Free speech or free insult

[Tetragrammaton]

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.

I say that free speech is not against the law of any Western country, but whatever CH did, it's definitely against the Islam law, then the IS people decided that some CH people deserved to die, and they did it.

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

They would not die if they knew where the limit is. IS tried to teach them a lesson, but they don't take it seriously.

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.

It's their free of choice, they can do something less offence to the other, or continue to insult dangerous people, and hope they will survive after the second visit.

You cannot ban them to ask for another slaughter. You are free to say something stupid and get punch in your face.

Edited August 11, 2015 by hanhnn

[Blaze The Great]

I say that free speech is not against the law of any Western country, but whatever CH did, it's definitely against the Islam law, then the IS people decided that some CH people deserved to die, and they did it.

Still doesn't justify murder. Islam is...a morally flawed religion, in my opinion. When the followers are encouraged by the Koran to make people convert at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun, you've gotta see that there is something wrong there. IS definitely could've handled the situation better. At the very least, give CH a warning or a threat before they go on a rampage through their building (still shouldn't even threaten them though).

[Soapbar]

They would not die if they knew where the limit is. IS tried to teach them a lesson, but they don't take it seriously.

What fucking lesson!? That IS is fucking crazy? They weren't in the wrong, they had all right to put something stupid on the cover but they don't deserved to be fucking murdered for it!

There is a million other ways to "teach them a lesson" that doesn't involve taking human lives. Boycott it, criticize it, make it unprofitable. Literally anything but killing them.

[eclipse]

ISIS didn't teach a lesson. They threw a temper tantrum.

Silencing by force is a strongarm tactic, and one that I don't approve of, except in extraordinary situations. Charlie Hebdo's magazine covers are not extraordinary.

[blah the Prussian]

Still doesn't justify murder. Islam is...a morally flawed religion, in my opinion. When the followers are encouraged by the Koran to make people convert at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun, you've gotta see that there is something wrong there. IS definitely could've handled the situation better. At the very least, give CH a warning or a threat before they go on a rampage through their building (still shouldn't even threaten them though).

The same can be said for Christianity. My opinion of the matter is that Islam is currently in the middle of its own dark ages that began with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It sucks, but at some point it will have a renaissance and return to the days of the Ottoman Empire, where the extremists were kept in line by the Sublime Porte. Of course, then the Young Turks got elected and everything went to hell, but we're too far off topic already.

[Anouleth]

"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.

That's not what it means at all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1949 lays it out quite clearly:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It doesn't specify government interference. If someone threatens to shoot you for expressing a belief or an opinion, you are no less constrained if it is a private citizen than if it is a police officer.

People are mixing up Free Speech and the First Amendment. It's true that all the First Amendment says is that the government can't enact laws that restrict freedom of worship or freedom of speech, in the same way that the Third Amendment says that soldiers can't be quartered in private homes and has nothing to say about random people barging into your house. That's because the Constitution's purpose is explicitly to restrict government activity and not anything else. But the Constitution is not a sufficient requirement for freedom of speech; freedom of speech can be damaged if private organizations and corporations try to suppress speech they don't like. While it's true that usually the most odious attacks on free speech come from government, they can also come from private entities.

[Tryhard]

It doesn't specify government interference. If someone threatens to shoot you for expressing a belief or an opinion, you are no less constrained if it is a private citizen than if it is a police officer.

I know that it doesn't apply to violent activities or the intent of violent activities which threats are treated as, and other various things such as obscenity. The First Ammendment and the concept of free speech for the US tends to be a thing people commonly correlate together, though. Still, can a private organization suffer any legal backlash from suppressing speech in their domain other than general discontent?

Of course, I live in the UK and so the constitution doesn't apply, and the government is free to restrict whatever they view as 'hate speech' here. I'm unsure how it works in France.

[blah the Prussian]

It's also worth pointing out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding.

[Mrs Chrom]

It frankly doesn't matter what the content of the speech is when other people are resorting to violence to silence it. The only acceptable answer to unpopular or unfair speech is either criticism or being ignored.

I also feel like people reliably ignore how big a part the media play in this. The media deliberately generate outrage to sell papers and get clicks. If it wasn't for them, you could avoid cartoons you don't like by simply not buying the magazine and that would be the end of it.

[Corrine]

Just for the record, the Kouachi brothers claimed they fought for Al Qaeda, so no ISIS there.

Secondly, CH is, for better or worse, a satirical newspaper. They follow a long tradition of like minded work, like Hara Kiri. They are not necessarily funny, or sometimes even downright offensive, but that's always been their line.

[Blaze The Great]

The same can be said for Christianity. My opinion of the matter is that Islam is currently in the middle of its own dark ages that began with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It sucks, but at some point it will have a renaissance and return to the days of the Ottoman Empire, where the extremists were kept in line by the Sublime Porte. Of course, then the Young Turks got elected and everything went to hell, but we're too far off topic already.

I would like to rebut this opinion briefly, because I don't want to stray from the topic or start a religious debate either. If you're referring to Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy (books where God justified killing for certain offenses), then you're incorrect. Christian faith and morals are primarily based around the New Testament, and it doesn't take a theological expert to know that none of those books are in the NT. So, I'm not sure why you think Christianity and Islam are similar in that regard.

Anyway, I'm done with that, no more religious debates.

That's not what it means at all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1949 lays it out quite clearly:

It doesn't specify government interference. If someone threatens to shoot you for expressing a belief or an opinion, you are no less constrained if it is a private citizen than if it is a police officer.

People are mixing up Free Speech and the First Amendment. It's true that all the First Amendment says is that the government can't enact laws that restrict freedom of worship or freedom of speech, in the same way that the Third Amendment says that soldiers can't be quartered in private homes and has nothing to say about random people barging into your house. That's because the Constitution's purpose is explicitly to restrict government activity and not anything else. But the Constitution is not a sufficient requirement for freedom of speech; freedom of speech can be damaged if private organizations and corporations try to suppress speech they don't like. While it's true that usually the most odious attacks on free speech come from government, they can also come from private entities.

I agree with this mostly. However, restrictions on people who try to infringe upon free speech simply won't happen. Regulating individual actions so much would take an absolutely incredible amount of work and scrutiny, so making free speech truly free from anyone is virtually impossible.

[Tetragrammaton]

What fucking lesson!? That IS is fucking crazy? They weren't in the wrong, they had all right to put something stupid on the cover but they don't deserved to be fucking murdered for it!

There is a million other ways to "teach them a lesson" that doesn't involve taking human lives. Boycott it, criticize it, make it unprofitable. Literally anything but killing them.

They are in different country, so killing some people must be quicker and easier to do than make it unprofitable. Please remember that the EU people buy CH's products, not Muslims people.

And so far, more people buy their magazines after the incident.

Still doesn't justify murder. Islam is...a morally flawed religion, in my opinion. When the followers are encouraged by the Koran to make people convert at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun, you've gotta see that there is something wrong there. IS definitely could've handled the situation better. At the very least, give CH a warning or a threat before they go on a rampage through their building (still shouldn't even threaten them though).

Some people got killed didn't stop CH from doing the free insult, I don't think some random anonymous threaten mail would affect their decision.

Just for the record, the Kouachi brothers claimed they fought for Al Qaeda, so no ISIS there.

Secondly, CH is, for better or worse, a satirical newspaper. They follow a long tradition of like minded work, like Hara Kiri. They are not necessarily funny, or sometimes even downright offensive, but that's always been their line.

Thanks, so it's not IS's fault.

Edited August 12, 2015 by hanhnn

[eclipse]

They are in different country, so killing some people must be quicker and easier to do than make it unprofitable. Please remember that the EU people buy CH's products, not Muslims people.

Hey, it's not even in their country. . .so why are they poking their nose into some tiny newspaper that appeals to a niche market?

The (much tamer) equivalent would be me banning you because the number of letters in your username offended me. And I don't think I need to explain why that would be a completely shitty and biased move (never mind nonsensical).

[Blaze The Great]

Some people got killed didn't stop CH from doing the free insult, I don't think some random anonymous threaten mail would affect their decision.

There's still no lesson in that. CH has rights to publish virtually whatever they please, though not everything. They shouldn't HAVE to worry about people having such an intense backlash over a magazine. IS's attack was the equivalent of a five year-old throwing a temper tantrum because they got two cookies instead of three. Totally unjustified. My point stands.

[Tetragrammaton]

Okay, how many of you guys are Christian?

If I show up and say God does not exist, Jesus was a mortal man and Mary was not a virgin.

Do you think someone who loves Jesus will get mad enough and beat me for that?

Edited August 13, 2015 by hanhnn

[Pixelman]

Okay, how many of you guys are Christian?

If I show up and say God does not exist, Jesus was a mortal man and Mary was not a virgin.

Do you think someone who loves Jesus will get mad enough and beat me for that?

No

They would get mad, sure, but beating you up? Please

[eclipse]

Okay, how many of you guys are Christian?

If I show up and say God does not exist, Jesus was a mortal man and Mary was not a virgin.

Do you think someone who loves Jesus will get mad enough and beat me for that?

No, I wouldn't, and neither would anyone in my church. We respect the right for you to have that opinion, even if we don't agree with it.

[Shane]

I haven't read the entire thread, so please forgive me if I do a stupid.

For me, freedom of speech is an amazing tool. I love honesty and I enjoy seeing and hearing other people express their opinions and beliefs. If I want to express myself, I have to allow others to do so, right? I am personally fine with anything offensive so long as it holds meaning and provokes thoughts and critical thinking rather than just some mindless empty insult. The abuse of freedom of speech can indeed suck at times, but remember it's a tool only responsible people can master, and remember hearing statements that we don't like can truly deepen our thoughts and broaden our awareness. It will also promote us to test if our beliefs and opinions are truly ones we want to embrace, or if there is some other things out there you didn't realize and want to strive for instead. I change my opinion on subjects all the time thanks to offending parties showing me their points and views. Hell, I even changed my religious views because of YouTube video discussions.

Of course though, I dislike this freedom being abused and going too far. If it physically harms or kills someone, or is universally considered asinine (picketing funerals), I don't promote it. Everything has an ugly side. Everything has pros and cons. Everything good has a bad side to it. If we want freedom of speech, we just have to be responsible and promote responsibility.

That's my two cents.

[Jedi]

Okay, how many of you guys are Christian?

If I show up and say God does not exist, Jesus was a mortal man and Mary was not a virgin.

Do you think someone who loves Jesus will get mad enough and beat me for that?

You have a right to that opinion, the only reason I'd get violent is if you tried to oppress me for having my beliefs forcefully.

Otherwise, its just 2 different beliefs in a way. No reason to get upset unless someone tries to force it.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Jedi

[Corrine]

Okay, how many of you guys are Christian?

If I show up and say God does not exist, Jesus was a mortal man and Mary was not a virgin.

Do you think someone who loves Jesus will get mad enough and beat me for that?

Probably not indeed. I'm pretty sure most French Muslims would not either, even though their opinions are often overshadowed by the loud radicality of a minority.