Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack 512
New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship.
Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.
Re:Fear (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.
The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.
False. And, honestly, that is fall-on-your-face-stupid.
Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.
And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported. And surely you know that the class of people who could b
Re: (Score:3)
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Of course politics decides who is in a country. Or are you saying that these people [wikipedia.org] all just happened to slip and fall into a bullet for entirely non-political reasons?
Stop calling the publishers cowards (Score:5, Interesting)
From a litigation standpoint alone, is it worth publishing an offensive cartoon? Probably not if you're in a litigious friendly nation. If you're the editor, and if some shit goes down, and there's the slightest possibility your organization could be held liable for the deaths of your staff because you totally *knew* this could happen, and could have avoided it by not publishing the offensive article - you bet your ass they'll get sued by the families of the victims. That risk probably isn't worth whatever benefit they get for being more ballsy in the eyes of the viewer. The editors know this and factor this in their decision making.
Whether to publish or not is more of a Prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] than it is Streisand effect as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, except with more than 2 "prisoners" (publishers - assume not publishing is equivalent to testifying in the analogy). The better move for yourself is to not publish and have no risk. But the better move for the collective is to publish. If all the publishers decided to publish, that would be the greatest overall benefit for freedom of speech, because it demonstrates they're not afraid of terrorism. It also minimizes the risk for each publisher, because terrorists don't have the resources to target all of the publishers in existence. They might even give up completely, realizing there's too many people offending their religion. But if nobody publishes cartoons out of fear, it reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (and the censored SouthPark scene in the "I learned something today" segment is true). If only handful of publishers decide to publish offensive mohammed cartoons, then it still reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (because most publishers aren't doing it, clearly because they're afraid of terrorism), AND it puts these few publishers at a much greater risk of terrorism. It fucking sucks, but the only way this is going to work is if a large majority of publishers decide to print these cartoons as a response.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Not cowards. Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you can't publish a cartoon for fear of anything, is the only proof you need to show why the cartoon needs to be published in the first place.
That does not necessarily follow. If you attack a problem in the wrong way, you can exacerbate it.
Take fat shaming, for example. Fat shamers declare they're doing it for the fat person's own good, but time and again it has been shown that fat shaming undermines overweight people's self-confidence, making it harder for them to lose weight, and actually encouraging weight gain. It doesn't work.
Terrorism does not aim to win a war by force of arms, but rather to polarise society. Terrorism attempts to turn its
Re:Fear (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, modern Western society is built on the idea that anything can be questioned, and that includes outright ridicule. Furthermore, we didn't just wake up one day and decide it might be fun; rather, we went through Dark Age after Dark Age trying to keep our holy cows untouchable. It didn't work. Every single time it brought nothing but shame on those who did it, misery and death on everyone else, and rot for the whole society. So this is the one thing we can't do.
If Islam cannot abide depicting Mohammed, then Islam is not compatible with Western civilization. You can ignore those saying things you don't like; you can condemn them to the deepest pit of Hell and glorify in their coming torture; but the second you actually take up arms to silence them you've crossed a line. If the price of peace with Islam is self-censorship, then there can be no peace because that's the one price that West can't pay.
Of course, it could well be that Muslims can't give up this point either. I'm not a religious scholar, so I can't say. But if it's true, then we - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - should begin negotiations on how to separate Islam from the West peacefully ASAP, seeing how the alternative is open war.
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's just a means to an end.
The goal is to get the opponent to defeat himself by deciding the fight isn't worth it.
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
So which country would you like to live in, that has 0% chance of anyone doing anything for a crazy reason? Presumably one which enforces weekly mind-probes, and anyone found to not be thinking civilized enough gets deported...
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
So which country would you like to live in, that has 0% chance of anyone doing anything for a crazy reason? Presumably one which enforces weekly mind-probes, and anyone found to not be thinking civilized enough gets deported...
*** BEEP BEEP BEEP danger detected! harmful thoughts! excessive negative thoughts towards terrorists, potential vigilante, DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT ***
Re: (Score:2)
Not cowards. Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.
By that logic, there is no country any civilized person should desire to live in. ...
And there never was!
Cowards by definition (Re:Fear) (Score:2)
Well, whether they are afraid of the terrorists or of their staff leaving over this, these editors definitely are cowards. By definition [princeton.edu]: coward -- (a person who shows fear or timidity).
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't have freedom of speech taken away by a few extremists.
We already have. Even before this attack, there wasn't a single mainstream publication in the U.S. or Europe that would dare publish any depiction of Mohammad, or probably even any criticism of him. These terrorists were just eliminating one of the few remaining forums that was still willing to take on Islam. This wasn't an attack in a war. They've already won that. This was just a mop-up operation.
Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:5, Insightful)
If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.
I've already seen one mainstream American daily run a bunch of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its online edition, including some depicting Mohammad (yes, THAT Mohammad). Without the mass murder, a lot fewer people would've seen that image.
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:5, Insightful)
Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effect) (Score:5, Insightful)
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech [usatoday.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.
Oh, you mean that didn't happen. It's as if someone is not interpreting what they are reading correctly. hmm.
Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec (Score:5, Informative)
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).
Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec (Score:4, Informative)
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.
This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.
Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.
I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.
Re: (Score:3)
At least some Christians are of the opinion that God and the Bible tell them how to live, and that means accepting secular power structures. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, and he also told them that money is ultimately worthless, and the only lasting reward is from obeying God. The Biblical supremacy clause works just fine with a halfway reasonable non-religious government.
Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec (Score:5, Insightful)
their religion actually does mandate capital punishment ... unlike any other modern religion.
Biased much?
The main religious text of every Abrahamic religion promotes violence and killing. The Old Testament is still cited by fundamental Christians (see the U.S.) and Jews (see Israel) to legitimize their violent acts. It may not necessarily be violence to other religions, but it's still violence. (I don't know the other religious texts nearly as well so I can't really speak for them, but I'm certain some non-Abrahamic religions promote some form of religious violence in their text as well.)
But the mainstream Jews and Christians have moved away from the extremes of their ideology and on to more moderate viewpoints. They're still picking and choosing the passages to interpret and follow, but now they're picking the less extreme passages and interpreting them in more moderate ways. The fundamentalists in Christianity and Judiasm are marginalized, and given little to no attention (with the exceptions being the fundamental population of Christians in the U.S. and Jews in Israel, and even then, they're kept in check by equally loud or louder moderate voices).
Muslim extremism is still very much in the limelight of their religion. The extreme viewpoints are constantly in the news, constantly being talked about. Hell, the most wealthy, powerful, and famous Muslims, who often act as role models for many other Muslims, are all extremists. Look at the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who are clearly extremists. Extremism is given significant attention. There are entire political parties dedicated to extreme interpretations of the Koran. And even if they're discouraged from the extremes, Muslims are exposed to it from youth. Hell, we're all exposed to Muslim extremism from youth.
That is the difference. That is where Islam is currently at, not at the opposite end of "modern religions" but merely a few centuries behind. Islam is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and is where Judiasm was a thousand years ago. The big question is how to get everybody to reach the points of moderation that Christianity and Judiasm are at. How do you marginalize the extremists?
Denouncing the religion as bad, as you are doing, will not serve those ends. Continuing to bring to attention the violent aspects of the Muslim faith is exactly what people don't do to Christianity and Judiasm (or any other religion for that matter). Implying that it should be gone, as you are doing, is no different than a Muslim person trying to get rid of you for being non-Muslim.
In fact, I'll go a little further and say that the perspective you've taken is exactly the perspective of Muslim extremists. The only difference between you and a terrorist is you haven't quite gotten there. You're still only talking about how bad it is, rather than doing anything about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe you're suppressing that ultimate conclusion to keep your morality. Maybe you're living too comfortable a life and don't want to lose your lifestyle. Maybe you're a coward and trying to incite other people to do what you can't. Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.
That is, of course, the solution. You can't exactly make people cowards, but you can allow them better lives, and promote less extreme versions of their ideology. You can promote the moderate aspects instead of putting the entire religion of Islam on the defensive. You can denounce government leaders or religious leaders who hold extreme viewpoints, and maybe not prop them up as allies or business partners. You can help make the extremists poor and the moderates wealthy, the extremists weak and the moderates powerful, thereby setting role models who are moderate rather than extreme. These things will help, maybe not right away, but over the course of a generation or two, things will change.
What you're saying and trying to imply will not.
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:4, Insightful)
With that said, the last thing we should do is to lay responsibility for these events at the doorstep of every muslim in our country. That is what the terrorists want. For us to give regular muslims the impression that they don't have any better options.
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:5, Insightful)
If I where in charge there, it's what I would have done. Ask every form of media in the nation (print, paper, radio, tv, etc) to show the MOST controversial cartoons Charlie Hebdo printed for a 24-hour period in honor of those that died.
Fuck this 1 min of silence bullshit.
Make it clear to all that VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you remain silent, because of fear, they have already won.
Fear = Fight or Flight. I pity those that choose flight, but we should let them leave. However, we shouldn't let those cowering in fear dictate our response, simply because their choice is borderline irrational. Neither should we allow the kneejerk response from the "fight" crowd.
Here is my view:
1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims. I didn't say there was none, I said there
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:4, Insightful)
You and your hate speech do not speak for "Western cultures." Don't tell us what we want or need, you aren't us and you don't know.
There is, however, a popular consensus in Western culture that we have, had, will have, and value religious freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
12 Dead Journalists refute your whole point. The cry of "we have avenged the prophet" refute your points. The dancing in the streets by thousands, hundreds of thousands of Muslims refute your whole point. Muslim Imams issuing FATWAS against people that write books and color cartoons is a refutation of your point.
IMHO actions speak louder than your protestations. I
I mean, I could give example after example of the "Peaceful" religion doing horrible things, in the name of Allah, and for the "prophet", but I am
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes.
Just because you haven't seen them does not mean that they haven't happened. Have you gone looking for them? The media usually skips them because blood gets more views.
There are at least a million Muslims living in the USofA. The majority seem to be okay with it.
What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.
I've heard the same rhetoric about blacks. And Hispanics. It's easy to hate someone you've never met.
But then, I live in Seattle and there are two halal markets within a mile of me.
Re: (Score:3)
What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.
If you're in the local minority, it is wise to shut up and nod. There are a million Muslims in the USA, but close to half a million Paris metro area. When neighborhoods get a majority Muslim population, they start to make the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that the GP was wrong about Islam and it actually teaches a pragmatic approach to democratically elected representative government?
Muhammad Ali is a Sunni. He refused to fight in Vietnam as a conscientious objector. Yet he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush in 2005. So .... bad Muslim? Or maybe your understanding of Muslims could be expanded upon by meeting more of them?
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:5, Insightful)
So first you make claims about what Islam teaches because you know more about it than a million Muslims living in the USofA right now.
Then you make claims about what I believe. You don't know me any more than you know any Muslim living here.
Again, you don't know me any more than you know any Muslim. I spent 7 years in the Army. I've watched people whose job it was to shoot me watching me. As it was mine to shoot them.
And because I understand math, I know that if a million of them have not tried to shoot me yet then they probably won't. Because despite your claims, they do NOT believe what you claim they do.
And you 'd know that if you knew any Muslims.
What ideals have been ceded?
Except for the million Muslims who live here right now.
I've heard it all before. It's always about "them" and how "they" are "bad" because of "their" culture or religion or whatever.
Whether "they" are Muslims or blacks or Hispanics or "gooks" or "Japs" or ...
Maybe you should read George Takei's writings on his experience in an internment camp.
Re: (Score:3)
If there had been a major outcry from Muslims, how would you know? Are you attuned to their media?
Do you imagine most Muslims belong to sopme sort of large collective whose spokesman appears before media outlets to make official pronouncements? AFAIK, they don't. Aside from Catholics and the Pope, neither do Christians.
What's more, do you imagine that Muslims speak with one voice on most issues? When's the last time Christians agreed on anything?
I know a few muslims in the US. They tend not to be that
Re: (Score:2)
VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.
Of course it works. Don't be silly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where I am from (the USA) people would say all that, and then if it happens, they'll just run offensive cartoons of their political opponents. You wouldn't see right wing media defending Freedom, that is for sure. When there was a terrorist threat in San Francisco, popular "mainstream" "conservative" media were running the theory that they deserved it.
Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons (Score:5, Funny)
If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.
And then the terrorists next target: Barbra Streisand.
Answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually [wikipedia.org]...
"According to Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix, who fought the Moros as a young lieutenant from 1907–1908, the Americans exploited Muslim taboos by wrapping dead Moros in pig's skin and "stuffing [their] mouth[s] with pork", thereby deterring the Moros from continuing with their suicide attacks."
"Moros" = Filipino muslim rebels.
Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.
Re:Answer: (Score:4, Insightful)
Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.
If you can't say how effective it was, you can't really argue for any results.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How is burning a Koran "extremism"?
Re: (Score:3)
Better Onion article (Score:4, Informative)
This is a better article [theonion.com][NSFW] from the Onion.
Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.
Re:Better Onion article (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a better article [theonion.com][NSFW] from the Onion.
Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.
Sorry, but I don't see much of distinction there. Terrorism and murder are no more, or less, justified by any particular religious belief. Hurting other people because you believe the invisible man in the sky somehow demands it of you is kinda the very definition of bat-shit crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that abortion results in a dead baby, so abortion clinic bombers at least think they have some justification, even if few people agree with them that the ends justifies the means.
On the other hand a cartoon is just that - a cartoon; a piece of paper with a drawing. Nobody is harmed by a cartoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks. [usatoday.com]
And here is a Muslim cleric justifying it. And he is doing a better job — while these outraged Muslims are simply denouncing the attack as contrary to their understanding of Islam, he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a few to get you started, cut and paste from that link I gave you.
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a
Re: (Score:2)
Just because that's your definition of murder doesn't mean that it's everyone's.
Re: (Score:3)
You support murder. Fuck you.
It isn't murder until somebody cares enough.
Best strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the best strategy in this case would be for all creative artists and writers to produce as much content as they can and Creative Commons license it, so the content can all be broadcast everywhere and we all agree to post and publish it in every medium on every forum possible.
This.
My own contribution to the cause (CC NC Attribution Share-Alike), a satirical poem based on Lewis Carol's "The Walrus and the Carpenter": http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=... [tjradcliffe.com]
The Peaceful Prophetâ(TM)s followers
were shooting infidels,
beheading them with axes
and flinging them down wells
proclaiming, âoeIâ(TM)m for Paradise!â
while making Earth a Hell.
Apologists snapped angrily
because they thought the war
against Enlightenment and law
was all of that and moreâ"
âoeHow rude of people
So... call them? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published
Then don't. Call them up, sure you're competitors but at least some feel just like you. And if you manage to enlist some, more might join you. Accept conditionals if you have to like "If at least five national newspapers publish we will too" until you have five. Or you were the only one, in which case journalism is already pretty boned.
Stand your ground. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anybody that self censors or allows others to censor you, is guilty of aiding the terrorist.
Stand your ground, but be prepared to fight back by being armed to the teeth, and have security measures in place.
Outlaw islam. It's not a real religion anyway; it's an idealogy, a form of government and we already have that. Also use the Mohammed Emote. (((:~(>>
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
If your decision is.... (Score:5, Informative)
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've seen sever of these comments - saying basically that somebody else - media outlets - should be the ones doing the posting and if they don't, the terrorists have won.
I agree, but what if instead of saying "If YOUR decision is YOU do not want to print the pictures because YOU are afraid for your OWN life, etc" you said "If MY decision is I do not want to print the pictures because I am afraid for MY life, etc"? Or better yet "WE" - should we not all be posting the images to our facebook, google+, ins
Self-Cenorship (Score:2, Informative)
Means the terrorists ( muslims ) win.
"Can't stop the signal Mal" (Score:4, Insightful)
Others here have alluded simiarly. What if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DAILY IN THE WORLD published the same images? They would no longer have a specific target and the streisand effect would be complete.
Re:"Can't stop the signal Mal" (Score:5, Insightful)
If the vast majority of papers (> 80%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that terrorism does nothing (or very little) to deter printing blasphemous content. Terrorists will be deterred from bombing or shooting up publishers and cartoonists, since backing up a threat of death *still* didn't deter these papers from publishing, and now they're less inclined to publish in the future.
If none of the papers, or very little (less than 10%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that threats of death work, because most of the papers declined to print potentially offensive material. This reinforces the notion that death threats do work when carried out. But this also puts greater risk on the few places that do publish, because now there's less targets to choose from.
Choosing not to publish the cartoon is the best decision as the individual organization, but the worst decision for the greater good (assuming "greater good" means less terrorism and greater freedom of speech).
"which had 12 people killed." WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Who talks like that?
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98% Muslim
Iraq -- 97% Muslim
Jordan -- 92% Muslim
Morocco -- 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan -- 97% Muslim
Palestine -- 99% Muslim
Syria -- 90% Muslim
Tajikistan -- 90% Muslim
Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim
United Arab Emirates -- 96% Muslim
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan -- 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia -- 100% Muslim
Somalia -- 100% Muslim
Yemen -- 100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons.
QUOTE:
"Be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food,
OMG, they will buy food that they like, the end of civilization is nigh!
> , thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. T
And lo, the Union of Koranic Kitchen Workers soon dominated the land!
> They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
Scary stuff, taking their business elsewhere, that's the worst kind of terrorism!
> 100% wil
Re: (Score:3)
"Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim"
Where did you get that number? Walk around in a big city and you will see less than 50% of the local women wearing head scarves, in most neighborhoods. In some places, it's less than 10%.
Turkey does register most citizens as "muslim" as a default value, unless they are christian or jewish, but it has little to do with the beliefs of those citizens. Many Turks are atheistic (and utterly despise the present muslim government).
Source: my Turkish S.O., who has "Islam" in her passport des
If you self-censor, the terrorists have TRULY won. (Score:2)
No demagogy this time - if a journal, author or any citizen feels the need, out of FEAR, to self-censor, that's a huge victory for the douchebag terrorists. The "I am Charlie" hashtags and such are nice and all, but essentially useless garbage. The only thing that can now accomplish something to make everyone more safe, is if everyone who can, posts Mohammed cartoons. The kind, to be precise, that the terrorists don't want. Straisand it to hell and back, flood the airwaves, the paper-waves, the social med
Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Newspapers of the world had any backbone at all, they'd all band together and republish the cartoon front page on Monday along with pictures of the attackers with captions that say "This image is being published at the request of these 2 infidels."
Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.
An old noble principle (Score:3)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So you're not against Islam? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Our strongest weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We should not attack them in retaliation
Huh? Self-defense is not 'retaliation'; neither is bringing those responsible for the commission of heinous crimes to justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Attacking, with extreme precision, those who committed or are responsible for the attacks, is completely justified. I was speaking against larger-scale retaliation against muslims as a whole, which a surprising number of people seem to feel justified.
Duty to intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a duty to intelligence?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
See Bullying [wikipedia.org].
It's an easy choice - are you a coward? (Score:2)
If you're a coward and you side with Terrorists making us all live in Fear, you don't publish the cartoons.
If you're brave and refuse to live in Fear, you publish the cartoons.
And then, a week later, you write an editorial about how the cartoons are disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, you can buy the English translation of the book on Amazon now. In France, you can buy the French version. My guess is in Canada or the UK, you can buy either version.
Make it a best seller.
Don't change your policies! (Score:3)
Nothing wrong with self censorship (Score:2)
Frankly I find most political cartoons useless flamebait. They tend to shallow and tend to be more preaching to choir than a source of useful dialog. I would like to see more publications decide to not print things that do not help.
But they need to decide to do that out and not be forced to do that out of fear.
Self censorship based on your ethic and morals is a good thing.
Censorship based on fear of violence is a bad thing.
Canadian papers aren't so chicken (Score:2)
Self-censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect demonstration of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Me and my boss at lunch today:
Me: "They should have had that building way better secured, especially after being firebombed."
Boss: "What would you do to secure it?"
Me: "Armored building like a US embassy, armed guards at the door, and a heavy armored door between the lobby and work area."
Boss: "What if they hit it with a rocket launcher? It'll go through even an armored door."
Me: "Maybe build it in a basement?"
Boss: "Or you could just not print Mohammed cartoons."
And that's what any business is going to do, the much cheaper and easier solution. The terrorists won. No business could print such things after yesterday.
Re:The latest trend... (Score:5, Informative)
You're an idiot. Ahmed was the cop who died and the #jesuisahmed isn't counter to #jesuischarlie it compliments it. "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so." Sounds a bit more like Voltaire then a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This got modded up? This is what's wrong with Slashdot these days.
This is that obnoxious SJW bullshit where they latch on to some trending thing and talk about how horribly racist it was. The fact of the matter is that Charlie Hebdo satirized EVERYONE: one of their covers had the Trinity having anal sex with each other. (The Holy Ghost was represented as an eye in a triangle shoved up Jesus's butt, in case you're wondering how on earth THAT would work.)
By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted
Re:The latest trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists.
The focus come from you not the writer. There are two very important parts to the following quote;
"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.
They are "Charlie ridiculed my faith" and "I died defending his right to do so". You chose to focus on the first part. I choose to focus on the second part. The point of the statement is that even if insult occurred the cop chose to die defending the right to make that insult.
It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.
No one has to focus on what is put in front of them. You have a brain; choose for yourself what to focus on. The point you completely miss is that a Muslim died trying to defend free speech even though the free speech was an insult to his religion. It is just trying to point out that not all Muslims are against free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Re: (Score:3)
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Yes, insulting your neckbeard has always been terrorism. And some sort of "equivalence," if argued for, becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate.
You can't make up this kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody can be a censor, but only governing authorities can violate "freedom of speech." That is true everywhere, though the types of organizations that govern are not always part of the State.
Blaming the victim (The terrorists are defining) (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
Re: (Score:2)
The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation — indeed, the article itself states: "The fire, if [emphasis mine -mi] it proves to be arson, would be ...". As I said, there is no allegation — only suspicions. And it happened in 1988 — surely enough for the matter to settle and any suspicions to be either confirmed
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, the AP's decision was not driven by threat of violence and is therefor different from the topic at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you
1) just a brain-dead fuck who says things he doesn't understand/ or
2) simply an apologist for islamofascists? (as opposed to muslims).
Re:False flag (Score:4, Interesting)
Israel, where the Jews lived 2000 years ago (along with a bunch of other people), where various people including some Jews lived for the following 2000 years, and which was then taken by force, from the people who had been living there continuously for generations, by the British and friends, and given to people mostly born in Europe who may have been extremely distant descendants of the Jews who had lived there those 2000 years before, as a way of assuaging their own guilt over not stopping Nazi assholes.
Oh, and by the way, the Jews' folk history says that they originally took that same land from its prior inhabitants in a genocidal invasion. I don't know if that's true, but since that's how people usually get land, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we can find the descendants of the Philistines or the Midianites or whoever, can we give the land back to them? I honestly don't know who they'd be, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of them were among the people displaced to create Israel...
Israel is there now, and it would be a stupid mistake to ignore that or try to undo it. What's done is done, and 60 years makes Israel as legitimate as any other state. That doesn't change the fact that it was another stupid mistake to create Israel in the first place, and, yes, that mistake was absolutely an imperialistic and racist one.
States based on ethnicity or religion are a bad idea anyway, no matter how popular they may be.
Oh, and to avoid being called an "islamofascist", I'd like to point out that Muhammed was a pedophilic warlord cult leader. Actually not a bad guy as pedophilic warlord cult leaders go, but a pedophilic warlord cult leader nonetheless. And obviously he was not inspired by any real sky fairy. Not that any of that is relevant to anything going on this century. In independent news, the most visible carriers of the banner of Islam right now are fanatical tribal assholes who can't handle the real world, are trying to hide from it using religion, and would make any bad thing Israel has ever done look like naughty toddler games if they got any real power.
Re:Mohammed (Score:5, Insightful)
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit?
Yes. Everything must be open to scrutiny.
And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
No. Absolutely No.
Re:Mohammed (Score:5, Insightful)
Charlie Hebdo have been threatened before (their office was firebombed if I recall correctly). Should they have stopped making their funnies then? Should we stop making fun of anyone when they threaten physical bodily harm? There are folk out there who, as someone put it, are offended deeply if their ligher doesn't work; should we cater to their whims too? I'd prefer to live in a society of laws rather than whims, and I for one am rather sad to live in a world where a movie like "Life of Brian" probably couldn't be made anymore, especially if they picked Mohammed as a target this time.
Re: (Score:3)
by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???
Nope. Logic fail there. Maybe if I abstract it you can see past the blinding context.
All Blargs are Blorgs. Therefore there are no Blorgs. T/F?
See how easy that one actually is?
Jews, Christians, Muslims all believe in the same God; the God of Abraham. And all three religions link themselves to Abraham by a different lineage. They are indisputably different branches of the same religion.
All three believe in (what the Christians call) the Old Testament, and the prophesy of the "Son of Man" who is implied to a
Re: (Score:3)
You make some interesting points, especially this:
Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt.
I read something similar on CNN [cnn.com]. But that leaves those of us on the outside wondering why anyone would find it so offensive that someone else had made an image of Mohamed. Apparently, there is no known image of him drawn from life, so any depiction must be a work of imagination. Therefore, an image only becomes "an image of Mohammed" because one puts a "Mohammed" label on it - much as we've seen on the clever little textual pictures of him in this thread.
Re:Can we make fum on Jesus and jews? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like these ones?
It's hard to receive money from jerks! [canalblog.com]
Having diner with assholes. [wordpress.com]
Pope 23 and his three dadies. [aufeminin.com]
The Talmud is horseshit. [islamstory.com]
Will do anything to get new customers! [ara.cat]
Next week, I will show you the resurrection trick [reason.com]
Yeah, these guys went down on the extremists of some religions (the Christians, The Muslims and The Jews, the current largest in France) just as much as they did on politics, celebrities, social conflicts and others...
Growing up there, I saw plenty of these cartoons. Some are not very funny, some are, some are very intelligent, some very dumb... but if the one thing I remember is that : if it hurts you at some point, it means that there is a layer of truth deep down.
Monde de merde...