by andrekish 62 Replies latest members politics
andrekish, who decides what is offensive? Perhaps, like most of us here, you too once spread a message of intolerance and division. Or do you think I'm being unfair?
I'm not familiar with the contents of Charlie Hebdo beyond what I've gleaned recently but the principle is sound and the lesson is clear.
Speak freely and disagree as loudly as you wish - without the threat or act of violence.
Je suis Charlie
cofty - yes, you're right, point taken.
Attacking someone for their ethnicity or skin colour is completely different from attacking or ridiculing a belief, idea or behaviour.
The other thing to remember is how society works. Society decides what is an isn't acceptable and has shifted in the last 50 years so that certain expressions are no longer tolerated. This is society getting better - making it unacceptable to attack people for what they are. While you may not value publications like this they do play an important role in making sure the boundaries of free expression are not moved backwards - especially important when it comes to politics and those with real power and influence.
Why do you think so many fascist dictatorships begin by burning books?
Being able to ridicule and satirize our politician, public figures and leaders is a safety valve that lets us know that society is working and free and fair and isn't being taken over by extremists. That is why they are of value even if you cannot see the value in the drawings - it's about more than the cartoons themselves.
If people see their prophet as a leader / political figure then why should he be excluded from criticism? Keep him locked away at home and he's not a target. Put the blame where it lies.
You are using quotes as if someone said in this thread that they had it coming or brought it on themselves.
That is what some seem to be implying. I find this a repulsive idea.
andrekish, who decides what is offensive? Perhaps, like most of us here, you too once spread a message of intolerance and division. Or do you think I'm being unfair?
Exactly. And don't other have the right to find *their* views offensive? Should we be allowed to slaughter them because of it?
If people want to make an argument to excuse something, see what happens if you reverse it - any argument that is made can and should be applied in the other direction as well.
Shooting people because they laugh at one's sense of humor is terrorism. Why not just draw cartoons ridiculing the cartoonists? Perhaps a battle of pens would be more appropriate.
Killing cartoonists is an attempt to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who dares to oppose Islam and its antiquated beliefs. Defending moronic Islamic power-grabbing religious fanatics is a desertion of rationality. Next thing we will be shooting Jews, Hindus and members of this forum - for laughing at Jehovah's Witnesses.
Let's look at Freedom of speech in France for a sec. If they would have drawn a picture of muhammad having sex with a goat it would be all laughs and giggles.
If they drew a picture of Netanyahu or other Jewish political figure holding hands with Hitler they would have been facing a possible fine.
In the USA freedom of speech has a different definition and is more fair.
wallowindawn: I'm getting tired of you trying to excuse or justify antisemitism in every other topic you post on. We're not here to be a platform for your racist biases. There are obvious reasons from history why the laws in France are as they are (e.g. Vichy government involvement in the deaths of millions of Jews)
In every topic? I said so in this topic to demonstrate that it is not true freedom of speech. The other topic was literally the same subject matter and for the same reason.
In France you could create a comic showing a Congolese African holding hands with King Leopold jojing about that holocaust and no one would care. Why... because it is okay to insult some groups and not others based solely on political leanings. Not based on the magnitude of the actual event.
To say that I have done this is every post is entirely unfair and extremely untrue
"every other" is an expression - you have done it before. The fact is in your limited posting history you have injected complaints about "not being able to make anti-semitic comments as being unfair" into the discussion. It seems a bizarre thing to have an issue with. We've already established that there should be limits to free-speech - inciting hatred against a race being one of them. You seem particularly focused on jews for some reason.
I don't care what your agenda is, I am telling you that it will not be tolerated here. I don't care whether you think that is fair or not. If you don't then this obviously isn't the place for you.
This is the only thing I have ever posted about along those lines. The quote is actual a restating of a law in france were all I am saying is that it is fair to offend one group and not another.
why are you making it seem otherwise?
