Anonymous wrote:
I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/yy9vg6P.jpg

This is the best post. Thank you!

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No

Anonymous wrote:We are at war. Its not going away. Face it.

Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally condemned? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

The two questions you pose exactly outline the distinction I suggested. I agree and concur with your answers to both. I disagree that this is not the time discuss the second question. Ironically, saying that we shouldn't discuss that question because doing so is insensitive or whatever is exactly the same as saying the magazine shouldn't have published the cartoons because they would upset people. I agree with the expression, "I don't agree with what you are saying, but defend your right to say it." Based on what I know about Charlie Hedbo, I think stressing the potential for not agreeing with the publication is probably important.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!

While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.

I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.

Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.

Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.

I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.  I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1

Muslima, there is really a fundamental difference between us. I would not only express solidarity to a journalists, but also to a "racist publication" in an event like this. I also find these kinds of distinctions, hours after a massacre with the bodies still there, quite distasteful.

BTW, I strongly desagree that CH is a racist publication and that represent Islam in a racist way. CH is a satirical magazine that pokes fun at everything and everybody, including politicians in France of all types and colors, including religions. more than Islam, the cartoons I saw were poking fun at idiots like the ones who most likely are responsible for the attack, people who use Islam to justify their ideology of violence .

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.

You are right. I never even heard of the publication until today. Doing some Googling, I see they do treat Jews the same way. Does everyone feel comfortable defending this and similar images:



Perhaps a French-speaker can comment, but according to the page on which I found this picture, the cover is parodying the Holocaust.

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.

Anonymous wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/yy9vg6P.jpg

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally condemned? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.