how to respond to the attacks

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

This has sort of already happened, OP. Didn't your social media feed already blow up with CH images?

[Anonymous]

14:55, I don't think the terrorists are frightened by people holding up signs saying "Je Suis Charlie Hebdo." There's nothing at all in those signs that upsets them.

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

No thanks. Not my thing to put down anyone's religion or culture. While I condemn the violence of these particular individuals, I do not think it is constructive to insult the religion of many others who are peaceful and who are, for the most part, comdemning the attacks also.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

Related to what this thread is discussing :
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0&referrer=

[Anonymous]

You know....it is just odd. We are all reeling from these attacks. And I still cannot get my head around the significance of it all.

The cartoons were offensive to many Muslims. But a few fundamentalist crackpots expressed their displeasure violently and outside the realm of conscience. It was senseless and mindless violence in the "name" of religion. But the underlying thing remaining is that the cartoons were also offensive to many peaceful and law abiding Muslims.

In light of what has happened, it seems pretty insensitive to flaunt these same offensive images in the defense of "free expression." We can condemn the attacks and discuss free expression without further insulting a religon and those peaceful people who practice it. Just my opinion.

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

I think the violent Muslim extremists would just use the posting of offensive images to fuel even more violence and hatred. I would worry they would perversely be happy, as if it validated further Muslim extremist craziness.

[Anonymous]

And if the cartoons offended some, so what, you can't go shooting people over it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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?

No, of course I don't think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved. What kind of idiotic question is that?

But, neither do I believe that the magazine or it's current supporters are as committed to freedom of expression as they would have us believe.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

No, of course I don't think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved. What kind of idiotic question is that?

But, neither do I believe that the magazine or it's current supporters are as committed to freedom of expression as they would have us believe.

Calling them "hypocrites" is a rather extreme way to express that, wouldn't you agree?

[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.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/09/lebanon-born-porn-star-draws-fans-death-threats-after-performing-in-hijab/

Yes! Let's all buy HER movie. Let's defend HER right to wear a hijab.