Anti-Muslim satire is about to get a lot stronger...and it should

[brooklynite]

This was not just an attack by muslim extremists on French society, it was an attack on Freedom of Speech. I suspect a lot of publications are going to feel the need to show they're not being cowed by this by publishing material the same extremist groups were offended by in the next few weeks.

[Fred Sanders]

1. You mean more insulting and pointless stuff insulting the prophet of Islam. Just because they can?

That is not satire, that is revenge and hate, and you may know they also puslished equally insulting posts about Christianity in general, Jesus in particular, and Judaism.

Should publications also come up with "satire" about that, to show they are equal insult publications?

And you want the insults stronger and more frequent, because an eye for an eye make the whole world see better?

"The future does not belong to those that insult the prophet of Islam".

EDiT correction: "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

BHO

[brooklynite]

4. Do you believe that Islam and other religions should be immune from satire?

Is satire only appropriate with groups and people YOU don't like?

[Fred Sanders]

8. I think different cultures and religions have different viewpoints on what is satire. The cartoons

I have seen are simply bad attempts at sowing haters...where is the humor? Show me one cartoon that you find hilarious of theirs regarding religion, and why?

John Stewart, Colbert....satire...hilarious.

[deutsey]

16. I'm no fan of South Park

but I actually thought their episode targeting al Quaida was hilarious.

Like you, however, what I've seen of the cartoons in the French magazine weren't funny at all and were actually boorishly insulting, at least some of them, anyway.

Still doesn't justify the killings, though.

[Fred Sanders]

17. It does NOT justify killing, ever, of course not. But satire? Really is that the new definition?

Publishing things year after year after year purposely intended to inflame without an ounce of humor, even using pornographic images, is the new "satire"?

Call it what is, hate speech....publish it freely if you must, you will reap the hate that you sow liberally and purposely and when you purposely relish and invite that hate, some of that may trigger madmen already near the edge....Bundy Ranch related police murders...remember their motivation sparked by the hate? Bill O'Reilly and his hate speech and Dr. Tiller?

[deutsey]

24. Agreed

When I saw some of the cartoons, I wondered where the satire was.

And I liked a lot (but not all) of the old National Lampoon from the early to mid-'70s, which could be pretty brutal. At its best, though, there was a "nothing's sacred" satirical edge to it. I didn't see anything like that in the French cartoons in question.

[hack89]

36. Satire does not have to be funny

it also encompasses irony and ridicule. The point of satire is to point out the stupidity of peoples beliefs and actions.

[LordGlenconner]

105. True, and moreover, if you're not French you're unlikely to fully appreciate the satire

There is a lot of lost context in all of this.

I'm sure there are some in France who don't understand American satire as well.

I disagree with some here who believe what the magazine published was hate speech. I believe those who worked there viewed all religions with a similar level of disdain.

[Fred Sanders]

113. It was equal opportunity hate speech. Which makes it all much better?

[LordGlenconner]

114. Hate speech -- in YOUR view

I agree with much of what you have to say on DU. This is not one of those times. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[11 Bravo]

58. So if some fundie nut case decided to ice Andres Serrano ...

you would say, "Tsk tsk, murder is never justified. But he sure did inflame his killers, so …"

[LanternWaste]

69. Same was said of Voltaire's 'Candide.'

"Call it what is, hate speech..."

Same was said of Voltaire's 'Candide.'

[kelly1mm]

101. Some say DU is hate speech. Some say FR is hate speech. We don't and can't allow hecklers vetos.nt

[brooklynite]

18. So, it's only satire when -YOU- find it funny...

...It doesn't matter at all if I find a cartoon hilarious or horrendous. -I- don't get to decide what's acceptable and neither do you, except to the extent that we express our own opinions or choose to buy or not a satirical document.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Show me a cartoon they published you find funny then?

[brooklynite]

29. Why is my interpretation of "funny" at all relevant?

When Fox produced the "Half Hour News Hour", I didn't think any of it was funny. I therefore chose not to watch it. I would never claim it was inappropriate for them to produce it for their audience.

DO you believe that religious groups should have some special consideration?

[leftynyc]

5. Wow, I thought it was only the right wingers

that truncated that speech by Pres Obama. For those who don't know better, here is the main part of that speech of which that line appears:

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamafuture.asp#gAj8GpphiD3oSjzd.99

[Fred Sanders]

10. Show me one cartoon that of theirs that is funny, hilarious...and why?

[brooklynite]

22. Show me one cartoon that 100% of the viewers find funny, hilarious

[leftynyc]

23. Since when are political cartoons

supposed to be funny?

[Fred Sanders]

25. These are religious cartoons grossly drawn and grossly hateful being discussed......politics?

[leftynyc]

27. Yes - politics

Why are you pretending the magazine only insulted Islam? If you don't think these murderous scum who committed these murders had a political as well as religious bent, that's your problem alone.

[Fred Sanders]

32. Why are you pretending that I was pretending? Now this is the second time.

[leftynyc]

35. I have no idea what that means

and frankly you're beginning to bore me.

[Adrahil]

66. Fred, just because YOU don't find it funny...

doesn't mean others don't. Charlie Hebdo is a commercial publication. They'd be out of business if they didn't have an audience. I'm not saying I particularly find their cartoons funny (I don't), but that's entirely beside the point.

[Quantess]

77. Ask Sean Hannity's fans if they think John Cleese's

Commentaries on Sean Hannity are funny.

Ask Wolf Blitzer if he laughs at John Stewart's jokes.

Ask Karl Rove's nearest and dearest whether they laugh at seeing their Karl compared to a slab of ham with wire rimmed glasses.

[Fred Sanders]

13. And the whole quote changes my quote...how?

[leftynyc]

26. Sigh

If you don't see how the truncating of that quote makes the President look like he's singling out Muslims for special treatment not afforded to others, I can't help you. In trying to find the entire quote I had to scroll past at least 20 right wing sites using it the exact same way you did. You must be so proud.

[Fred Sanders]

30. The right wing sites are corrupt bastards, they just used it in a different way...I hid nothing, you

saying so is weak, the UN speech and its context and purpose are well known.

The whole speech changes the RW use of the phrase, whereas the whole speech reinforces mine...see the difference?

[leftynyc]

34. And yet you used it the same exact way

with no mention or link to the entire speech. It seems you want special treatment for Islam and that's just plain bigotry. Let's not pretend that every time a Muslim does something heinous you're all over DU trying to deflect from the story by bringing up other religions as if that means anything to the story at hand. Your reputation speaks for itself.

[Fred Sanders]

49. No explanation yet for how the full speech changes the context...waiting....waiting....

[leftynyc]

55. Sigh

I thought it was only with children I had to continually repeat myself - it changes the context by showing that this wasn't an off the cuff statement - that it was part of a larger speech this was just one line in many that showed the Pres had more than just Islam on the brain. Are those small enough words for you now?

[Long Drive]

74. I hope you do not have much contact with children

Very caustic.

[Fred Sanders]

78. Truly. Even more so when completely wrong, which is most of the time.

[riderinthestorm]

81. "Caustic"??!!!

You're gonna want to grow a tougher skin here my newbie friend.

Welcome to DU! (For as long as you last since newbies insulting long time posters usually ensures a short term stay)...

[Fred Sanders]

82. "Caustic" is an insult? Who has the thin skin, it is not the poster?

[riderinthestorm]

85. The insinuation that leftynyc is so dangerous s/he should not be around children

Sorry but that kind of gratuitous slam makes DU suck

[Fred Sanders]

87. I saw it as more of a metaphor and "no contact" has no implication of dangerousness to children,

especially when used in metaphor.

[riderinthestorm]

88. I don't see the metaphor but thanks (I think) for trying to explain it

I'm utterly uninterested in derailing this OP on the newbies post however.

Stay warm out there!

[Fred Sanders]

89. Well, it is -31 with the wind chill so I am trying, thank you.

[riderinthestorm]

94. I hear you. I'm in Northern IL and we're also locked in the deep freeze

I am literally posting from @ 6 inches away the woodstove after being outside for an hour and a half doing midday chores. Climbed back into bed this morning after am chores. I'm trying to convince myself I need to buck up and help the staff with pm chores...ugh. Just got the shivers again typing that!



I really despise this weather - for me and the animals. Pretty miserable.

Take care of yourself!

[leftynyc]

84. I truly don't care

Just today I got accused of being happy about 12 people getting shot to death and having gunmen still on the loose? When I told the poster to go fuck himself, I got my post hidden. This place has become an insane asylum under that jury system but I've truly ceased caring about giving people the benefit of the doubt. So caustic is mild compared to what I've already put up with today.

[Long Drive]

110. I dont think we wil be friends

Snarky insults don't make for friendship Rider.

[leftynyc]

83. That's what happens

when I have to continually repeat myself to someone who hears only what they want to hear. Children love me....morons tend not to love me. I can live with that.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Thank you for the full quote, which changes the meaning of my quote not at all.

[QuestionableC]

6. Satire of religion isn't hate speech.

Religion should be made fun of. This magazine made fun of all religions. As if should. I hope the rest of the world declares yesterday a universal free speech day and from now on drags all the silly religious icons through satirical situations annually.

I hope to see an explicit cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed engaged in a 69 while Budha and Moses take dumps on their heads.

[Fred Sanders]

11. What cartoon of theirs did you find particularily hilarious and why?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Immaterial. I find little if anything of what you say to be relevant but you absolutely have

the right to say it.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Of course I do and I insulted no one and did not invite any hate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. So *you* say.

I've no doubt you think the world of yourself and remain confident in your moral clarity. I, on the other hand, find many seeds for acrimony and perhaps even a dash of misogyny in your comments (or absence thereof). I understand I'm probably just some misguided waif to be pitied and dismissed but if the standard you insist on promoting is one of subjective preference then no one will be allowed to speak -- including you.

[Fred Sanders]

38. Misogyny? Where? I have no idea who you are...who is being self-serving?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. heh

[safeinOhio]

7. Bill Hicks

I love religious satire.

[Fred Sanders]

15. The cartoons published with hate in mind are not satire...what cartoon did you find was hilarious?

[Frank Cannon]

37. So you are the Satire Police. Good to know.

Is this an elected position, or does DeVry offer a placement program for this?

There's a lot of satire and "comedy" that I don't find amusing and/or even find offensive. I think the Big Bang Theory on CBS is about as funny as a regulatory audit, but apparently a lot of other people disagree with me.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Yes, I am the satire police. Pens up!

Satire does not have to be humorous, but it is primarily a political tool...

"Satire"

"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

Pornographic images and images of the prophet or his followers being shot dead through a held up Koran...not political, not humor, not irony, not exaggeration....it surely is at least ridicule., on what topical isse, and it is in a purely religious, not political, context...it is not satire, it is hate for the sake of hate.

[easychoice]

103. devry --- LMAO

n/t

[LanternWaste]

70. How (precisely) does a hateful pen deny the literary device known as satire?

How (precisely) does a hateful pen deny the literary device known as satire?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

91. Give it up there Fred... either you want freedom or speech or you dont.

Comedy is speech. Hate speech is speech. Fiction is speech. Sarcasm is speech. Love is speech.

You don't get to pick and choose and you damn sure don’t have a right not to be offended. I personally love offending those sensitive types who think the world should kneel before their delicate sensibilities.

[Adrahil]

46. By all means, we can't offend people's make-believe prophet!

Hey, let's avoid offending creationists too!

[Fred Sanders]

53. On that note, time for some Java. I have made my points...

[Adrahil]

64. I went and got coffee too. :) I had a sociology professor who once said...

... if you're not offending someone with your ideas, you should examine if they worth having.

Social change, social justice, and fight against oppression always happens at the fringes of acceptability.

Religions are used to being dominant and unassailable. Sometimes breaking down that privileged position means stepping on some feelings.

C'est La Guerre.

[Vattel]

54. I think you misquoted Obama.

The transcripts of his speech that I have seen suggest that he said, "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." I don't think that these cartoons slander anyone. They ridicule religious belief.

[Fred Sanders]

61. Thank you for the correction on the quote, the full speech is even more instructive.

[Yo_Mama]

57. I'd say that the future can only belong to societies in which the right to insult the prophet,

the pope, the country's leaders, the flag, etc is respected and defended.

Countries that don't defend such rights right now are sliding backwards into barbaric decay. Just look around the world.

[Rex]

80. I'm sorry, is that a crime punishable by death? No it is not and you know this.

There is a point, do I need to explain it to you or are you familiar with free speech?

[lame54]

115. Don't look at it as an increase...

look at it as the proper amount of satire that should have taken place over the years if it weren't for their threats of death being so effective - now the flood gates are open and the fear has lifted

[leftynyc]

2. Agree

Free speech should never be squelched by the actions of murderous scum. I said yesterday that cartoon should have been on the front page of every paper in the west although I think only the Wash Post was brave enough to put it in the paper at all (I think I read it's on the editorial page). That magazine was plenty insulting to both Catholics and Jews and yet nobody from those groups has seen fit to murder over it. There is no right not be offended.

[malaise]

3. I suggest you read the Rude Pundit from yesterday

Apparently he has seen the cartoons.

'Cause, see, this wasn't just Mohammed's face made into a bomb, like that Danish magazine published a few years ago. Oh, no, no, no. Charlie Hebdo went all out in degrading Islam, like South Park on meth. Ask yourself how you think some Christians would react if a newspaper that was available on the streets of major cities had a cartoon of Jesus Christ - you know him, right? - naked on all fours with his asshole facing the reader, his balls and dripping cock dangling. Or Jesus lying nude on the ground with a camera pointed at his butt while he says, "My ass? And you love it, my ass?" Because, see, that's how Charlie Hebdo portrayed Mohammed.

It's vicious, childish, and funny (in that "Well, they did like Jerry Lewis" sort of French way). But if you, fine imaginary Christian reader, are condemning Muslims for a violent reaction to the cartoons, then you are saying, in essence, that you are totally cool with the aforementioned images of Christ. And you are saying, "Go ahead, American cartoonists, draw Jesus's dong and Mary's leaky titties and poor Joseph jacking off in the corner. It's not a problem."

For the record, the Rude Pundit believes that freedom of expression and, indeed, freedom of the press trumps your right to live without being offended. Charlie Hebdo, Bill Maher, even Ann goddamn Coulter can say whatever the fuck they want. If you disagree, you can go fuck yourself with a torah until you splooge on a statue of Shiva and wipe it up with an American flag. Or maybe offer a counterargument where the point isn't made with a gun, unlike the three shooting dickheads in Paris who just made life a little harder for Muslims in the West.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026051717

I'm a fugging atheist so I don't give a damn who draws what about whichever deity but I defer to Rudie on this one.

[brooklynite]

9. People have the right to be offended...and they have the right to not read things that offend them

They don't have the right to live in a multicultural society AND be completely immune from exposure to things that offend them.

[randome]

62. That's the most cogent statement I've seen on this.

Until now, I pointed out that there is a part of the world where ridicule and satire are not permitted, and that our defense of cartoonists is a Western construct we insist on imposing on the rest of the world.

But the three gunmen chose to live in a multicultural society as you pointed out. Their choice, their 'cross to bear', so to speak.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fred Sanders]

12. Most on DU have rejected The Rude One and his impeccable logic and research, a real shame.

[oberliner]

28. "Ask yourself how you think some Christians would react if a newspaper ..."

The same paper has portrayed Jesus exactly that way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026051717#post10

[Fred Sanders]

40. Muslims did not "react" to the offensive "satire", apparently three madmen foreign to Islam, did.

[polly7]

47. +1000. nt.

[oberliner]

48. Of course they did

Muslim groups have been very vocal in their criticism of the aforementioned cartoons, specifically the ones that depict the prophet in the manner described.

The vast majority of Muslims do not believe the prophet should be depicted at all.

[MellowDem]

95. So the No True Scotsmen thing?

You get to define who is a true Muslim and who is not? Islam can never inspire bad actions?

[Fred Sanders]

102. The No False Scotsman thing? One gets to define the masses by the actions of a few?

The "no true Scotsman" thingy is false logic from the get go.

[MellowDem]

111. I didn't define the masses....

And yes, saying these guys aren't Muslims is a fallacy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. Really? That doesn't look 'exactly that way' to me.

It's no doubt offensive to Christians, but not nearly as graphic. I say let them publish exactly the same cartoons with just the characters switched out, send copies to folks like Pat Robertson, Ted Cruz and the like and see what happens. I bet half of Congress would want to declare war on France.

[oberliner]

60. You've seen both cartoons?

You don't think the Jesus cartoons are as graphic?

They certainly seem that way to me.

Do Pat Robertson and Ted Cruz want to declare war on the US for producing South Park?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. I've seen the Jesus ones you linked.

(or someone did) No genitalia was hanging out, 'dripping', no 'assholes being shoved in the face of the viewer' etc. So no, those were nowhere near as graphic, if the descriptions of the other pictures are accurate. I didn't see any links to the Muslim ones, just the descriptions thereof. You might consider them 'just as offensive', but 'graphic' usually has a different meaning than 'offensive', one that speaks to exactly how much is actually shown versus left to the imagination.

As to your last question? Probably - I imagine if you spent a while searching, you could find one deranged rant or another by Pat Robertson you could find him going off on South Park. Probably more than once. Unluckily for most of America, Robertson is a chickenhawk type, always willing to whip up hatred and push the extremists towards bad actions, but unwilling to try to carry out what he believes in person. I say unluckily, because if he would go beyond hate speech, he would quickly wind up in jail, and off the air.

[oberliner]

67. So you haven't seen the Mohammed one?

You are just going from the description in that post?

If so, I would respectfully assert that the description given is not accurate, unless there is some other cartoon that is being referenced that has not been posted anywhere.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

68. I have now seen multiple anti-Islamic ones from Hebdo.

And while the 'asshole in face' description is off on the one, the 'dripping hanging genitalia' one is dead on. So yes, as an atheist and a neutral observer, the anti-Islamic ones are more graphic and generally offensive.

[oberliner]

107. Fair enough

But I think you will agree that they did publish multiple graphic and offensive cartoons involving Jesus even if they were not as graphic as the one you identified.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

76. I think some christians would protest

Men like Donohue would be given airtime by Fox where he could spout his displeasure. The bishops would be in an uproar. And on and on, as they should, since they also have a right to complain.

At the same time, I don't know believe Donohue or any of the others would be calling for the curtailment of free speech, which is what some Muslims want.

[brooklynite]

97. Actually.....

"Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

98. Like a drunk girl being raped

Yeah, I guess he did play a role in his own murder. He should have been smarter.

[Fred Sanders]

104. The vulgarity united all the religions against the cartoonists.

Today, four leading French imams denounced the massacre, warning that the world is a dangerous place without freedom of expression but urging the media to be respectful of religion.
Djelloul Seddiki, head of the great mosque of Paris; Tareq Oubrou, director of the Bordeaux mosque; Azzedine Gaci of the Villeurbanne mosque; and Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the Union of Mosques in France, joined Pope Francis in condemning the cruelty of the attack".

Contrast, compare to the response of the head of the Catholic League in America........


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901874/Revenge-attacks-retaliation-begin-Mosques-come-fire-guns-grenades-France-kebab-shop-near-Muslim-temple-blown-up.html#ixzz3OGktsUia

[DetlefK]

31. That's like eating freedom fries to support the Global War on Terrorism.

Consider this cartoon, depicting Muhammad in the nude and in a degrading position mimicking muslim prayer:
https://eurobeats.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/charliehebdo-pictures.jp g

Next time somebody kills an abortion-doctor, should we post degrading pictures of Jesus Christ to exact revenge on fundamentalist Christians?

[brooklynite]

42. Your analogy doesn't work...

...kiling an abortion doctor has nothing to do with satire.

[DetlefK]

63. But it has to do with murder for religious reasons.

[NYC Liberal]

112. A better analogy is:

"Next time somebody kills an abortion-doctor, should we encourage women to stop having abortions and doctors to stop performing them?"

Because that would be the analog to the suggestion that "Because someone killed people over an offensive cartoon they published, we should stop publishing offensive cartoons."

[rbrnmw]

43. That is insulting Muslims who are good peaceful people

There are most likely Muslims on DU. I am sure you wouldn't want to insult them.

[leftynyc]

44. Here's a link that

shows how newspapers around the world are handling this. So many with courage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-front-pages_n_6433722.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. 'Should'?

A small number of extremist Muslims carried out a murderous attack. Among non-extremist Muslims, I imagine most of them wish the attack hadn't happened, if only because of the anti-Muslim blowback that's already happening and only going to get worse. Fanning the flames of hate and violence only serves the extremists. Satire should have some point other than 'You guys suck'.

[Fred Sanders]

52. John Stewart, the master of satire, always has a point besides "I hate you and you suck". Satire.

[LanternWaste]

72. your own dogma is blinding you to additional aspects that invalidate your absolutism.

Simply because you are unable to see a given point does not deny that point's existence. You appear to be predicating your entire premise on a fictional and absolute knowledge of what is or is not humorous, despite that humor is subjective. In essence, your own dogma is blinding you to additional aspects that invalidate your absolutism.

[HappyMe]

59. I agree.

Why the hell should anti-Muslim cartoons and slogans become a commonplace thing. Three muderous assholes does not mean that anti-Muslim feelings should prevail.

You are also correct about the childish level of what passed as "satire" in those magazine cartoons. They have every right to publish whatever they want, and did not deserve to die for it. I have every right to think that their efforts are eye rollingly stupid.

[Fred Sanders]

75. The fact the cartoonists have been tragically murdered does not make their cartoons any better or

worthy of support.

Disgusting cartoons then, disgusting as ever now.

They can have their free speech rights to be disgusting and I have identical rights to call them that.

[HappyMe]

79. Again, I do agree.

Really good satire is a fine art. I think it should give you a chuckle (or at least a smile) and make you think. I looked at some of the cartoons. They seemed pretty juvenile. It makes me wonder if people have fallen into a 'we're oh so edgy' mindset and gratuitous crap is being cranked out as "satire".

[SidDithers]

50. Belief is a choice, and should absolutely be open to satire and ridicule...

As the saying goes, if you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs, don't have such funny beliefs.

Sid

[Yo_Mama]

51. Censoring the "offensive" material only encourages such attacks.

The only way to stop this sort of thing - this is HARDLY the first such incident - is for everyone to respond by publishing the same stuff or the same type of stuff.

History teaches us that placing people's sensibilities over people's rights produces a situation in which all rights are violated and any sane sensibilities are grossly offended by the crimes committed in society. So the result is a society in which only insane sensibilities are respected - like Iran.

[Taitertots]

71. "Anti-Muslim"? We must move beyond thinking that any criticism of Islam is anti-Muslim

People of every religion (or no religion) need to get used to the fact that their religious opinions are subject to public criticism.

[brooklynite]

73. Charlie Hebdo staff vow to print 1m copies as French media support grows

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014983487

[m-lekktor]

90. and it will sell out before everybody who wants a copy is able to purchase one. nt

[LittleBlue]

86. I disagree. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were just crude provocateurs

There was little of value from a criticism standpoint. Only insults.

I don't see how this is even a freedom of speech issue. Those who carried out this attack weren't the government or any accepted group with influence among the PTB. It was more a question of trolling, and how violent the craziest group would get in the aftermath.

IMO the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo did not die as free speech martyrs. The cartoonists were no different than a guy who goes to multiple bars and insults every man's mother, and who eventually finds the one guy mentally unstable enough to pull out a gun and go postal over an insult.

They were scarcely more sophisticated than internet trolls.

[Fred Sanders]

92. My viewpoint also. Free speech fine, free speech martyrs...no.

[Blue_In_AK]

93. How about an increase in anti-US satire for all the innocents

we've been responsible for slaughtering around the Muslim world?

Escalation is the problem, not the solution.

[brooklynite]

96. You're welcome to produce some

or is that someone else's job?

[whatchamacallit]

99. Including more radically offensive Christian and Jewish satire? n/t

[brooklynite]

100. I assume they will continue to produce that...

...but there haven't been any attempts to suppress Christian and Jewish satire lately, so no need for a response.

[Blue_In_AK]

106. Generally speaking, in this day and age,

anti-Jewish and anti-Christian satire is less offensive, but one only has to look back to the late '30s and German anti-Jewish satire to see the danger here.

Personally, I think it would behoove everyone to de-escalate the eye-pokes. But that's just me.

[whatchamacallit]

109. Certainly there hasn't been anyone killed over it recently (afaik)

But there are constant efforts to suppress Christian and Jewish "satire" where they resemble prejudice or hate speech.