Gunmen Storm Office Of Satirical Magazine In Paris

Ok, I see at least some of the problems we (all in this discussion) are having here. Cultural and legal differences.


1. Marketing terms are not legal terms nor is this how publicize is used in everyday vernacular.

Versus marketing


Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to advertise or promote their magazine? Because that is still censoring their activities.

Politizing, I don't know what to tell you because politicians use and abuse everything to make their point. Not allowing them to use a published article/cartoon is also censorship.

2. There are MANY censorship laws already on the books.
No threats, no libel or slander, no speech that incites violence.

Since the war on terror the US has enacted constitutional free zones, meaning the constitution does not apply to anyone there. There are far more limits on speech than you seem to understand and each country in the West is different. There has been and probably always will be a difference of opinion on how much censorship should and should not be allowed.

3. Hate speech is still protected speech (again depending on the country), as frankly it should be. Calling someone a derogatory name is not illegal. In the US: The KKK still exists and still has marches, the holocaust deniers still have conferences and blame the worlds problems on the Jews, etc. It is protected speech until it spills over into threats and inciting violence.

Now some private businesses are making it a point to fire racists and bigots who make their comments publically available if it hurts their revenue and image. Other businesses have become vocal in the opposite direction, displaying racist and bigot attitudes. Both of these reactions provide consumers with information to chose or not to support those businesses. Laws censoring speech are not needed on a self-correcting problem.

4. Where are you getting the idea that this magazine was forcing Muslims to read it? How did the people who did this find out about these cartoons? Did they buy the magazine?


Laws should not to be written on what might happen, or to put it another way, laws should not be written for thought crimes. Crimes that only exist in the imagination are not crimes.

For that matter there are already laws against your hypothetical. Harassment, stalking, and destruction of private/public property, off the top of my head.

Restricting how a magazine is allowed to promote itself is censorship.


Not everyone in the West believes free speech or satire should be allowed. Along with our history of satire we have a historypersecuting our satirists and anyone who speaks out against the establishment.

Over the course of centuries the law has changed multiple times to protect this and the fight continues to this day, and will probably continue for centuries to come if the nations still exist.


Now, this seems like a cultural misunderstanding.

Private businesses have much of the same rights as private individuals, due to contract law. Which means they are allowed to have unpopular opinions, just like ordinary people.

You want France's culture and law to change to respect the feelings of Muslims throughout the world?

Does the west get quid pro quo? Do "we" get to change your culture and legal systems?

Yes....against each other too. European countries haven't exactly been on great terms with each for most of history, which is one reason why generalizing "the West" is problematic.

Middle eastern and Asian countries also have spotty records with the above.


Two problems I see here:

1. You keep stating that all Muslims would be insulted, all Muslims live a certain way or as above

And yet you state they also don't have much in common culturelly. Religion is not a culture? It doesn't influence your daily life, public holidays, your laws, etc?

Are there differences between Iraq and Indonesia Muslims? Absolutely. How they practice their faith is also probably different.

Have you been to mosques in other countries and experienced differences? Reason I ask is I know several Catholics who were astonished at how different Catholic churches were in different countries. The cultures while influenced by the same book, had different variations.

So, yes, we shouldn't lump all Muslims together. By we I mean everyone, not just Westerners.

2. By stating Europe as a whole have common a culture and ideology you are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Europeans have a history of killing each other. The cultures between two neighboring states can and are vastly different. UK and France do not share the same culture or ideologies. Hell, Sweden and Denmark are different culturelly and Denmark ruled Sweden for a long time. The animonsity between them still exists in some respects (personal example: One of my project managers stated Sweden was the like the Southern Europe of Scandanavia.) Milamber has more personal examples of the friction between the two people. I'm sure Drac can weigh in on the subject too.

Within the EU alone there are 24 different official translation languages. There are a variety of different religions, different criminal laws, different cultural norms (e.g. Topless beaches vs. That is indecent behavior), etc.

The EU was created to prevent future wars by creating economic interdependence. So far that has worked, but who knows what the future will bring.



Sure, it's possible. It's not likely to be limited to Muslims.

Immigrants (all of them not just Muslims) are used as escape goats in most countries. It's easy to blame the foreigners, especially if it is perceived that the immigrants refuse to intergrate.

Are you familiar with the strife between the UK and Germany regarding eastern EU countries? How the UK would like to renegotiate the free movement of people part of the treaty they signed while keeping the free movement of goods and services?

When the 2008 recession started political parties in the EU that blamed immigrants (especially those from Africa or free movers from Eastern Europe, depending on the country involved) for their problems started becoming popular. Because as it has been shown multiple times throughout history they are easy targets to rile the masses with. Golden Dawn in Greece comes to mind.

I've seen 3 different rule changes in DK since I've lived here dealing with immigration, based the parties in charge. New rules for citizenship will be published this summer. At one point the rules for a permanent visas were so ambiguous very, very few were being issued.

Muslims aren't the only ones dealing with xenophobia. Ask the Polish or Romanians how they feel living in Western European countries.

Boobies are back actually.

How on earth you've come to the conclusion that depicting said prophet, engaged in acts, that the very same religion tries to teach against is targeting only the extremists, is beyond. Your not that dumb surely
But every time this question is asked you all seem to be slippery about answering this.
Forget the history of satire. It doesn't answer it. And no one here is saying lets get rid of satire.
Don't say freedom of speech as a blanket statement. Doesn't answer the question.
There's a reason some things in my country are only allowed to be shown after a certain watershed.
There is a reason why some films are 15, 18.
There's a reason your not allowed out nude in public.
There's a reason law is justifiable.
It's there to keep our society peaceful and free without hurting or influencing others in a negative mindset.
Rarely see anyone blast these as harm against our freedoms so why these pictures in particular? (That's what perplexes me)

So let's keep on track here.
The real discussion is what value do these pictures hold to society.
Give a specific reasonable answer to these specific pictures to discuss.

As much as pornography and violence shouldn't be broadcasted on public television during day time.


I think that bar you set is pretty low. Violence and threats are both taking place. Granted, the true culprits and cause of it are the terrorists who killed the magazine's staff. But they're not really informed now are they? Their impression and knowledge of Islam and muslims is limited. The magazine publications feed into the false stereotype and fans the flames of division and racism.

You misunderstood me or chose to ignore my hypothetical, which is not by any means far fetched. Your own husband used these very forums to goad me and others who are Muslim by posting them, did he not?

That is part of my point. We agree.

There are basic concepts and beliefs that are required to identify as a Muslim. You can't be Muslim and say its ok to depict the prophet, especially in such vulgarity, anymore than you can say you are christian while denying the existence of Jesus.
Of course there is pluralism in Islam both in doctrine and ethnicity. But there are certain areas that are deal breakers.
Islam is the Quran and the Prophet. So I don't see what you're on about when you mention diversity in Islam. The Quran and the Prophet aren't a differentiator between all muslims, they are the common denominator.




I didn't say they did. Reread what I wrote, slowly.


@Charlo, if you hadn't quoted that troll I would have never noticed his post. Don't bother yourself with him.

Its nice to see some rationality after reading pages and pages of drivel. well said

I remember the one and only time I checked the Sun in London. I didn't expect boobs while shopping for toilet paper.

You should have actually looked at the pictures rather than assuming. none of them dealt with the prophet

One had a pope, rabbi and an imam walking together

I'll respond to the rest later.

Edited

Maybe we should stop giving each other advice and start communicating like adults by respecting one another?

A quick laugh.

The person drawing this either has political reasons or just wants to have a quick laugh. That's it, really.

It's stupid, mean, quick, whatever, it's a quick laugh.

I don't support hurting people but I don't support being easily butthurt either. It's a charybdis/scylla situation, really.

yeah, Kara's posts are filled with rational arguments.

You and charlo should learn from her.

Protip: Religion basks on irrationality. That's the whole purpose of theism....

You have just demonstrated communication issues by not even knowing what he posted and calling him a racist without knowing.

Exactly how are any of the following pictures of:
- the father, son, and holy spirit having "sex" with each other
- a rabbi, a priest, and an imam saying, in union, "Charlie Hebdo must be censored"
- germany taking europe hostage

offensive to Muslims?
Particularly since you seem to agree with the second?

You seem to be good at gathering information at a fast rate. Its a good skill, but without a brain to navigate the net it is useless. You really don't know why a Muslim would generally find any depiction of Jesus or other faith's holy figures offensive?

This is pretty much the problem with you. You're a prime example of someone who knows something and thinks they know it all.

Go and do some reading, I'm not going to give you any more hints.

Holy crap, then you must be offended by almost every single christian church in the world, since they invariably almost all have various depictions of Jesus in them.

Nah, just find people like you amusing. You have no point but are reaching for one.
We don't believe in insulting or making a mockery of other people's beliefs. Must sound alien to you.

I've learned that all muslism are clearly an example of modesty.
Look no further than Blazed, such a humble man, degrading each and every opposing interlocutor cause they're always too young, haven't traveled enough, don't know the real truth to which he adheres, and so forth.

Ooh good idea. (I [+] you but it is not sticking =/)

I've learned that calling for a discussion and asking for communication actually means do not question Blazed, he speaks for 1.7 billion people, and if they don't agree with him they're really not part of his religion.

I'm guessing that number has decreased substantially now that those factions have been denounced as not true Muslims.

I have to say I particularly liked the part where he complained that people lump all muslism together THAT'S 2 BILLION PEOPLE! Meanwhile he does the same with "the west". How many billions is that again?

If that's pretty much the defence of the whole discussion, then I would then argue that whoever found it funny has a hidden/unhidden motive of a bias bullying prejudice. And are pathetic. Like some sort of a school yard bully mentality.

What gets my goat is when people try to use that large number to bolster their point, as if they've confirmed with every Muslim/Catholic/Jew on the planet that what they say speaks for everyone.

Wild guess, but are you and Mil actually able to like the same post, or does it act like it's one accout due to ip?

Hmm, maybe.

Linked to IP address maybe?

Edit: yeah, doing a quick check his [+] overrides my [+]

You're reacting like a school victim.

Bullying is bad, but bullying is only as bad as the person bullied make it to be. Grow up, to sum up.

Once again, it's Charybdis/Scylla. On one side people are being *** without any real meaning, it's very shallow and shouldn't be seen as a deep attack, or a targeted attack, and on the other side we have "victims" who are very often too sensitive.

Bullying is one thing, being too sensitive is another and is very real.
From my point of view, Muslims who get legit angry over these drawings are weak minded and dumb. But that doesn't mean I'll try to hurt them, and it doesn't mean they are. Everyone has a different way of seeing it.
I see it that way specifically because when someone tried to hurt me by attacking something that is dear to me, I literally give no ***as it's childish, I move on with my life.

We've all been bullied or at least someone tried to bully us, even for those of us who've been the bullies. But we all had different reactions to those situations. The key is to learn and react appropriately, which is what life experience is for, aka maturity. Getting angry in general is a proof of being immature, unwise and so on. There is no discussing it, unfortunately.

TL;DR: there are bullies but there are also little *** that get mad over something they shouldn't. And yes, they really *** shouldn't, unless they're literally 6 years old. End.

Looks like some country in Europe are finally remove citizenship to people that went to fight in Syria/Iraq so they can't come back

Edited. Wording unfinished
I'll agree, like the people behind these pictures and the people who publicise them are like 6 year olds just like the extremists. Except the people I'm defending(98% of Muslims) are just turning a blind eye to it. We can both agree doesn't make the bullying right though.

You probably should read what he said again. Or use the sarcasm tag.