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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.

[/quote]

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."[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics