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."
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??
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.....
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.
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.
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
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.
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