Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumNovelist admits she was wrong to oppose Charlie Hebdo award
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/04/novelist-i-was-misinformed-and-quite-frankly-wrong-when-i-opposed-charlie-hebdos-courage-award/And an excellent summary of the whole debacle:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/05/america-s-literary-elite-takes-a-bold-stand-against-dead-journalists.html
American writers misunderstanding French satire. At least one had the courage to own up to the mistake, hopefully more will?
Imagine the Colbert show being attaked, and French artists blaming Colbert because of his racist and bigoted show.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1573 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Novelist admits she was wrong to oppose Charlie Hebdo award (Original Post)
MellowDem
Jun 2015
OP
trotsky
(49,533 posts)1. Key takeaway:
I like many, I now believe fundamentally misunderstood Charlie Hebdos mission and content. The controversial images while arguably tasteless, offensive and not even particularly well-drawn sprang from satire, not hate. It is a profound and crucial difference: if one is to argue for freedom of speech there can be no caveats, no asterisks, no fine print qualifying that freedom only applies to expression we dont consider too upsetting, or doesnt enrage right-wing fundamentalists with guns.
Here's hoping other people see the light one day as well!
nil desperandum
(654 posts)2. Indeed
it's what we say and do when we are wrong that truly defines our character.
Good to see this article it at least reminds me that there are those who can still be honest and express their wrongdoing with a sincere apology.
Free speech that contains either hate or satire that irritates and inflames is the ultimate test of our resolve to understand and respect our rights.
Free speech for the speech we love is easy, free speech for the speech we find reprehensible, offensive, or hateful is difficult but it is also the kind of free speech we must defend to the death.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)3. SOME folks here REALLY need to understand and grok this.
I like many, I now believe fundamentally misunderstood Charlie Hebdos mission and content. The controversial images while arguably tasteless, offensive and not even particularly well-drawn sprang from satire, not hate. It is a profound and crucial difference: if one is to argue for freedom of speech there can be no caveats, no asterisks, no fine print qualifying that freedom only applies to expression we dont consider too upsetting, or doesnt enrage right-wing fundamentalists with guns.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)4. Well done
Hemant Mehta puts it well:
Good for her. Thats not an easy letter to write, but she deserves credit for admitting she jumped on the anti-free-speech bandwagon at a time when we needed courageous voices supporting the rights of Charlie Hebdo more than ever.
Lets hope others follow in her footsteps.
Lets hope others follow in her footsteps.