Or it could just be that most papers recognize that the cartoons were in bad taste to begin with. What greater good is really served by reprinting them? Printing them does nothing but taunt both the extremists and ordinary Muslims.
I think reprinting them shows solidarity with the cartoonists and the recognition that they didn't die for nothing. It's been frankly nauseating for me to read some self serving pieces in the herald and globe and mail about how "we are all Charlie" even though they were too cowardly to reprint the cartoons. The point of solidarity is if all media sources show the images the terrorists can't attack every media outlet, strength in numbers and all that. Beyond MAYBE the one with the make out scene the cartoons aren't even that obscene, it may be against Koranic law to draw Muhammad but thankfully France and the west are not ruled by Koranic law. That's the point the Hebdo guys were trying to make, and the point that all but a few media outlets have perverted.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
That's the point the Hebdo guys were trying to make, and the point that all but a few media outlets have perverted.
Saying more papers should publish the cartoons is ironically contradictory to free speech and free press.
The media your'e complaining about is also free to not publish what they don't want to publish and you should be supportive of that as well.
It's not about them being afraid or giving in to terrorists, it's about them being free to choose what's appropriate for their own papers and for many these cartoons don't fit that.
So its not ok to taunt ordinary Muslims, or extremists? The media literally taunts everybody. Who cares if the cartoons bother ordinary muslims, they need to realize the larger context in this situation.
to what DiracSpike said, the media does not trust the muslims in their community wherever that may be. Ordinary Muslims don't seem to be ashamed of this fact.
After the tens of thousands that showed up to protest islamaphobia in Germany, Its quite ironic that the muslims in a community that had large anti racism rally the day before decided to torch a editorial office that reprinted the cover.
Saying more papers should publish the cartoons is ironically contradictory to free speech and free press.
The media your'e complaining about is also free to not publish what they don't want to publish and you should be supportive of that as well.
It's not about them being afraid or giving in to terrorists, it's about them being free to choose what's appropriate for their own papers and for many these cartoons don't fit that.
Its not out of free will that they don't publish it. Thats the issue, Its because of intimidation, and the fact that they don't want to die of lead poisoning
So its not ok to taunt ordinary Muslims, or extremists? The media literally taunts everybody. Who cares if the cartoons bother ordinary muslims, they need to realize the larger context in this situation.
to what DiracSpike said, the media does not trust the muslims in their community wherever that may be. Ordinary Muslims don't seem to be ashamed of this fact.
After the tens of thousands that showed up to protest islamaphobia in Germany, Its quite ironic that the muslims in a community that had large anti racism rally the day before decided to torch a editorial office that reprinted the cover.
Sure it's OK to taunt whomever, but that doesn't mean they should. Being free to do something doesn't make is wise.
If you went back 100 years, you would probably be appalled at what passed for satire and was published in the mainstream media about people of African decent. They were free to publish the images, but it doesn't mean they were on a moral high ground to do it. Similarly during WW2, western papers used to show disparaging satirical cartoons of Japanese people. Sure, most of them depicted Tojo and Japanese soldiers, but the images were no less appalling towards Japanese people in general. I don't see the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as any different. Most people look back at those WW2 images and realize how disgusting they were, and I think one day people will look back at the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab satire popular in France in a similar way.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 01-11-2015 at 11:42 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Its not out of free will that they don't publish it. Thats the issue, Its because of intimidation, and the fact that they don't want to die of lead poisoning
That's BS. A lot of people don't find the cartoons appropriate or in good taste. You can't make assumptions about why individual media outlets don't want to post them just to fit your view of the world.
Their actions suggest they don't want to publish them, and their freedom allows them to do just that.
Saying more papers should publish the cartoons is ironically contradictory to free speech and free press.
The media your'e complaining about is also free to not publish what they don't want to publish and you should be supportive of that as well.
It's not about them being afraid or giving in to terrorists, it's about them being free to choose what's appropriate for their own papers and for many these cartoons don't fit that.
Oh absolutely, and I would never force media outlets to print them, I didn't articulate my point well enough. If you're the editor of a paper and find the cartoons obscene or offensive then absolutely do not print them. But if you do that then don't publish editorial gum-flapping about standing with Hebdo or anything like that, which is what the herald, CBC, and the globe and mail did.
The cartoons I have seen are actually what I believe to be quite clever critiques of fundamentalist Islamists corrupting the peaceful messages of their religion.
Its not out of free will that they don't publish it. Thats the issue, Its because of intimidation, and the fact that they don't want to die of lead poisoning
Or they are just mature enough not to add further incitement to an already enflamed "us vs them" mentality being built up when incidents like this happen. Someone has to be level headed enough to make decisions that allow cooler heads to prevail.
Its not fear or cowardice to act responsibly. Making a point to insult Islam right now simply does not help.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
Sure it's OK to taunt whomever, but that doesn't mean they should. Being free to do something doesn't make is wise.
If you went back 100 years, you would probably be appalled at what passed for satire and was published in the mainstream media about people of African decent. They were free to publish the images, but it doesn't mean they were on a moral high ground to do it. Similarly during WW2, western papers used to show disparaging satirical cartoons of Japanese people. Sure, most of them depicted Tojo and Japanese soldiers, but the images no less appalling towards Japanese people in general. I don't see the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as any different. Most people look back at those WW2 images and realize how disgusting they were, and I think one day people will look back at the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab satire popular in France in a similar way.
You don't have to go back 100 years, to be frank most of Charlie Hebdos cartoons portrayals of minorities are racist throw backs to the last century.
As a magazine Charlie Hebdo is reprehensible rubbish mostly.
Or it could just be that most papers recognize that the cartoons were in bad taste to begin with. What greater good is really served by reprinting them? Printing them does nothing but taunt both the extremists and ordinary Muslims.
I think the point of #spreadtherisk was that if enough media published the cartoons, there would be too many targets to attack.
We can, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali nicely put it, ‘spread the risk’. If we all stand up and repeat what caused the supposed ‘offence’, then tomorrow any individual who might have self-censored out of fear will realize they’re not an isolated target, but just one target amongst countless thousands. The risk is spread between us to the point where the danger faced by any one individual becomes negligable again.
We can, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali nicely put it, ‘spread the risk’. If we all stand up and repeat what caused the supposed ‘offence’, then tomorrow any individual who might have self-censored out of fear will realize they’re not an isolated target, but just one target amongst countless thousands. The risk is spread between us to the point where the danger faced by any one individual becomes negligable again.
Is he saying that if they make more targets, that the extremists will be forced to spread themselves too thin to make any type of attack meaningful? Because if so, I really doubt that would happen.
They will just pick one target and focus their resources on it. I don't thinks most extremists are really that organized.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
