' because they 'protect; a woman from unwelcome attention and the abuse of strangers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CH was widely regarded by the French as hard left, anti-racist, anti-fascist, equal opportunity "mocker" -- which explains the outpouring of support. It looks like many Americans don't understand, and don't try to understand it, and are rushing to judgment.

Maybe Westerners just don't understand female genital mutilation, (which is regarded as pro-female by its proponents/practitioners), and the West is rushing to judgement?

We all see the world through the prisms of our own cultures and experiences. I can deem CH as sickening while still decrying the slaughter

I have never heard anyone describe that as pro-female.

http://academics.smcvt.edu/africanart/Maureen/FGM/defending.htm without the FGM, you are shunned by your society, considered unfit to be wed. For some, refusing to have fgm is a sentence to a life of abuse and exclusion, therefore a loving family will ensure this rite occurs. It is 'pro-female' because it's the pathway to respectable wifehood and motherhood. Just as hijab and purdah are 'pro-female' because they 'protect; a woman from unwelcome attention and the abuse of strangers

Bringing the issue of female mutilation when we are trying to discuss how these cartoons are being understood / misunderstood by people unfamiliar with CH is beyond weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CH was widely regarded by the French as hard left, anti-racist, anti-fascist, equal opportunity "mocker" -- which explains the outpouring of support. It looks like many Americans don't understand, and don't try to understand it, and are rushing to judgment.

Maybe Westerners just don't understand female genital mutilation, (which is regarded as pro-female by its proponents/practitioners), and the West is rushing to judgement?

We all see the world through the prisms of our own cultures and experiences. I can deem CH as sickening while still decrying the slaughter

you may find CH cartoons sickening because you do not understand them. most of them are satirical comments on current French events people in the US know nothing about and judge without understanding. the person who wrote the blog in the link poster by OP appears to be in bad faith instead, trying to depict as racists cartoons that are not (and then going on talking about "the Whites" oppressing others and so on).

the cartoon of the monkey with the face of a black woman, that may a racist cartoon without any background, was actually a strongly anti-racist cartoon and a satirical critique of the racism of the Front National party, that had compared a black French cabinet member to a monkey. the cartoon is clearly recognized by French people, who understand the references in the cartoon and its background, as satirical mockery of the racism of the Front National. I found this post that explains maybe more clearly. http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/107589955860/dear-us-followers . the cartoon about the Boko Haram kidnapped girls as welfare queens has a similar origin, put together different issues that were discussed in France, is far from a racist statement that victims of sex crime are happy welfare queens.

I saw many other cartoons that non-French mistook for racists because they did not understand them.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

All your examples pertain to *physical harm* speech can cause. There is no physical harm in the criticism of a political or religious figure. Take the quartet of leaders -- Obama, Putin, Netanyahu, and Kim Jong-um. All these men have their fierce critics and their fervent admirers. We don't forbid criticism or satire of them because it might offend their admirers.

It is the great achievement of Charlie Hebdo to emphasize that there is no exemption for religious figures, and those who think that Muhammad and Jesus were lunatics should be free to say so.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I like it.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Wimps.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom.

What does criticism of Islam (or any other religion) have to do with security?

I won't criticize Islam but I will state the fact that like all men Muhammad farted several time a day. Je suis Charlie

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.

You JUST basically said you do not believe freedom of speech should cover those things that you find offensive. That is a slippery slope toward complete censorship and a total lack of freedom. Do the logic. Think about it. Freedom of speech means that you, nor anyone else, has the right to NOT be offended. Believe or feel what you want about it; it is what I is. I didn't throw a shit fit as a Catholic when "Piss Christ" came out. My beliefs and my god are bigger than that, and it rolls off my back. Political and personal speech is not and should not be regulated, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CH was widely regarded by the French as hard left, anti-racist, anti-fascist, equal opportunity "mocker" -- which explains the outpouring of support. It looks like many Americans don't understand, and don't try to understand it, and are rushing to judgment.

Maybe Westerners just don't understand female genital mutilation, (which is regarded as pro-female by its proponents/practitioners), and the West is rushing to judgement?

We all see the world through the prisms of our own cultures and experiences. I can deem CH as sickening while still decrying the slaughter

you may find CH cartoons sickening because you do not understand them. most of them are satirical comments on current French events people in the US know nothing about and judge without understanding. the person who wrote the blog in the link poster by OP appears to be in bad faith instead, trying to depict as racists cartoons that are not (and then going on talking about "the Whites" oppressing others and so on).

the cartoon of the monkey with the face of a black woman, that may a racist cartoon without any background, was actually a strongly anti-racist cartoon and a satirical critique of the racism of the Front National party, that had compared a black French cabinet member to a monkey. the cartoon is clearly recognized by French people, who understand the references in the cartoon and its background, as satirical mockery of the racism of the Front National. I found this post that explains maybe more clearly. http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/107589955860/dear-us-followers . the cartoon about the Boko Haram kidnapped girls as welfare queens has a similar origin, put together different issues that were discussed in France, is far from a racist statement that victims of sex crime are happy welfare queens.

I saw many other cartoons that non-French mistook for racists because they did not understand them.

Ok, thanks for the context

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote: I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine .

Then don't read it. Nobody asked for your approval.

[Anonymous]

It is incredible how much phoniness and hypocrisy is spewed about the right to free speech as Muslima cited in the examples she provided.

In several countries in Europe, holocaust denial is a crime punishable by jail time. How many of the advocates of free speech roundly condemn such restrictions on free speech in those countries or even in the US?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.

You JUST basically said you do not believe freedom of speech should cover those things that you find offensive. That is a slippery slope toward complete censorship and a total lack of freedom. Do the logic. Think about it. Freedom of speech means that you, nor anyone else, has the right to NOT be offended. Believe or feel what you want about it; it is what I is. I didn't throw a shit fit as a Catholic when "Piss Christ" came out. My beliefs and my god are bigger than that, and it rolls off my back. Political and personal speech is not and should not be regulated, period.

No, you said that! I said that even though I do not agree or condone insults and mockery of faith, I do not support Vigilante murders. Why is this British reporter being asked to resign? Where is his freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html This whole situation in Paris is so filled with contradictions and intellectual hypocrisy. When the West goes around killing Muslims day and night in the name of democracy, and hundreds of millions living as refugees and suffering day and night, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here.And when the West arrests and imprisons Muslims that they perceive as a threat, without any evidence and send them to Guantanamo, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. And when the West funds and protects the worst tyrants in the world, tyrants who starve, imprison, and torture their people, and the West praises them as allies and funds them with billions of dollars, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. But hey, let a few Muslims go berserk and commit a terrorist act, and here we are in the millions marching for our freedom! Ahh, like the other was saying, It's so difficult to have conversations with people who can't realize that while you're forced to mourn their tragedies, they've never had to mourn yours!

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine .

Then don't read it. Nobody asked for your approval.

I never have and never will. Really, I don't go to bed thinking about C.H.