So, With The France Magazine Murders...

[Renegade343]

While it is truly saddening to see people getting killed over a comic (or expressing themselves), and that free speech should not be suppressed like that, I do wonder if all the people that supported the march in France ever thought about the other side of the matter: 

 

Were the deceased (the comic writers/drawers in this case, for all the other victims should not have been killed like that, without much of an argument) truly the victims in this murder spree?

 

The reason I point this out is because while the magazine itself does satirise a wide range of religion and other things, not just Muslims and such, and have the right to do so due to free speech, there is also a factor that must be considered as well: Respect. 

 

While it is true that the right to free speech allows one to speak their opinion, that does not mean that one is free from any responsibility that could come from voicing out their opinion, nor does it protect anyone from being commented on by other people. In short, free speech ≠ no responsibilities for what one says. 

 

Also there is one thing to note about the personalities of the targets that the satire magazines are aiming at: Most of them are more or less tolerant to it, for instance: The general Catholic religion and its believers tend to be more benevolent in general, and have a wider tolerance to attacks like these, meaning that they would accept satire against their religion to a good extent, and would not retaliate with murder if it went overboard. 

 

That is not to say, however, that Islam in general are totally intolerant to these satirical cartoons. But one must also consider that compared to other religions (typically Western religions), there are more fundamentalists that hold their distorted belief of Islam, and thus would take offence to these cartoons, and may attack with disproportionate retribution. While it is true that these fundamentalists are not Islam (at least to other, more rational Islam people), the number of fundamentalists that have a distorted view of Islam shows that the religion itself (or at least the people within it) may have a few problems with trying to spread the right knowledge of the religion. 

 

Does that mean that the world should stop posting satire on more sensitive religious groups, and be punished if they do so? No, for that would go against what free speech is about. However, the message is that while free speech should be protected, one must also consider how the receiver would react, and know where the limits are. In short, moderation. 

 

And so, were the deceased truly victims in this matter? For the almost full part, yes, as no one deserves to be murdered or be brought harm against them just by speaking out an opinion (as that is the most crude way to discuss in a civilised world). But they too have their own small faults, for they should not have frequently drew out cartoons satirising Muhammad and the religion (but the content itself is fine), as by doing that, they are not being considerate towards the group that the satire cartoons are representing. 

 

In summary, free speech is something that should not be oppressed in such a brutal manner, but do keep in mind that there are also other people in the world, and that means people should respect and know other people's limits, even with the right to freely express their opinions. 

 

Discuss civilly. 

[Habba]

[taiiat]

it's a Magazine. luckily, since it's a Magazine, and not a billboard, you're far from forced to read it if it offends you.

 

i think we're done here.

Discuss civilly. 

good luck with that.

[Renegade343]

it's a Magazine. luckily, since it's a Magazine, and not a billboard, you're far from forced to read it if it offends you.

Provided that there is the Internet, I think the chances of reading it at some point, somewhere would be rather high (and considering that the magazine also have their website as well, that would also allow more accessibility). 

[TheErebus.]

Though I am not a muslim, I don't think what they've done was right. And no, I am not talking about the terrorists, I'm talking about the magazine. Now before you claim that I support the terrorists, I don't. I don't condone their actions in the slightest.

 

But those people satired the Prophet, and to an extension, the muslim religion itself. That is why they reacted in the way they did, imagine if you were highly religious, and someone came to you and began to draw a holy person in a satirical way. You're not going to think "OH well he's just making fun of it for jokes" no you're going to think "HOW DARE YOU MOCK THE LORD AND SAVIOR, YOU BLASPHEMOUS HEATHEN"

 

Again, I don't support what the terrorists did, but neither do I support what the magazine authors did. Free speech is fine and all, but there's always a line that you're going to cross for a lot of people. 

[fadeinlight]

First of all, let us clarify that there is no "right" to free speech if you are speaking on international matters.

 

Words and satire can't kill people, and those that claim that they can are being hyperbolic.  Claiming that one group might be justified in killing because another group didn't "respect" them is tantamount to saying that it's reasonable to behead someone in return for the loss of a fingernail clipping.

 

I'm sick of people trying to justify barbarity and destruction by hurt feelings.

[xethier]

This might offend someone, but hey, that's what the internet is for...

If you're so hung up on your mythical sky person that you have to kill a flesh-and-blood human that's decided to make a joke at your mythical sky person's (non)existence, then you have a larger problem than religion.

 

There is absolutely no possible argument that I can give credence to that absolves that kind of behavior.

Responsibility vs free speech is invalid in this instance.

[Kthal]

imagine if you were highly religious, and someone came to you and began to draw a holy person in a satirical way.

 

But since it was a comic in a magazine, the comparison is slightly inaccurate:

'Imagine if you were highly religious, and you came up to someone who was drawing a holy person in a satirical way.'

 

My opinion on the matter is that satire is perfectly fine, as long as it acknowledges itself as satire and does not single out one single group for persistent attacks (for want of a better term).

 

Also, four years between the comic being published and the murder of the writers?

 

As an example, Southpark is fine (albeit extremely vulgar), as it equally ridicules everyone. At least three major episodes have targeted a group I consider myself a part of, but I bear no ill will as it is done in the pursuit of comedy.

[Renegade343]

Words and satire can't kill people, and those that claim that they can are being hyperbolic. 

Actually, words and satire can indirectly kill people, since words and satire evoke emotions in people and make them react (or not react). 

 

This might offend someone, but hey, that's what the internet is for...

If you're so hung up on your mythical sky person that you have to kill a flesh-and-blood human that's decided to make a joke at your mythical sky person's (non)existence, then you have a larger problem than religion.

 

There is absolutely no possible argument that I can give credence to that absolves that kind of behavior.

Responsibility vs free speech is invalid in this instance.

I am not saying that one should not make jokes out of ridiculous beliefs. I am saying that to keep it in moderation, because at the end of the day, respecting people would go a long way. 

 

Also, four years between the comic being published and the murder of the writers?

There are, apparently: 

 

- Protests.

- Letters written.

- One firebombing. 

 

Between these four years. 

[TheErebus.]

Responsibility vs free speech is invalid in this instance.

They know fully how muslims would react, hell, they were attacked before by an extremist muslim group.

[Nukke]

Political correctness should be thrown to garbage where it belongs, no sane person would murder another person because of a magazine.

Extremists should not be allowed to dictate what gets published, or anything for that matter, by creating the fear of getting murdered.

[Krion112]

Hey, isn't this like the same exact issue that went down with North Korea over "The Interview"? In that situations, I felt, even though we have freedom of speech, the creation of that movie was crossing some kind of line.

 

However, in both situations, irrational behavior is no excuse when considering that the other side is merely an opinion.

 

I'd guess there's a level of respect you have to have for other cultures, but then again, should we have respect for cultures that don't respect our culture? A question to truly ponder.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Krion112

[Renegade343]

I'd guess there's a level of respect you have to have for other cultures, but then again, should we have respect for cultures that don't respect our culture? A question to truly ponder.

Yes, because why would we want to continue on with the cycle of: 

 

1. Culture A disrespects Culture B. 

2. Culture B then disrespects Culture A in retaliation. 

3. Repeat step 1 and 2 until breaking point. 

[Paradoxbomb]

If I tell some kid that Santa Claus isn't real, is that a nice thing to do? No.

 

If that kid decides to murder me in cold blood because I tarnished the image of Santa, is that a justified response? No.

 

 

It seems like a pretty simple scenario to me. Yes, just because most people have freedom of speech doesn't mean that you should say anything and you should always consider the feelings/opinions of people you may offend, but going on a violent massacre is certainly not a reasonable and/or justified response to something as harmless as a drawing.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Paradoxbomb

[SgtFlex]

The writers and anyone should know they put themselves at risk when they criticize a religion like that. Im not saying that it shouldn't be allowed, but rather that when they do things like that, they have to expect the worst.

 

Im saying that the discussion seems rather simple when you look at it. The worst came over the writers and took their lives. They were victims, but also of their own behavior.

 

I can't think of how it is to be religious because some people are VERY dedicated to their religion, and it all seems too illogical for me to comprehend, but nonetheless I do not judge, nor do I try to convince anyone to change.

 

Muslim Terrorists are very extreme when it comes to these things, and im almost positive this isn't the first time this sort of thing happened. Im not suprised either, but I do feel sorry.

 

 

 

All in all, I don't know how to feel about the subject.

[CY13ERPUNK]

um what? discuss civilly? OP must be trolln

 

you consistently imply that the murder victims had it coming becuz they satirized the wrong group, sure that's fine, if we live in a free-for-all society where you can kill anyone who you belive wrongs you, and vice versa, then what keeps ppl in check is the threat of possible revenge (since it continues through lineages and bloodlines)

 

but that is not the world that we supposedly live in, supposedly we live in a 'civil' society where we RESPECT ppl's right to speak their minds, whether we like their opinions or not, the idea is to defeat hate speech and bad ideas with good ideas and logical/rational speech

 

the OP's implication that the victims should have been more cautious in how they satirized is EXACTLY what the murderers WANT

 

FFS ppl, this kind of thinking is why the world is so screwed up, 'let's all blame the victims'

 

yes if u want to try to get deeply philosophical we all have a part to play, but the flip side of that is that we are all just victims of our own circumstances/history/parents/etc, understanding cause and effect is nice, but afterwards you still have to live in the world, a world where ppl should be held responsible for their actions

 

did group A satirize? yep, ok since that is their protected right to do so

 

did group B murder? yep, and they are horrible ppl for doing it, becuz instead of returning fire with words or satire of their own, nope, instead they decided to take it to an insane lvl of irrationality becuz of their own fears/delusions, so they murdered, hence why their actions should be vilified

 

TL;DR; - OP thinks that ppl should self-censor, becuz you never know whose feelings you might hurt, and their feelings are more important than yours... especially if they are hateful/violent ppl that oppress the innocent and murder civilians

 

/barf 

 

stuff like this makes me not want to live on this planet anymore, it's bad enough that their are vile ppl in the world, but then to have others trying to blame their victims is just too much =[

Edited January 13, 2015 by CY13ERPUNK

[ebya]

The writers and anyone should know they put themselves at risk when they criticize a religion like that. Im not saying that it shouldn't be allowed, but rather that when they do things like that, they have to expect the worst.

 

 

 

You shouldn't have to expect the worst.

 

If we start using auto-censorship, where should we stop ?

 

If you can't talk/satire every thing then you can't do it at all.

[Renegade343]

You shouldn't have to expect the worst.

You are not exempt from criticism, commenting or any reaction with free speech (although killing to react is a poor way to do it). 

 

Free speech ≠ a protective shield where you can say anything and not having to face consequences from it. 

[SgtFlex]

You shouldn't have to expect the worst.

 

If we start using auto-censorship, where should we stop ?

 

If you can't talk/satire every thing then you can't do it at all.

Honestly, I dissapprove of auto-censorship. It's just bowing down to terrorists (which is exactly what they're trying to do)

 

But when you criticize something like that, especially that large of a group, there's always those people within that group that WILL hurt you if possible.

 

The Muslim world and some other religions are a bit more serious when it comes to these things, and they've been known to do these things before, thus why we have to expect it sometimes

 

Even with moderation, things like this can happen. The only thing to do is not to say anything at all, or make sure the worst doesn't happen. But even then, the inevitability of some of these things happen. It all depends on dedication to hatred in this case.

[Blackout751]

Freedom of speech is considered a right, and religion is considered an idea and/or a belief. Your right to freedom of speech can be interpreted as meaning you have the right to criticise that belief or religion. Not to mention the cartoonists were satirising Muslim extremists with comics that condemned their actions, often with depictions of the Islamic Prophet. It was, as far as I've seen - and I've seen a fair amount of it - not critical of Islam as a religion but only of the people who kill in its name.

 

Besides, this event has united Europe for the first time on this scale since World War 2. I don't consider that a bad thing.

 

EDIT: A couple of things should also be mentioned. "I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees", said by one of the cartoonists (I don't remember which one exactly) on the subject that he knows that people wanted him dead for making those cartoons. Several people with influence have spoken against censorship, mainly saying things such as satire being some kind of necessity - I don't remember.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Blackout751

[Renegade343]

um what? discuss civilly? OP must be trolln

 

you consistently imply that the murder victims had it coming becuz they satirized the wrong group, sure that's fine, if we live in a free-for-all society where you can kill anyone who you belive wrongs you, and vice versa, then what keeps ppl in check is the threat of possible revenge (since it continues through lineages and bloodlines)

 

but that is not the world that we supposedly live in, supposedly we live in a 'civil' society where we RESPECT ppl's right to speak their minds, whether we like their opinions or not, the idea is to defeat hate speech and bad ideas with good ideas and logical/rational speech

 

the OP's implication that the victims should have been more cautious in how they satirized is EXACTLY what the murderers WANT

 

FFS ppl, this kind of thinking is why the world is so screwed up, 'let's all blame the victims'

 

yes if u want to try to get deeply philosophical we all have a part to play, but the flip side of that is that we are all just victims of our own circumstances/history/parents/etc, understanding cause and effect is nice, but afterwards you still have to live in the world, a world where ppl should be held responsible for their actions

 

did group A satirize? yep, ok since that is their protected right to do so

 

did group B murder? yep, and they are horrible ppl for doing it, becuz instead of returning fire with words or satire of their own, nope, instead they decided to take it to an insane lvl of irrationality becuz of their own fears/delusions, so they murdered, hence why their actions should be vilified

 

TL;DR; - OP thinks that ppl should self-censor, becuz you never know whose feelings you might hurt, and their feelings are more important than yours... especially if they are hateful/violent ppl that oppress the innocent and murder civilians

 

/barf 

 

stuff like this makes me not want to live on this planet anymore, it's bad enough that their are vile ppl in the world, but then to have others trying to blame their victims is just too much =[

Which is not the point I am making?

 

The point I am making is: You can say whatever you want, but just be a bit responsible about it. Of course, you could also just say anything and not care about other people (which is allowed), but do not expect good things to come. 

 

And self-censor being a bad thing? Are you serious? Good luck with interacting with other people without placing a few thoughts into it before speaking out what you want to say. 

[TheErebus.]

-snipped because jesus christ...-

You know what you said has nearly next to NOTHING about the point that Renegade was trying to make

[Renegade343]

Your right to freedom of speech can be interpreted as meaning you have the right to criticise that belief or religion. 

True, but does that mean you should always do it?

[Krion112]

Yes, because why would we want to continue on with the cycle of: 

 

1. Culture A disrespects Culture B. 

2. Culture B then disrespects Culture A in retaliation. 

3. Repeat step 1 and 2 until breaking point. 

That still needs more thinking; what's the measure of allowing Culture A and B to coexist? What if Culture B doesn't respect the existence of Culture A and attempts to destroy Culture A, and never stops trying to tear down Culture A because their belief is to rule supreme because they irrationally believe they are the only right? Do you think Culture A is going to respect that notion? They may respect that Culture B has the capacity to do it, but they're not going to respect Culture B's desire to crush their culture.

 

Therefore, it's not a matter of setting the example of respecting the other Culture, it's that one Culture is completely set towards not allowing the other Culture to exist.

 

I know this little sub-argument is somewhat misplaced, but I want to see where it'll lead.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Krion112

[Renegade343]

That still needs more thinking; what's the measure of allowing Culture A and B to coexist? What if Culture B doesn't respect the existence of Culture A and attempts to destroy Culture A, and never stops trying to tear down Culture A because their belief is to rule supreme because they irrationally believe they are the only right? Do you think Culture A is going to respect that notion? They may respect that Culture B has the capacity to do it, but they're not going to respect Culture B's desire to crush their culture.

While I do agree that at some point, retaliation with (most likely) murder would happen (as to whether it is justified, that would be for another matter), if one culture was really set on destroying the other, then the culture being attacked can retaliate. 

 

Even with most religion, they allow for self-defence, and would not condemn it if that happens.