R.I.P. Charlie Hebdo

[VASith]

It has taken me a bit of effort to keep my posts about free speech - there's a fair bit that I've self-censored as per board rules. Je ne suis pas Charlie after all




There are nuances everywhere, I do understand that Devil said it succinctly - speech is the last line. We might be 'controlled' in all sorts of ways, but however we might behave, our speech is our own. Control the way a society speaks to itself, and controlling the way it thinks isn't far off.

I think we have passed that point in the good old us of a. No going back now.

 

[Lejuan]

I think we have passed that point in the good old us of a. No going back now.

Ultimately though, whatever the practice of democratic principles may look or feel like to some US citizens, the constitutional architecture is sound, no?

 

[Lejuan]

Does anyone, anywhere, have bigger kahunas than the new Charlie Hebdo editorial team?

Reprisals feared as Charlie Hebdo publishes new Muhammad cartoon

 

[YankeesFanboy]

Does anyone, anywhere, have bigger kahunas than the new Charlie Hebdo editorial team?

Reprisals feared as Charlie Hebdo publishes new Muhammad cartoon

The cover of the new issue — already widely seen on the Internet — will be published on Wednesday in a print run of up to three million copies, compared with a typical print run of 60,000 copies. It shows Muhammad displaying the slogan that has become the symbol of resistance to Islamic militants: "Je Suis Charlie," or, "I am Charlie." He is shown weeping under a headline that reads: "All is forgiven."

​

 

[YankeesFanboy]

You Can't Buy Charlie Hebdo's New Issue in the U.S. Tomorrow - US News

Sigh.

 

[Lejuan]

Only a true numbnut savage could take offence at a newspaper read by 60 thousand people and, through their barbaric retort, turn it into a newspaper read by up to 3 million people. Nice one

 

[meth head]

I am deeply saddened by the abhorrent actions carried out by these Muslims extremists.

I do however find this whole topic on democracy and freedom of speech somewhat confusing and ambiguous to say the least.

Our wonderful PM is there in Paris showing his support for democracy and freedom of speech, and rightly so, but back home this is what his party are campaigning.

UK counter-terrorism bill to include campus ban on extremists | Politics | The Guardian

I am not defending violence, but where do you draw the line on democracy and freedom of speech?!

 

[Lejuan]

On the face of it, this appears to be a knee-jerk response. It's not the universities that the Home Secretary needs to be worrying about.

 

[meth head]

On the face of it, this appears to be a knee-jerk response. It's not the universities that the Home Secretary needs to be worrying about.

And you are probably correct, however, it seems like an absurd contradiction in terms.

I whole heartedly do not support or condone radical/extremist behaviour, but one could argue the publication by Charlie Hebdo is exactly that?! My point is, we are fighting against the censorship of this publication and the provocation it has caused, yet we as a nation (Britain) are putting forward a bill to censor precisely that?

I am confused!

Edit: not just Britian as well I might add. Paris march: Political divide exposed as politicians who repress freedom of speech join rally - Europe - World - The Independent

 

[Lejuan]

And you are probably correct, however, it seems like an absurd contradiction in terms.

I whole heartedly do not support or condone radical/extremist behaviour, but one could argue the publication by Charlie Hebdo is exactly that?! My point is, we are fighting against the censorship of this publication and the provocation it has caused, yet we as a nation (Britain) are putting forward a bill to censor precisely that?

I am confused!

What I mean is, it appears to be a knee-jerk response on the British government's part. Universities are places where all views can be robustly discussed and debated - and, if need be, closely monitored by concerned parties. It is hard to see what exactly the Home Secretary hopes to achieve by denying extremists visiting rights to universities. Is the strategy that these figures and groups - and the ideologies they disseminate - will magically disappear? I'm not convinced by this strategy. But I've only read a couple of articles reporting on it, I'd have to see the bill itself to properly judge it.

Charlie Hebdo is distinct because it lies in the satirical domain. The freedom to lampoon has long been a central pillar in notions of free speech. In Australia, extremists risk falling foul of freedom of speech when actively inciting violence. There's a big difference between sticking a satirical middle finger up at a group and encouraging others to chops someone's head off.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I believe in censoring those who incite others to act in barbaric violence and murder, but not those who wish to discuss a controversial topic but peacefully even if heated.

Radicalisation needs to be curbed, it is indoctrination and inducement to commit violent crime and in my mind is no different to predatory grooming

 

[The Ween]

I am deeply saddened by the abhorrent actions carried out by these Muslims extremists.

I do however find this whole topic on democracy and freedom of speech somewhat confusing and ambiguous to say the least.

Our wonderful PM is there in Paris showing his support for democracy and freedom of speech, and rightly so, but back home this is what his party are campaigning.

UK counter-terrorism bill to include campus ban on extremists | Politics | The Guardian

I am not defending violence, but where do you draw the line on democracy and freedom of speech?!

Like it or not, Universities have the right to run their colleges as they see fit. Here they turn a blind eye to most things until something bad happens. Then they still turn a blind eye.

 

[BB&WSF]

 

[Lejuan]

Like it or not, Universities have the right to run their colleges as they see fit. Here they turn a blind eye to most things until something bad happens. Then they still turn a blind eye.

The trouble with this proposed bill is that it appears to take the decision of who is allowed access to universities out of the hands of the universities and into the hands of the Home Secretary.

 

[devilof76]

Aren't British universities largely public (state) institutions?

 

[Lejuan]

Yes, as in Australia tuition fees are subsidised. But academic independence and integrity have always been acknowledged and respected by the government of the day. I doubt this bill will get up. it's not as though universities have been in the habit of inviting terrorists onto their campuses anyway. This story wreaks of a beat-up.

 

[devilof76]

What's most bizarre about that is that Britain has some of the strongest hate-speech laws in the world, and I believe demonizing the criticism of religion is a cornerstone of that. They need to buy a compass and figure out which end is their ass.

 

[Lejuan]

too true. I love our British cousins, I really do. But they seem to be deluded into thinking that simply not allowing anything nasty to be said about race and religion achieves a racially and religiously tolerant society. The great failure of political correctness is that it discourages assimilation based on a cohesive set of shared values, thanks to the well-meaning but ultimately erroneous notion that all cultures should be free to operate within their host society by their own set of values. And then it demands that people who take issue with this shut the **** up.

If Australians weren't so ****ing rude we'd be exactly the same.

 

[Dr Sanchez]

These guys used to live with the American underwear bomber, they were allowed to post pics of themselves on facebook at a Yemen terrorist training camp shooting AK47's and bragging about how they were going to come back home and kill people and then they get back to France with weapons and cause this massacre and we are supposed to believe that French intelligence agencies or the NSA didn't know what they were gonna do and so couldnt prevent them ? Bulls**t ! This whole thing stinks just like 9/11.

 

[meth head]

I still refuse to believe Hebdo are wholly innocent in all of this. That doesn't mean for one second that I condone the actions of those Muslim extremists.

It may be seen as 'satirical banter' to some or the majority, I don't know, but in reality we know it is going to offend and cause provocation amongst certain (sensitive) sections of the Islamic faith. This reaction to publications like this is not a new phenomena.

The debate on free speech, and who and when we can exercise that democratic right is fraught with complications, as I have posted above.

I just don't understand why we (Hebdo) would want to realistically cause unrest with this type of commentary, satirical or not.