Reply to terrorist attack in Paris

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "terrorist attack in Paris "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.[/quote]

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.
[/quote]

I think you're saying that we should let the police do their work, and be done with it. I also feel that this is a position of convenience for you. I feel like you'd totally change your mind if there were a hilarious cartoon involving the Trinity and homosexuals to be published. Maybe I'm wrong.

Finding and incarcerating the killers in no way stops the threat to CH. Without support from other journalists, CH is exposed again. CH is out there again as one of the few journals challenging threats involving cartoons. Unless CH caves too, which might well happen in the absense of support from other journals and journalists. Perhaps you think CH should never have published the cartoons in the first place, which is a defensible position, but now that CH went there, to me caving has become like paying ransom for hostages.

So why shouldn't people use any other non-violent means of protest that are available to them? Sure, other journalists are writing exposes about al Qaeda and ISIS, but nobody was ever killed over an expose. [b]People are being killed over cartoons, so cartoons are point the where other journalists can lend non-violent support[/b].
[/quote]

People are not being killed over cartoons, you can not look at this in a vacuum. Terrorism is always a symptom of something much bigger, the protagonists use the cartoons as their excuse. I don't know if anyone saw what Tim Wise said today but I completely agree with his point:
[quote]
As we rightly condemn the senseless and barbaric murders of journalists in Paris can we still manage to have a rational conversation about free speech, without the empty platitudes about how these cartoonists were "heroes?" For instance, I believe it is possible to agree that free speech is an essential value, and that journalists should have the right to say what they want -- even to offend others -- without then proceeding to act as though every act of speech (just because people have a right to it) is therefore worth defending as to its substance, and that free speech protects one from being critiqued for the things one says. What I mean is this: I have a right, I suppose, to stand in the middle of Times Square and shout racial or religious slurs. And I surely should be able to do that without fear of being murdered for it. This last point in particular is so obvious as to be beyond debate, I would hope. But if I do this, whether in Times Square or in print, it makes me an asshole, and one who deserves to be labeled as such. Not a hero, but an asshole. And I don't become a hero just because I insulted people, some of whom might be even bigger assholes than me, and so dangerous and unstable that they decide to hurt me. [b]People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one's speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong---always---I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of people whose job appears to have been to insult people they considered inferior to themselves. Especially because, historically, satire has always been about barbs aimed at those who are MORE powerful than oneself (the elite, royalty, the dominant social, economic, political or religious group), rather than being aimed down the power structure at those with less power. To satirize people who are the targets of institutionalized violence (whether for religious or racial or cultural or linguistic or sexual or gendered reasons) is not brave. It's sort of shitty, in fact. Should it be protected legally? Sure. Should those who do it be killed or punished in any way? Of course not. But should we hold them up as exemplars of who we want to be, all the while ignoring how the exercise of their freedom, without any sense of responsibility to the common good, actually feeds acrimony and violence on all sides? I think not. I really think we need to be talking about this[/b].[/quote][/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