@MTVNews: #CharlieHebdo's next cover to depict the prophet Muhammad: http://t.co/3MsQmLbCCA
It's time to stop
Not only should they not stop, the rest of the "free press" should not be cowards and show this cover in solidarity with a free press, freedom of speech.
Since the Danish cartoons the worlds "free press" has already self censored itself to an overwhelming degree, and has left a few brave organizations to do it and face the consequences of it.
Sorry but someone's religious beliefs do not trump our rights in a free society to mock religion, not by any stretch of the imagination!
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 01-13-2015 at 01:22 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Yep very sad indeed. I found a good Muslim defending the idea that the acts of a few do not represent the whole, worth a listen, those arguing against him are painfully stupid.
Skip to 40 mins, where he responds if you don't want to watch the entire thing. This was done the day after those British soliders were attacked in London with knives.
So your opinion is that they should assist terrorism in being effective.
I am sure it suits the extremists and terrorists just fine to increase publication. They want to bring the fight to as many fronts as possible. I see their attacks, including the one on Charlie Hebdo, less as a silencing tactic and more of an invitation to escalate. Increasing publication just feeds into that.
The best response is for everyone to go about their business like they did a week ago. If people/media were not going to publish the images on January 6th because they are in bad taste, then they shouldn't today just out of spite. Changing our behavior at all gives them power.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I am sure it suits the extremists and terrorists just fine to increase publication. They want to bring the fight to as many fronts as possible. I see their attacks, including the one on Charlie Hebdo, less as a silencing tactic and more of an invitation to escalate. Increasing publication just feeds into that.
The best response is for everyone to go about their business like they did a week ago. If people/media were not going to publish the images on January 6th because they are in bad taste, then they shouldn't today just out of spite. Changing our behavior at all gives them power.
The problem with this is that western media is already self sensoring to an alarming degree. The Herald is an excellent example. "Je suis Charlie", my ass. In my view, they are not reprinting out of fear, not out of a sense of deeming the material offensive. The new cover posted above is a perfect example that should be used in the fight for free speech. We should not give in.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Not only should they not stop, the rest of the "free press" should not be cowards and show this cover in solidarity with a free press, freedom of speech.
Since the Danish cartoons the worlds "free press" has already self censored itself to an overwhelming degree, and has left a few brave organizations to do it and face the consequences of it.
Sorry but someone's religious beliefs do not trump our rights in a free society to mock religion, not by any stretch of the imagination!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
The problem with this is that western media is already self sensoring to an alarming degree. The Herald is an excellent example. "Je suis Charlie", my ass. In my view, they are not reprinting out of fear, not out of a sense of deeming the material offensive. The new cover posted above is a perfect example that should be used in the fight for free speech. We should not give in.
I agree the press shouldn't give in, but it sure is goddamn easy to call someone a coward when you're not the one putting your employees children's parents in the line of fire...
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
The best response is for everyone to go about their business like they did a week ago. If people/media were not going to publish the images on January 6th because they are in bad taste, then they shouldn't today just out of spite. Changing our behavior at all gives them power.
Did the media refuse to publish the images on January 6th because they were in bad taste, or does the media just not make a habit of printing images from other publications unless there is some particular reason to do so? I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect that it's the later.
Now that there are multiple reasons to do so (primarily relevance to the news, but secondarily as a sign that violence and threats of violence will not control whether or not that relevant news gets fully reported), it wouldn't be out of spite and it certainly wouldn't give "them" power. In fact, it would do just the opposite.
I agree the press shouldn't give in, but it sure is goddamn easy to call someone a coward when you're not the one putting your employees children's parents in the line of fire...
I agree that it does take some courage, but look what you wrote, "in the line of fire". Printing cartoons is not, or should not, be considered an act of war. Any actions that suggest otherwise must be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and I think that includes reprinting the images. As Hitchens points out in the video, the western press failed miserably in the Danish cartoon incident. They absolutely need to do better, and I think by showing solidarity, it removes the power from the radicals, as it shows we will not succumb to blackmail. "Je suis Charlie" basically means we are all targets, and I for one believe that is true.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Everybody is all Freedom of Speech rah rah!!! but what about respecting other religions and beliefs. For example these cartoons, what did drawing them do, that couldn't have been done by other means. The cartoon were specifically made to indirectly or directly offend in some way. I'm not saying Government should take away any freedoms, everybody has a right to free speech. That does not make what they say to be ethical, valuable, or important in any way. People have the responsibility to be better.
In any discussion I have ever had with people, when someone brings up 'I have the right to freedom of speech' they are usually being offensive, racist, sexist, or any other ism and they use freedom of speech as a misinformed cover! This as an example, you offended a group of people to the point that some extremists killed somebody, and because of 'freedom of speech' every media outlet should print more offensive stuff. That really solves the problem.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
I agree that it does take some courage, but look what you wrote, "in the line of fire". Printing cartoons is not, or should not, be considered an act of war. Any actions that suggest otherwise must be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and I think that includes reprinting the images. As Hitchens points out in the video, the western press failed miserably in the Danish cartoon incident. They absolutely need to do better, and I think by showing solidarity, it removes the power from the radicals, as it shows we will not succumb to blackmail. "Je suis Charlie" basically means we are all targets, and I for one believe that is true.
Those are fine words to believe we are all targets, but it's simply hogwash. Are you a target for getting bombed, burned or shot because the Herald reprints a stupid cartoon? No, that's ridiculous. It will be the girl at reception, the guy working the press out the saleswoman walking around near the front. Printing cartoons should not ever be justification for any violence. Doesn't mean you can call someone who fears for their staff a coward from behind a computer desk. As usual, the subject is more complex and difficult than a slogan or Hitchens YouTube can solve. We need to show solidarity with the press. Maybe we start by not calling them cowards???
I agree it's the right thing to do, but this holier-than-thou finger waiving from behind a computer screen is the very definition of Internet martyrdom.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Everybody is all Freedom of Speech rah rah!!! but what about respecting other religions and beliefs. For example these cartoons, what did drawing them do, that couldn't have been done by other means. The cartoon were specifically made to indirectly or directly offend in some way. I'm not saying Government should take away any freedoms, everybody has a right to free speech. That does not make what they say to be ethical, valuable, or important in any way. People have the responsibility to be better.
In any discussion I have ever had with people, when someone brings up 'I have the right to freedom of speech' they are usually being offensive, racist, sexist, or any other ism and they use freedom of speech as a misinformed cover! This as an example, you offended a group of people to the point that some extremists killed somebody, and because of 'freedom of speech' every media outlet should print more offensive stuff. That really solves the problem.
Where was the respecting people's beliefs when people for years hammered the catholic church on it's stances? Again, if your faith is hampered by a drawing, your faith is weak.
The problem with this is that western media is already self sensoring to an alarming degree. The Herald is an excellent example. "Je suis Charlie", my ass. In my view, they are not reprinting out of fear, not out of a sense of deeming the material offensive. The new cover posted above is a perfect example that should be used in the fight for free speech. We should not give in.
The new cover isn't that bad, but some of the things Charlie Hebdo has published in the past were probably not suitable for mainstream media. Supporting freedom of speech is fine, but they can do it without supporting the publication specifically. If things were reversed and some anti-Islamists attacked a mosque, I wouldn't expect the Herald to publish exerts from the Koran in order to show support. Condemning the attack based on western sensibilities of freedom of speech or religion would be enough.
I think that is where a lot of the papers stand. They support freedom of speech and condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo from that perspective, but they do not necessarily support Charlie Hebdo as a publication.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
While I do think its very important, maybe more important than ever, to satirize religion, and Islam in particular, I also question the motives of some of the people beating the freedom of speech drum. I think some people are using it as an opportunity to basically pile on a group of people and ethnicties they don't really like. Its becoming a bit of a cover for opportunistic bigotry.
Let's face it. Islam as a whole is not ready for the type of satire directed at christianity or judism. Why? A huge portion of muslim population of the world don't live in western liberal democracies, where the population is used to religion being pushed to the sidelines and general free thinking and criticism is a part of every day life. Until that happens, which could take a long, long time, its always going to be a hot issue. And there are a whole series of political and cultural issues that come into play with allowing that to take place.
The very idea that the religion is open to criticism just isn't true in parts of the world. So the options are
a) be as inflamatory as possible and hope they don't get angry and just "get it", while at the same time irritating a lot of people that aren't extremist
b) be a bit more diplomatic and senstive while espousing the values of democracy and free thought, and hope that in time, those values become a larger part of the societies that are the biggest offenders of religous extremism.
I think some people on both sides of the issue want nothing more than open hostility at all costs, they are not open to a real solution. Those are the voices that need to be drowned out by people of reason.
And I actually think the latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon does a great job of tackling the sensitivity and complexity of the issue. Its a defense of free speech, a satire of Islam, and displays some level of sensitivity at the same time.
__________________
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
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Where was the respecting people's beliefs when people for years hammered the catholic church on it's stances? Again, if your faith is hampered by a drawing, your faith is weak.
So people hammered one group so we could hammer another. Logical or eye for an eye?
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
Those are fine words to believe we are all targets, but it's simply hogwash. Are you a target for getting bombed, burned or shot because the Herald reprints a stupid cartoon? No, that's ridiculous. It will be the girl at reception, the guy working the press out the saleswoman walking around near the front. Printing cartoons should not ever be justification for any violence. Doesn't mean you can call someone who fears for their staff a coward from behind a computer desk. As usual, the subject is more complex and difficult than a slogan or Hitchens YouTube can solve. We need to show solidarity with the press. Maybe we start by not calling them cowards???
I agree it's the right thing to do, but this holier-than-thou finger waiving from behind a computer screen is the very definition of Internet martyrdom.
Firstly, I never once used the work coward. I don't know where that is coming from. Holier than thou? I am expressing my point of view and that is about it. I feel strongly about freedom of speech, and I think I have been entirely consistent with that view on this and many other subjects.
We are all targets because limitations on free speech affect everyone. We are having an exchange of ideas now that is likely not possible if those radicals have their way. Offensive and harmful are two different things. There are certainly limits to freedom of speech, causing harm is certainly one of them. Causing offense is not.
To be clear, this is not the same as being at risk of being shot or blown up, or living in fear of being shot or blown up, which is really what I think we are talking about here. So is your solution is not to print? Do you really think that solves anything? I think not.
Reprinting should start the dialogue, not end it.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
