Yet another damn terrorist attack

[I AM MOBIUS]

That wasn't blatantly offensive to JC himself, it was more about modern Christians don't you think? Even then, they were at great pains to be respectful (according to John Cleese).

We might think this now, but there was furore in the Christian establishment - see the banning section:

On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, a grouping with an evangelical Christian base, of which they knew nothing.

[ricketyclik]

We might think this now, but there was furore in the Christian establishment - see the banning section:

I think you're kind of making my point for me - even with a one-off light piss-taking there was a petulant reaction. What if it had been seriously offensive and serialised?

[I AM MOBIUS]

I think you'll find that nutters everywhere will latch onto any excuse, it doesn't have to be religion. Take the whole crap about that NK film taking the piss out of Kim Jong Un...

Also, here's another take:

We think the Paris terrorists were offended by Charlie Hebdo's satire. What if we're wrong?

Maybe the terrorists are using these cartoons simply as a pretext to justify being murderous ****s in their own twisted minds...

[Sir Og]

Christian iconoclasts must have killed their fare share of people for drawing pictures. But that was a long time ago.

And in the end the guys who thought pictures were cool prevailed.


For me this incident gives 0 new useful information about anything. With or without that terror attack, isolating, repressing or killing people (no matter who they are) is not a good idea.

[pchang]

Looks like they got the guys, but the girl got away.

[Hauldren Collider]

That wasn't blatantly offensive to JC himself, it was more about modern Christians don't you think? Even then, they were at great pains to be respectful (according to John Cleese).

Dude, that movie was far more offensive to Jesus and the catholic church as any of the depictions of Muhammad that have generated death threats and produced actual deaths.

Also it's one of my very favorite movies

[Hauldren Collider]

That magazine was extremely antipolitically correct. It made fun of exactly what pissed people off the most.
Imagine cartoons of a certain black personality in France with his head and inside a very tiny brain, or Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit in a homosexual trio etc (to "promote" gay marriage)
It was in its "character" let's say to be provocative over the line.


France is being devoured by race questions for a long time now from what I gather (and I could be wrong of course)

In any case, the killers allegendly had connections with radical parties in Yemen, so I think this does qualify as an "islamic terror attack" and on the same time it's a huge question about minorities in France. BUT on the same time, they are french citizens. Grew up in France.

About the hypocricy of some here who shout Je Suis Charlie but would some of them start court proceedings the minute a magazine published what Charlie Hendo did, here? (with jesus etc) I bet they would. And with the antiquiated blasphemy law still in theoretical action, they could even get a sentence (that would maybe overturned later)

When last temptation of christ was out on movie theaters here, there were some fanatics going around outside the theater trying to bang people on the head with crosses.

OTOH hand I think some respect should be observed for societal peace. But what's the limit in order not to stiffle at all free speech? Damn if I know.

In any case, satyre proved again its potency.

In the united states we manage to let people like Westboro Baptist Church run around saying the most virulently hateful things that absolutely no one thinks is appropriate and not one of them has ever been killed.

There is no point at which speech becomes too offensive and must be censored for public safety.

[MRT144]

In the united states we manage to let people like Westboro Baptist Church run around saying the most virulently hateful things that absolutely no one thinks is appropriate and not one of them has ever been killed.

There is no point at which speech becomes too offensive and must be censored for public safety.

Ben Kenobi tests those limits.

[Hauldren Collider]

Let's take the Mormons as a case study. When The Book of Mormon was released, the Mormon church used it as an opportunity to spread their faith, advertising the actual Book of Mormon at showings of the play. They took it in stride. Mormons

On the other hand, when someone accidentally throws out a Quran, the response is violence and arson. When someone points out that Islam has a proclivity towards killing people for bad reasons, the immediate reaction is to live down to those expectations. Yes, most muslims don't participate in or condone this and are decent law-abiding people. But there is a remarkably sizeable minority that does. That's the problem that western countries are dealing with.

[DinoDoc]

Alleged cover for the next issue of Charlie Hebdo:

[Imran Siddiqui]

About the hypocricy of some here who shout Je Suis Charlie but would some of them start court proceedings the minute a magazine published what Charlie Hendo did, here? (with jesus etc) I bet they would. And with the antiquiated blasphemy law still in theoretical action, they could even get a sentence (that would maybe overturned later)

It's an interesting point. If Charlie Hebdo decided to do a cartoon on, say, the Holocaust, they publishers could be arrested for hate speech. France is a strange place for a fight about freedom of speech.

[Bereta_Eder]

No you can't make fun of the holocaust. Dieudonne did it (the black guy that this same magazine cartooned him as having a tiny brain) and he got sentenced (not to prison though). I think his (twisted) rational was that blacks suffered as much as jewish people but their pains are not recognized in the same fashion in Europe, or the West, if you will.


About what HC said, a question: you say that in America free speech is absolute. If someone comes out and starts calling for armed attacks against the gov, would his right of free speech be recognized?
He is just speaking but at the same time he is inciting to violence.

I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not absolute. Calls for violence and words that incite violence (such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater) can be punished, but it has to be an imminent threat - like saying "Let's Kill X Right Now" while giving a speech a few blocks away from X is illegal. But saying something like "Someone should just kill X" while hanging out with some friends hundreds of miles from where X lives is not actionable.

[Hauldren Collider]

About what HC said, a question: you say that in America free speech is absolute. If someone comes out and starts calling for armed attacks against the gov, would his right of free speech be recognized?
He is just speaking but at the same time he is inciting to violence.

I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Yes. People do this all the time. What would be illegal is calling for armed revolution and then some other activity to actually carry it out--for example, buying a truck full of guns. That would be considered conspiracy. Also what Imran said.

It's worth remembering that we are the country that put an amendment into our constitution specifically to make armed revolution easier (2nd).

[Bereta_Eder]

Ok thanks.
(then indeed, freedom of speech in the US is greater than in Europe).