So, With The France Magazine Murders...

[Kamikiri]

-Censorship- You have just summarised one of the leading arguments that pop up every time something like this happens, and a satirical comedian is incapable of making a living if they self-censor themselves.
While also partaking in -Victim Blaming-.

Had any of these things been handled civilly then those displeased with his/her work would have taken it to the magasine publisher, from there if there are enough voices that speak up about their displeasure the publisher would be forced to take action against the author instead.
The author would still be alive without any barbarism taking place and the comic would not be featured in that magasine anymore, the magasine would also be very likely to not feature material like it again, if the author attempts to rise again in some other magasine then that's his business, if it offends people there the author would get banned again and it would start to compromise his or her livelyhood... then the self censoring would arise out of necessity instead of opression, and it would make the author take the responsibility you mentioned!

I have not read the comic in question, but no matter what it shows or says there is NOTHING that justifies murder.
And it churns my stomach whenever someone attempts to shift the blame onto a victim for their own death like you are right now.
You are still saying that the murderers are at fault and that is true, but same S#&$ is said about rapists when their victims are also taking part of the blame, because THAT is a part of victim blaming... moving the focus of the blame away from the assaulter in order to make it more difficult to judge.

So my question to you is, if a racist A****** starts preaching his or her beliefs on a street, would you find it justified in any way if that person was simply shot on the spot by those offended? You know, instead of being arrested.

Tl;Dr: Victim blaming and promoting auto-censorship then to ask for civility afterward, you know by your own definition you'd better watch out what would be coming your way as you never know who might be reading your post... (I am not attempting to threaten you, just making a point)

[Krion112]

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. 

Hmm, just as an inquiry: Then wouldn't this magazine author being retaliating against a culture that is attempting to tear his culture down by criticizing their inability to coexist with his culture? Not sure, there's a lot of variables to take in and process. It's why this issue needs more thought, the whole deal with terrorist organizations and irrational countries.

 

I guess it might not, because he criticized them by making a joke of the non-destructive part of their culture.

 

I do like this catalyst for thought, though. Might help me in my Philosophy class in the near future.

[Renegade343]

Hmm, just as an inquiry: Then wouldn't this magazine author being retaliating against a culture that is attempting to tear his culture down by criticizing their inability to coexist with his culture? Not sure, there's a lot of variables to take in and process. It's why this issue needs more thought, the whole deal with terrorist organizations and irrational countries.

Then again, he did target the wrong part of the culture. 

 

Muhammad is not a evil person/prophet himself. 

[Renegade343]

Tl;Dr: Victim blaming and promoting auto-censorship then to ask for civility afterward, you know by your own definition you'd better watch out what would be coming your way as you never know who might be reading your post... (I am not attempting to threaten you, just making a point)

If you, for one moment, think that I am advocating for auto-censorship and blaming the victims, then you missed my point. 

 

In fact, auto-censorship already happens subconsciously in our lives. For instance, you might hate your boss at work, and want to tell him how much he is incompetent in his job, but because he is your superior, and does have power over you, more likely than not, you decide not to speak up about it, or maybe through other channels of communication. 

 

All in all, I am saying that while free speech should be protected and should not have these things happen again, and that free speech can allow you to be rude and such, that does not mean free speech will always override mutual respect. 

[Habba]

Then again, he did target the wrong part of the culture.

Muhammad is not a evil person/prophet himself.

But if jokes were made on cost of Christians , Buddhists , etc . its somehow OK ? So we should stop making satirically comments , jokes or caricatures about Muslims , because we Should fear them ? That is just not the right thing to do , in fact I think they didn't go far enough . They have to keep going like this to make more and more people realise the problem we have . Edited January 13, 2015 by Habba

[CY13ERPUNK]

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. 

 

EDIT: lastly, how incredibly insulting and insensitive of you to imply that someone WHO DIED STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH did not take responsibility for their actions ...

 

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

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UWOTM8???? reading comprehension ftw =/

 

 

-Censorship- You have just summarised one of the leading arguments that pop up every time something like this happens, and a satirical comedian is incapable of making a living if they self-censor themselves.

While also partaking in -Victim Blaming-.

Had any of these things been handled civilly then those displeased with his/her work would have taken it to the magasine publisher, from there if there are enough voices that speak up about their displeasure the publisher would be forced to take action against the author instead.

The author would still be alive without any barbarism taking place and the comic would not be featured in that magasine anymore, the magasine would also be very likely to not feature material like it again, if the author attempts to rise again in some other magasine then that's his business, if it offends people there the author would get banned again and it would start to compromise his or her livelyhood... then the self censoring would arise out of necessity instead of opression, and it would make the author take the responsibility you mentioned!

I have not read the comic in question, but no matter what it shows or says there is NOTHING that justifies murder.

And it churns my stomach whenever someone attempts to shift the blame onto a victim for their own death like you are right now.

You are still saying that the murderers are at fault and that is true, but same S#&$ is said about rapists when their victims are also taking part of the blame, because THAT is a part of victim blaming... moving the focus of the blame away from the assaulter in order to make it more difficult to judge.

So my question to you is, if a racist A****** starts preaching his or her beliefs on a street, would you find it justified in any way if that person was simply shot on the spot by those offended? You know, instead of being arrested.

Tl;Dr: Victim blaming and promoting auto-censorship then to ask for civility afterward, you know by your own definition you'd better watch out what would be coming your way as you never know who might be reading your post... (I am not attempting to threaten you, just making a point)

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS, thank goodness for some rational though in this thread

 

OP is claiming to not be saying, exactly what they are saying... =/

 

so either: A - OP is complete hypocrite, or B - OP is saying absolutely nothing at all, a statement so incredibly generalized as to have absolutely no meaning/value/purpose (other than to stir the pot obviously) [that statement being : actions have consequences]

Edited January 13, 2015 by CY13ERPUNK

[Kamikiri]

If you, for one moment, think that I am advocating for auto-censorship and blaming the victims, then you missed my point. 

 

In fact, auto-censorship already happens subconsciously in our lives. For instance, you might hate your boss at work, and want to tell him how much he is incompetent in his job, but because he is your superior, and does have power over you, more likely than not, you decide not to speak up about it, or maybe through other channels of communication. 

 

All in all, I am saying that while free speech should be protected and should not have these things happen again, and that free speech can allow you to be rude and such, that does not mean free speech will always override mutual respect. 

 

Did I misread your words then? You said that the deceased was not necessarily the only victim, and then went on to talk about how he should have been prepared for the worst as if this is something to be expected. Then going on to advocate this murder didn't have a clear victim because the murderers were victims too.

And it seems like you missed when I said in my post earlier that if solved civilly then he'd auto-censor his work out of necessity and not opression, it may not seem like a big deal to some, but the mentality of self-censorship makes a huge difference.

Change out of necessity promotes growth and change out of opression promotes spite.

And there are channels to go trough to make a change if as in your example, you have a precievably incompetent boss.

If you are not alone on your stance that that boss is incompetent an inquiry can be made to your boss' boss to have his work examined.

But the way that example is aimed, it'd make the murderers the boss, the ones with the power to silence words against their actions.

I sincerely hope that you are not trying to imply that criminals should have that sort of power just because they claim to do it for their religion/culture.

To iterate, satire is a form of social critisism.

If anything, these murders have put a spotlight on something that should be critisized, not defended by adding inconsequential layers that attempt to make it a non-clear cut issue.

(If you want to refute my claim that the layers added are inconsequential, then please do tell me how his work of satire would have caused sadness, distress and loss to the same degree as the murder commited as a response)

[CY13ERPUNK]

http://news.yahoo.com/mohammed-holds-je-suis-charlie-sign-charlie-hebdo-215647190.html

 

thankfully for the future of free speech and liberty worldwide the majority of the rest of the sane world does NOT share the OP's idea's/opinions

[Renegade343]

EDIT: lastly, how incredibly insulting and insensitive of you to imply that someone WHO DIED STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH did not take responsibility for their actions ...

So, asking for someone to be a bit more considerate towards other people while still being to say what they want is considered 'insensitive' now?

 

But if jokes were made on cost of Christians , Buddhists , etc . its somehow OK ? So we should stop making satirically comments , jokes or caricatures about Muslims , because we Should fear them ? That is just not the right thing to do , in fact I think they didn't go far enough . They have to keep going like this to make more and more people realise the problem we have .

As I state again, it is fine to make satire. It is fine to say what you want. But know that there are limits to things, and that at the end of the day, what you say is said towards other people, and other people have feelings as well. 

 

Did I misread your words then? You said that the deceased was not necessarily the only victim, and then went on to talk about how he should have been prepared for the worst as if this is something to be expected. Then going on to advocate this murder didn't have a clear victim because the murderers were victims too.

All I said that the deceased (the comic writers), while being treated unfairly through being killed for their work (which should not have happened), do hold a bit to blame for doing it repeatedly, after multiple requests from other groups than the murderers to ban it (the French Muslim groups, for instance, asked for that as well). I am not supporting the ban, but it would actually be insensitive not to tone it down a small bit. 

 

Basically, the blame breakdown is: 

 

Murderers: Essentially all of the blame.

The deceased (comic writers): A very small bit of the blame.

[Kalenath]

 

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"

 

Well... considering that a house was burnt to the ground with people still in it last year in Virginia for the owners 'being witches'... (Which they were not by the way. They ware Asatru [NORSE Pantheon for those who do not know. Thor, Odin, all that. NOT pacifists!] and the Asatru community is NOT happy about this. Blood will flow. That will make the press. The burning of heathen houses with heathens and heathen children still in them? Nope. Not important enough.)

 

Sure. Respect is a good thing.

 

And people have been killing other people over it since the dawn of recorded history,. Or before... 'The Iliad' anybody? (Economics be damned, that Helen woman HAD to pay for running off with Paris...) The Epic of Gilgamesh is ALL about respect. The myths of Greece, etc, etc, etc...

 

Killing people to shut them up doesn't work. Oh, it shuts up THAT ONE person. But that rarely works out well in the end. Fundamentalists should KNOW about making martyrs. They really should.

 

The Assyrians tried it. Didn't work. The Romans tried it. Didn't work. The Mongols tried it. Didn't work. I can name hundreds more groups in history who have used force to try and keep people from talking about subjects they didn't like.

 

Oh, sure you can kill people, scare people, make a BIG mess. It won't STOP them talking. Nothing will. The ONLY way to STOP people from talking is to KILL. EVERY. LAST. ONE. OF. THEM.

 

And we all know how well THAT works out for people who try, no?

 

Barring the EXTINCTION of all human life on Earth, people WILL talk. People WILL joke. People WILL ridicule and satirize.

 

The backlash from this is going to be... interesting. (With ALL of the connotations of the word.)

Edited January 13, 2015 by Kalenath

[Renegade343]

Well... considering that a house was burnt to the ground with people still in it last year in Virginia for the owners 'being witches'... (Which they were not by the way. They ware Asatru [NORSE Pantheon for those who do not know. Thor, Odin, all that. NOT pacifists!] and the Asatru community is NOT happy about this. Blood will flow. That will make the press. The burning of heathen houses with heathens and heathen children still in them? Nope. Not important enough.)

 

Sure. Respect is a good thing.

 

And people have been killing other people over it since the dawn of recorded history,. Or before... 'The Iliad' anybody? (Economics be damned, that Helen woman HAD to pay for running off with Paris...) The Epic of Gilgamesh is ALL about respect. The myths of Greece, etc, etc, etc...

 

Killing people to shut them up doesn't work. Oh, it shuts up THAT ONE person. But that rarely works out well in the end. Fundamentalists should KNOW about making martyrs. They really should.

 

The Assyrians tried it. Didn't work. The Romans tried it. Didn't work. The Mongols tried it. Didn't work. I can name hundreds more groups in history who have used force to try and keep people from talking about subjects they didn't like.

 

Oh, sure you can kill people, scare people, make a BIG mess. It won't STOP them talking. Nothing will. The ONLY way to STOP people from talking is to KILL. EVERY. LAST. ONE. OF. THEM.

 

And we all know how well THAT works out for people who try, no?

 

Barring the EXTINCTION of all human life on Earth, people WILL talk. People WILL joke. People WILL ridicule and satirize.

 

The backlash from this is going to be... interesting. (With ALL of the connotations of the word.)

Thing is, that is a matter of life so far, and nothing has effectively changed that. 

 

Although that does not mean we could try to avoid that for both sides. 

[Kalenath]

Thing is, that is a matter of life so far, and nothing has effectively changed that. 

 

Although that does not mean we could try to avoid that for both sides. 

 

Respect is a funny thing. Everyone wants it. Everyone KNOWS when they have been disrespected.

 

But so many people REFUSE to give it.

 

I have known fundamentalists who DEMAND your respect because they are better than you. I refuse to respect them for getting in my face about how much better than me they are. (Makes them VERY angry, but I do not care)

 

Using force to try and MAKE people respect something never works. It just makes the ones being forced react badly.

 

This is NOT going to stop people from satirizing the religion. If anything, it will ENCOURAGE more people to do it. Which is ALSO not a good thing. (That is what martyrs DO. And guess what? These nuts made a bunch of martyrs. Oops.)

 

Yes, I get that the magazine was disrespectful. I ALSO get that people with guns telling me that I HAVE TO RESPECT WHAT THEY SAY OR DIE is ALSO not a good thing. People who use such tactics will NEVER have my respect.

 

Islam does have my respect. There is MUCH to admire.

 

The fundamentalists? Never. Does not matter the denomination.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Kalenath

[Phoenix86]

I do agree with Renegade and Erebus,

he took a risk, he faced the consequences of his actions.

 

I wouldnt go hitting a fierce lion with a stick and pretend he wont retaliate on me

 

Funny how in the march there were delegates from states that are well known for oppressing journalism too

[TheErebus.]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UWOTM8???? reading comprehension ftw =/

Jesus christ, just leave. You don't add value into a discussion with this bullS#&$.

[djentlemenBehold]

 

Political correctness should be thrown to garbage where it belongs.

 

"I'm mad that it's socially frowned upon to be openly bigoted towards those different from me and racist and I refuse to take responsibility for my words and actions and the consequences that may result because I feel inconvenienced by having to "think before I leap" and being more considerate to those around me."

 

But if jokes were made on cost of Christians , Buddhists , etc . its somehow OK ? 

 

Is it really? If you say "kill all Muslims," people would say you're just exercising your right to free speech. But if you say "kill all Christians," you're automatically labeled a terrorist. So no, it's not okay, at least not here in America. 

Edited January 13, 2015 by djentlemenBehold

[CY13ERPUNK]

the amount of ignorance, arrogance, and 'wool over the eyes' in this thread is insane =[

 

i would highly suggest that anyone who thinks like the OP, to invest some time into learning about ethics/logic/philosophy and identifying all the logical fallacies in bad arguments 

 

just sad to see so many ppl in here not seeing the forest for the trees =/

[taiiat]

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). 

being on the internet doesn't change it. it's still on a specific Domain.

 

if abcdeft is not to your reading pleasure, it's <0.0000000000001% of the Internet or other media sources.

it is your opting in to reading it, it's not being forced on you.

 

it doesn't make the media side 'correct', but it makes everyone equally wrong.

Edit: again, all parties were wrong.

Edited January 14, 2015 by taiiat

[Renegade343]

being on the internet doesn't change it. it's still on a specific Domain.

My point is that with the Internet now, the chances of seeing something, even if it might not be to your taste, is higher than before. Not saying that it is forced, but consider the Internet like a supermarket (i.e.: You would see different things while buying your groceries, even if you were not specifically looking at it, which can be paralleled to the Internet: At some point, there is a chance that you would see something while browsing web pages or forums). 

[[DE]Momaw]

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.

 

Frame this discussion to be about anything other than religion and behold the absurdity: A group of comic artists who made fun of navy blue suits were killed today when fanatical navy suit wearers assaulted their building with automatic weapons. Do you not see the fundamental disconnection between the magnitude of the cause and the effect???  The limit, for any sane adult human being that lives in the modern age is that mere words, disrespectful or otherwise, should not result in a deadly physical response.

[Renegade343]

Frame this discussion to be about anything other than religion and behold the absurdity: A group of comic artists who made fun of navy blue suits were killed today when fanatical navy suit wearers assaulted their building with automatic weapons. Do you not see the fundamental disconnection between the magnitude of the cause and the effect???  The limit, for any sane adult human being that lives in the modern age is that mere words, disrespectful or otherwise, should not result in a deadly physical response.

I already acknowledged that, and I did state in the original post that while killing over expressing oneself under free speech is not good, that does not mean free speech would therefore override respect. 

 

After all, they draw cartoons for people to look at, and that means it can be commented or criticised by other people. While yes, if they got killed over one cartoon that was satirising another group and said group went off to kill them, then they are not at fault (for one can be forgiven for crimes that one does not know), but if they continue to do what they want (i.e.: Draw satirical cartoons targeting a group) after various warnings and protests from said groups to ask them to either ban it (which I do not support that) or tone it down a bit, then they would have overstepped the line a little bit due to disrespect, even if what they did is still within the right for free speech. That is the difference. 

[taiiat]

but consider the Internet like a supermarket

yes, like a Supermarket. 

 

each isle has a different purpose and they are clearly labeled. if you don't want Dairy, don't go to the isle that says Dairy on it.

[Renegade343]

yes, like a Supermarket. 

 

each isle has a different purpose and they are clearly labeled. if you don't want Dairy, don't go to the isle that says Dairy on it.

True, but what if beside the Dairy isle, it is the Meat isle, and you need to buy meat from there? Then, there is a good chance that you would see the Dairy isle. 

 

As much as you can to avoid looking at things (or even going there), at some point, there is a good chance that you might have either passed through it, or glanced at it while searching/getting the things you need. 

[[DE]Momaw]

I already acknowledged that, and I did state in the original post that while killing over expressing oneself under free speech is not good, that does not mean free speech would therefore override respect. 

 

After all, they draw cartoons for people to look at, and that means it can be commented or criticised by other people. While yes, if they got killed over one cartoon that was satirising another group and said group went off to kill them, then they are not at fault (for one can be forgiven for crimes that one does not know), but if they continue to do what they want (i.e.: Draw satirical cartoons targeting a group) after various warnings and protests from said groups to ask them to either ban it (which I do not support that) or tone it down a bit, then they would have overstepped the line a little bit due to disrespect, even if what they did is still within the right for free speech. That is the difference. 

 

Again.  The mature response when somebody disrespects you is to stop listening to them.  This isn't the freaking middle ages where you have a social obligation to challenge people to duels if they insult your family.  Newspaper says something you find offensive? Stop reading. Now you're not being offended by it. Problem solved.  Versus, what you just said there seems dangerously close to trying to justify murder with "but they were warned".

[Renegade343]

Again.  The mature response when somebody disrespects you is to stop listening to them. 

On the flip side, the other mature response is to respect the other person's (or people's) wishes, and either stop talking about the thing in question, or move it down a small notch. 

 

You cannot have good mutual relationships if both sides do not show some degree of respect towards each other. While I do like satire (and sometimes do it myself), and it is a good way to get the point across, that does not mean it should disregard anyone else in the process. 

[[DE]Momaw]

You cannot have good mutual relationships if both sides do not show some degree of respect towards each other.

 

1.) Not every relationship needs to be warm and cuddley in order for society to prosper.

 

2.) You can respect a person's life, health, family, and property without respecting any of their beliefs.

 

3.) No matter how wrong I think you are, I will never try to kill you for stating your opinion.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Momaw