France steps up security at embassies as magazine publishes Prophet Mo cartoons

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

[Zanas]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

[dead0man]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

Indeed.

[Silent Hunter]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

They should never have stepped over that line in the first place.

[Zanas]

They should never have stepped over that line in the first place.

But who drew that line ? Democracy, aka the people, draw the lines ! The line today in France says : it's ok to draw Muhammad, it's ok to make fun of him, it's ok to criticize whoever you want, it's just not okay to provoke hatred against a community.

It's been since 1905 religions didn't draw the lines here. We're not letting them back.

[Zioneer]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

Yeah, I mean, they have the right to publish it, it's more of the ethics (or lack thereof) of knowingly and deliberating inflaming religious anger.

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

Yeah, I mean, they have the right to publish it, it's more of the ethics (or lack thereof) of knowingly and deliberating inflaming religious anger.

Precisely. People should have learnt that this. If you want to make of Islam, do it without drawing Mohammed - it just causes problems, because it's that offensive.

[Franzl]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

[Silent Hunter]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charlie Hebdo are massive FFs, as always.

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

If we start bending to this kind of logic, then free press becomes an empty phrase. Blasphemy is a right, a right which ought to be proclaimed, but also enforced in reality. If admit that you can't publish certain things because you know that some nutjob somewhere in the world might be offended by them, then  you're basically surrendering this right. And this is unacceptable.

And as a side note, I am truly disturbed by Hollande and the government's lack of support (actually, an almost veiled condemnation) of the magazine. I guess their attitude is based on diplomatic concerns, but it's still sad. Freedom of the press isn't negotiable.

[RogueBeaver]

I'm with Antonio 100% here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

     The responsibility is that of those who would kill over triviality. These people have to realize that it is the 21st century and their attempts to quash dissent must fail.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

These people have to realize that it is the 21st century

Really now

[Franzl]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

True of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

The reason why it is right to publish blasphemous caricatures right now, is because it reaffirms a principle which, otherwise, would be severely eroded. Blasphemy is always to be accepted, regardless of how some people in the world could possibly react to it.

The fact that it comes from a markedly progressive magazine which uses to denounce anti-muslim bigotry in Europe as forcefully as it denounces Islamic fundamentalism, makes it even more of a principled standing.

[Silent Hunter]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Why do people feel the need to pull this sh**t?

[Mister Twister]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

I agree with this completely.

[Silent Hunter]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

[Franzl]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

You really don't get it...

[Silent Hunter]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

You really don't get it...

Yes, I do. Charlie Hedbo decided that just because it could this, it should. In the process, it is inflaming many of the people we need to defeat al-Qaeda. I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but it must be used responsibly.

[Mr. Morden]

Gotta agree with the Antonio/Franzl axis on this one.  Just keep making Mohammed cartoons until the protestors get tired of protesting.  Next week, they'll be onto protesting over something else anyway.

In any case, looks like France is actually wimping out by banning protests over the cartoon(!):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/us-protests-france-ban-idUSBRE88K0G820120921