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

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

Liberty is not license, rights come with concomitant responsibilities. It’s up to society to determine what is irresponsible, what is license and legislate and/or stigmatize accordingly.

Most in the West would agree as I do, a cartoon does not warrant a death sentence.

And… if the ‘team’ was upset they could have quit or fired the editor…

[Muslima]

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

[Anonymous]

Freedom of speech, best understood, is freedom from government controls on speech. We have a broad view free speech n this country, thanks to the Supreme Court. Hate speech efforts by various colleges have faced generally skeptical receptions in courts and with the public at large. There is no perfect answer.

[Anonymous]

I think the phrase "dragged team to their death" implies that there is an argument that they deserved to be killed, or at least that they had it coming.

I agree that while creating provocative cartoons may not be the kindest choice, or potentially even the wisest one, it is in no way punishable by death. And if the staff didn't like the editor, as a PP said, they were free to change jobs or vote the editor down at his next reappointment. It's not like they were forced to draw these cartoons with a gun to their heads.

[Anonymous]

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??

[Anonymous]

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.

What inconsistency are you seeing in this position on freedom of speech? Pigasse is not a hypocrite. He didn't restrict the speech he objects to. He didn't kill anyone for saying it. He simply stated his objection to it. That IS free speech. Free speech doesn't mean "don't disagree with the other guy". It means "let the guy you disagree with talk". You can still say "You're wrong and you shouldn't have said that."

[Anonymous]

It's a deliberately provocative comment, and the lawyer was responding to that. The staff are all competent adults - they also had a say or could walk out if they weren't happy. Seems like the unity is breaking already.

I'm French, BTW. Charlie Hebdo wasn't particularly popular in France, but filled a historical niche of polemical cartooning that we have had for hundreds of years. It's like striking in the streets. A kind of "tradition".

[Anonymous]

I think we need to recognize that there are three different issues here:

1. Freedom of Speech

2. The morality of the content

3. The wisdom of an employer publishing it, knowing the potential for harm to staff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to recognize that there are three different issues here:

1. Freedom of Speech

2. The morality of the content

3. The wisdom of an employer publishing it, knowing the potential for harm to staff

4. The employees' freedom to quit.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Muslima]

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.....

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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

[jsteele]

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.

What inconsistency are you seeing in this position on freedom of speech? Pigasse is not a hypocrite. He didn't restrict the speech he objects to. He didn't kill anyone for saying it. He simply stated his objection to it. That IS free speech. Free speech doesn't mean "don't disagree with the other guy". It means "let the guy you disagree with talk". You can still say "You're wrong and you shouldn't have said that."

The lawyer, Richard Malka, didn't only object to the content of the article. He also objected to the fact that it was published. Everyone is quoting Voltaire (wrongly, since Voltaire never said it), about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it. It may be a small difference, but Malka is disagreeing with what was said and the fact that it was published. That is what I think is hypocritical. In contrast, I strongly disagree with the content of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons but equally strongly support the magazine's right to publish them. Not to mention that someone who is paid to defend the publishing of offensive material should be the last to complain about the publishing of offensive material.

As for the "dragged" to their death remark, it is not uncommon to blame people for the predictable outcomes of their risky -- yet legal -- behavior. In general, I am not a fan of that "blame the victim" mentality. But, it happens all the time from warnings not to walk at night in dangerous parts of the city to cautions about how to dress and what to drink (or not drink) at frat parties. I cringe every time I hear someone say "he/she had it coming" and this example is no different. The fault lies solely with the perpetrator and not the victim.