Tetragrammaton Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) OTHER MODS: If you don't think this is far enough down the rabbit hole, lemme know. I like the topic, which is why I changed a bunch of stuff so this guy wouldn't be warned. Background information What is your opinion? Edited August 8, 2015 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) i don't understand the topic title. this place deserves to be ignored or ridiculed, nothing more. what happened earlier this year was a tragedy. though a comic/cartoonist company might lack humor and be offensive, it doesn't deserve to have its employees killed, it deserves either no attention at all or ridicule, which it's getting. it's free to make whatever cartoons it wants. i don't have a problem with their actions, but as far as i can tell their content isn't the best. Edited August 8, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I agree with Phoenix on that no matter how offensive the content is, there shouldn't be violence over it. It deserves to be ridiculed, but it's certainly not worth killing over, and what happened was tragic. That being said, as for the magazine in question, I think that that is very offensive. Should it be removed from public sales? No. However, the right to free speech does not give you protection from criticism. CH, another magazine, or anyone in a country with free speech rights can say whatever they like, but many fail to understand that freedom of speech does not equate with freedom from being called out for their stupidity/insensitivity/whatever else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 i'd like that front page more if it actually made sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Sorry 'bout the topic edit, but I would've had to have handed a warning out for that. ;/ It's in poor taste, that's for sure. Unless it's a place where showing such pictures is a no-no (like here), I'll roll my eyes and promptly forget about them. That doesn't mean they're free from criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Well they have the right to do that, like other people has the right to say it is crap. Edited August 8, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted August 8, 2015 Author Share Posted August 8, 2015 I know that lot of people like the idea about Free speech. I think the Charlie Hebdo people didn't learn from their lesson, thus they tried to make more enemies instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) But there was no "lesson" to be learnt from the attack they suffered. They were not in the wrong, and thinking otherwise is victim blaming. They have the right to do whatever they want on their magazine cover, regardless of people thinking it's on bad taste (which I do, but that's irrelevant) or not. Obviously, anyone can criticize them, say the magazine is crap, not buy it, boycott it, etc, but they still have the right to put whatever they want on their cover. Edited August 8, 2015 by Hittist Little Thigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 "Free speech" generally refers to the fact that they cannot be jailed or persecuted by the government for saying/doing this. That means that any company or business can restrict/censor them in their domain and be well within their right to do so. Regardless, all of that goes out the window when they suffer a violent attack - as provocative, tasteless and shit as their content seems to be, they shouldn't have to fear for their lives in order to spew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 I pretty much agree with everyone else here. Free speech should only be restricted if it is an explicit call to violence against another, whatever the reasoning. Neither of Charlie Hebdo's covers did that. The search for the plane is stupid anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 There are a few other times when free speech should be infringed upon...basically, libel, false advertising, purgery, and probably some other forms of dishonesty I'm not able to think of right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 True, but I was talking in terms of hate speech, which this was clearly not. It's nothing to get worked up over whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 There are a few other times when free speech should be infringed upon...basically, libel, false advertising, purgery, and probably some other forms of dishonesty I'm not able to think of right now. Any private entity who restricts what's posted (like here). . . I know that lot of people like the idea about Free speech. I think the Charlie Hebdo people didn't learn from their lesson, thus they tried to make more enemies instead. If you want them to learn a "lesson", then make it so that their line of business isn't profitable (as in, don't buy their stuff and don't advertise it). Telling them to STFU over that type of magazine cover isn't how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Any private entity who restricts what's posted (like here). . . I thought that SF was a free place where all bird laguz could be equal... EDIT-Sorry if this is too flippant, I am willing to accept the deletion of this post. Edited August 8, 2015 by Severian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Comrade Marx is working to make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 *brandishes a dead fish* That's enough, you two. My post was an illustration that free speech can be limited by private entities for their own reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Don't worry, just because I made a bad joke doesn't mean I didn't understand your post or that i thought it was bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I know that lot of people like the idea about Free speech. I think the Charlie Hebdo people didn't learn from their lesson, thus they tried to make more enemies instead. Lesson? You mean if you make a satirical magazine you deserve to have your employees killed? Sorry pal, I don't think that can be considered a lesson. Also, this: *brandishes a dead fish* BRANDISHES A DEAD FISH -smiling intensifies- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 It can also be called in to question who is willing to kill over this joke. I don't think that there is some terror organization dedicated to killing people who make jokes about disappeared planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 It can also be called in to question who is willing to kill over this joke. I don't think that there is some terror organization dedicated to killing people who make jokes about disappeared planes. Probably not willing to kill. Then again, there shouldn't have been people who would kill over a drawing of their god. Who knows? Maybe there are some really angry relatives who are also crazy. Also, I don't think terrorism affects free speech rights. It can make people hesitant to speak freely, but it won't stop them from doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Probably not willing to kill. Then again, there shouldn't have been people who would kill over a drawing of their god. Who knows? Maybe there are some really angry relatives who are also crazy. Also, I don't think terrorism affects free speech rights. It can make people hesitant to speak freely, but it won't stop them from doing so. No, I was responding to the guy who said they didn't learn their lesson, which is obviously flawed logic on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 You can say whatever you like, as long as it's not against the law, and dont make people angry at you. You get killed once, shame on the IS. But if you get killed twice, shame on you. You know it will come and you desperately ask for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 You can say whatever you like, as long as it's not against the law, and dont make people angry at you. You get killed once, shame on the IS. But if you get killed twice, shame on you. You know it will come and you desperately ask for it. Lol what? So you're saying that IS was justified in killing them? Surely you can't be suggesting that Charlie Hebdo is at fault for a terrorist group attacking them. Their magazine, while sarcastic at best, did not warrant a killing spree. I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that they are at fault for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapbar Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Holy shit dude, if you actually believe that the murder of 12 employees (at least I think that's the number the article says, it has a grammar mistake) is seriously justified by the fact that they made a stupid fucking satire cover (no matter how tasteless) then I am legitimately speechless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) I think invoking the example of 'fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me' when it relates to peoples lives isn't the best here. It's obvious that they are going to continue - their entire business is based around doing this - the only other option would be to fold after that attack. Edited August 10, 2015 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.