Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

most on this forum think he is racist.

I wish I had Maher's memory. No one refutes the facts. moral equivalence at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj58TavOIqg#t=13

And you know this how? I don't swing one way or the other with Maher but you're presuming an awful lot.

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

most on this forum think he is racist.

I wish I had Maher's memory. No one refutes the facts. moral equivalence at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj58TavOIqg#t=13

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

From what I heard on CNN, one of the CNN reporters spoke to a classmate of the kid and the classmate stated that he was in class at the time of the events. I am curious though about how the cops got his name or what his involvement might be , since only one of the brothers' I.D was left in the car.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is so difficult for some to understand that repulsion does not justify execution?

Has anyone here misunderstood that? It seems so easy to understand that all of us have understood it.

Btw, I wasn't referring to anyone here but there are many people who DO feel that the executions were justified. To assume otherwise is unrealistic.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now

I heard one snippet today that said he claims to not have been involved. I think I heard he had witnesses that could prove he wasn't. But, I'm not sure. I would bet he is being seriously interrogated.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

I think they are playing it close to the vest. Too much information might play authorities hand. They probably already know he was or was not involved and are getting her single piece of information they can. The classmates all said he was in school when the murders happened but that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't privy to some other crucial information.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is so difficult for some to understand that repulsion does not justify execution?

Has anyone here misunderstood that? It seems so easy to understand that all of us have understood it.

Agreed. There is no justification whether you think something is obscene or repulsive regardless of someone or some groups sensitivities being assaulted no matter who it is.

Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

You're missing the point. CH may be a pure issue of freedom of speech, but niqab-wearing is more complicated. The niqab debate is NOT just about freedom of speech. It is VERY relevant to bring the reasons women wear the niqab into the conversation, and whether they are in fact wearing it freely, as well as issues of national mores.

Niqab-wearing is not more complicated. It is a freedom of speech issue, if you can't see that, that is your prerogative but to restrict niqab because you don't know if people are forced to wear it or national mores is ridiculous and hypocritical when you label yourself as a free democracy.

Also, you don't get that we're talking about two sides of the same coin: You can't call for burka wearing and muzzling CH in the same breath.

Iam not muzzling CH. The niqab ban has been in place since 2010. My point remains, you can not ask Muslims to accept CH in the name of freedom of speech and in that same breath tell them they can't dress the way they choose to because it is inconsistent with the values of the republic.

Sorry, you never said what you're now claiming you said (that the idiocy involves expecting change). Here is what you actually said: " At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen." Your quote is right above, and everybody can check for themselves.

That's exactly what I said. Nowhere was it said it was referring to CH, you made that assumption on your own and I corrected you and told you that was referring to the current continuous printing of the cartoons thinking that would make a change, if you can't accept that, i can't help you.

Please, just stop with the nonsense about how the cartoons were designed to "provoke people to violence". The cartoons were a form of expression, no more, no less. But your rephrasing about how they were intended to "provoke violence" once again shifts the blame from the violent people to their victims.

Your words , not mine. Nowhere did I say that the cartoons were intended to provoke violence, maybe that is truly what you think? Interesting ~

CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

Anonymous wrote:What is so difficult for some to understand that repulsion does not justify execution?

Has anyone here misunderstood that? It seems so easy to understand that all of us have understood it.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of you here would have hated and despised George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, and Richard Pryor who could be totally irreverent.

Good examples. When Bruce and Carlin were arrested, do you think the Washington Post rushed to publish their unedited jokes in solidarity? Doubt it. If the network news had run unedited clips, they would have ended up with FCC fines.

Examples of what, exactly? Bruce and Carlin were arrested for obscenity (the obscene words in question seem almost quaint today), not for using media to make statements about political threats. Or, are you arguing that these different freedom of speech issues (obscenity, terrorist violence)!are on the same plane, and the Post should be in solidarity with them all? Did anybody get so offended they tried to kill Bruce or Carlin, or were they arrested for breaking actual laws on the books?

Bruce was arrested for using the word 'schmuck.' Additionally, clubs that promoted his act were also arrested for obscenity. The media was very much involved to publicize his statements thereby garnering outrage or approval.

It is abhorrent then and now that definitions of what is obscene still garners jail time and now murder. What is so difficult for some to understand that repulsion does not justify execution?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:This Wikipedia page on hate speech laws in France is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

In particular, this part under "Freedom of the press":

"Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments."

France appears to be far more restrictive than the US.

Most of Europe is. Perhaps all of it. They don't understand our tolerance of hate speech and we don't understand their criminalization of it.

Umm, I disagree. 70 million Europeans died between 1939-1945 because of hate speech . So , with their countries in ashes , faced with 40-50 years to rebuild their cities, they made hate speech a criminal offense. Its also a crime in Germany to deny the Hollocaust.

Get it now.

As I recall, Houllebecq has been sued by the French government for inciting racial hatred against Muslims.