Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Wimps.

This is an example of a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. there is nothing offensive in this cartoon, other than it depicts Mohamed, which is prohibited in the Muslim faith. News organization in the US self censor themselves and do not publish it. In Europe we think that if Islam forbids the depiction of the Mohamed, who was a historic figure and a normal man, then Muslims are free not to draw his picture, but everybody else can if they want to. when Muslima and others go on that the cartoons were racis and offensive they are in bad faith, because the big issue for Muslims is that Mohamed is depicted at all in the cartoons, not that he is depicted in a degrading manner. they are trying to impose their religous morals on us. I would never send a Mohamed cartoon to a Muslim friend because I don't want to offend him, as I would never cook a pig roast for Muslim or Jewish friend for the same reasons. but I want to have the right to eat pig and prosciutto as much as I want, and draw a cartoon of Mohamed and read cartoons made by others.

This is bull, the pictures that Muslims were complaining about were PORNOGRAPHIC pictures of the Prophet( saw). Usually, when cartoonists draw the Prophet Saw, it is to denigrate him, not to sow him in a good light, and that is their perogative but do not make this about a civil drawing that people went bonkers about. Because, that would be false!

Anonymous wrote:^ + 1, although, to be fair, some US news organizations, like the Washington Post, published it. In addition, this particular cartoon is newsworthy, and thus one more reason to publish it.

The only reason good why a news organization would decline to publish something like this in the current context is because they have corresponsals in places where their safety could be at risk.

I meant +1 to the recent post talking about self-censorship.

^ + 1, although, to be fair, some US news organizations, like the Washington Post, published it. In addition, this particular cartoon is newsworthy, and thus one more reason to publish it.

The only reason good why a news organization would decline to publish something like this in the current context is because they have corresponsals in places where their safety could be at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Muslima, let's get back to the subject. a satirical magazine in France published satirical cartoons on anybody and anything (if you read years of CH issues you can clearly see that but people like you do not care about the facts, they stick to their opinions that CH was just a anti-Islam racist magazine), including Islam, and they were slaughtered like animals by people who intended to punish them for "offending the Prophet". just for sport they also massacred some Jews on the side (just being Jew is apparently enough of an offense, you don't even need to draw a cartoon of Mohamed). of all the people/groups/religions that were mocked throughout the years by CH, only cartoons on Islam provoqued a massacre, and calls for censorship because the cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, so yes, some believe that they are a lot more equal than others and can impose their morals and religious beliefs on others. wink wink

Omg people, please take the time to read. I have many posts on this thread and other threads. I have repeated many times that No one deserves to die or be physically attacked because of something that they said or drew, so the only person you're having this debate with is yourself. You don't need to be convince me that murder is wrong. Having said that, if you think that the attacks were just about the drawing, and Jews, that's your prerogative but I will tell you that you are wrong, and that is my free opinion. There is over a billion of us who did not give 2 cents about what was published, 3 people did and suddenly we need to educate the Muslim savages about free speech. Free speech is not absolute, you censor yourself every single day. Next time a cop stops you, flip him off on your way out and see what happens, next time you're in a courtroom tell the judge he's a fat P.OS and next time you see your boss, tell him how much of a moron you think he is and see them if your speech is constitutionally protected. Oh at the next little league game, how about you show up drunk and tell all the other parents how crappy you think they are and see what happens. Go to Texas while you're at it, in a Hispanics neighborhood and tell them to all go back to Mexico and stop a random African American on the street and call him the N word.Whether you like it or not, we all censor free speech in the name of decency and ethics every single day, because after all, we are not barnyard animals and we have to live together.....

Anonymous wrote:^^And who is the arbiter of what is "reasonable"?

Society. At large. The democratically elected leaders of countries around the world. The constitutions of the world's free nations. Don't like it? Don't read or view what offends you. And don't live here. No one is forcing you to enjoy the freedom and economic opportunity of democratic nations. You are free to go live in a third world dictatorship of your choosing.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Fox has shown it at least once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

And such exceptions are very, very limited. As the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, it Muslims in the West are going to be so troubled about a satirical cartoon or magazine, then maybe they should consider living instead in a society where freedom of speech is not a respected value.

Limited they may be ..... but the point made by PP is that it is not absolute. If one deems certain restrictions as appropriate where does one draw the line? Why would one publish material that some consider to be so offensive that it would incite people to violence?

This is blaming the victim. There is NO EXCUSE for the violence, period. In a free society you do not have the right to live your life without being offended. Suggesting otherwise is nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Wimps.

This is an example of a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. there is nothing offensive in this cartoon, other than it depicts Mohamed, which is prohibited in the Muslim faith. News organization in the US self censor themselves and do not publish it. In Europe we think that if Islam forbids the depiction of the Mohamed, who was a historic figure and a normal man, then Muslims are free not to draw his picture, but everybody else can if they want to. when Muslima and others go on that the cartoons were racis and offensive they are in bad faith, because the big issue for Muslims is that Mohamed is depicted at all in the cartoons, not that he is depicted in a degrading manner. they are trying to impose their religous morals on us. I would never send a Mohamed cartoon to a Muslim friend because I don't want to offend him, as I would never cook a pig roast for Muslim or Jewish friend for the same reasons. but I want to have the right to eat pig and prosciutto as much as I want, and draw a cartoon of Mohamed and read cartoons made by others.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.

Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !

LOL!

I like you Muslima!!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Muslima, let's get back to the subject. a satirical magazine in France published satirical cartoons on anybody and anything (if you read years of CH issues you can clearly see that but people like you do not care about the facts, they stick to their opinions that CH was just a anti-Islam racist magazine), including Islam, and they were slaughtered like animals by people who intended to punish them for "offending the Prophet". just for sport they also massacred some Jews on the side (just being Jew is apparently enough of an offense, you don't even need to draw a cartoon of Mohamed). of all the people/groups/religions that were mocked throughout the years by CH, only cartoons on Islam provoqued a massacre, and calls for censorship because the cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, so yes, some believe that they are a lot more equal than others and can impose their morals and religious beliefs on others. wink wink

+ 1

^^And who is the arbiter of what is "reasonable"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

And such exceptions are very, very limited. As the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, it Muslims in the West are going to be so troubled about a satirical cartoon or magazine, then maybe they should consider living instead in a society where freedom of speech is not a respected value.

Limited they may be ..... but the point made by PP is that it is not absolute. If one deems certain restrictions as appropriate where does one draw the line? Why would one publish material that some consider to be so offensive that it would incite people to violence?

None of the cartoons were so offensive that they would incite reasonable people to violence. The two murderers were not reasonable. You don't create standards based upon what violent religious extremists might do, you base standards upon reasonable people.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

And such exceptions are very, very limited. As the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, it Muslims in the West are going to be so troubled about a satirical cartoon or magazine, then maybe they should consider living instead in a society where freedom of speech is not a respected value.

Limited they may be ..... but the point made by PP is that it is not absolute. If one deems certain restrictions as appropriate where does one draw the line? Why would one publish material that some consider to be so offensive that it would incite people to violence?

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Muslima, let's get back to the subject. a satirical magazine in France published satirical cartoons on anybody and anything (if you read years of CH issues you can clearly see that but people like you do not care about the facts, they stick to their opinions that CH was just a anti-Islam racist magazine), including Islam, and they were slaughtered like animals by people who intended to punish them for "offending the Prophet". just for sport they also massacred some Jews on the side (just being Jew is apparently enough of an offense, you don't even need to draw a cartoon of Mohamed). of all the people/groups/religions that were mocked throughout the years by CH, only cartoons on Islam provoqued a massacre, and calls for censorship because the cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, so yes, some believe that they are a lot more equal than others and can impose their morals and religious beliefs on others. wink wink

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

And such exceptions are very, very limited. As the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, it Muslims in the West are going to be so troubled about a satirical cartoon or magazine, then maybe they should consider living instead in a society where freedom of speech is not a respected value.