Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Media Censorship

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack

Comments Filter:
  • Fear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:15PM (#48766561)
    If you're afraid of people in your own nation, then you have bigger problems than a political cartoon
    • Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:20PM (#48766631)

      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.

      • 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)

          by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:38PM (#48767627)

          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)

            by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @03:46PM (#48768341) Homepage
            a good portion of those "deported" are really just people being turned away at the border. They changed the wya they record that
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Aighearach ( 97333 )

            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

        • by njnnja ( 2833511 )

          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?

    • by Beerdood ( 1451859 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:46PM (#48767721)
      I know it's really easy to just lambast the publishers as cowards for refusing to publish the cartoons (as you post anonymously or semi-anonymously on slashdot, you brave soul), but it's not an easy choice to make. It's been clearly demonstrated that by publishing mohammed cartoons, there's a non-zero chance that some nut-job will break into your building and murder a bunch of your staff. Are you as an editor willing to take that chance? Are you willing to put your staff at risk, even for a minimal chance of violence against your station? It's sooooo easy to criticize them for not publishing offensive cartoon, but I really doubt that the majority of you would post a crude drawing of mohammed on your facebook accounts, or drop off a few thousand copies of an offensive cartoon in your neighborhood mailboxes (with your personal address listed). Because then you're truly willing to take the same upon the same risk that these cartoonists (and their publishers) take.

      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.
  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:20PM (#48766635) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:33PM (#48766841) Journal
      The terrorists and the people behind them love cartoons like these. They are also happy with strong reactions to recent events, especially with a backlash against ordinary muslim folk in the West. All that just makes it easier to convince impressionable youngsters to take up arms or stupidly blow themselves up in crowded places.
    • by dablow ( 3670865 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:34PM (#48766861)

      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

        • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:30PM (#48767535)

          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.

        • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:41PM (#48767663)

          If you remain silent, because of fear, they have already won.

          Yes.

          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 was no major outcry.

          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.

          2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.

          There are at least a million Muslims living in the USofA. The majority seem to be okay with it.

          3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.

          What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.

          Western cultures do no need Islam. We don't want Islam. We don't like Islam. Muslims need to go back the their asswipe countries in the desert and stay 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.

          • by itzly ( 3699663 )

            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.

            • by khasim ( 1285 )

              If you're in the local minority, it is wise to shut up and nod.

              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?

        • 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

      • by itzly ( 3699663 )

        VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.

        Of course it works. Don't be silly.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Aighearach ( 97333 )

        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.

    • by MiniMike ( 234881 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:50PM (#48767061)

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When these incidents occur, burn 10,000 Korans for every innocent person murdered. Covered in bacon grease.
  • Better Onion article (Score:4, Informative)

    by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:22PM (#48766661)

    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.

    • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:32PM (#48766827)

      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.

  • Best strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evilsemaj ( 2459626 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:23PM (#48766679)
    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. That way, anyone who would take offense is so inundated they can not possibly respond.
    • by radtea ( 464814 )

      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)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:25PM (#48766709) Homepage

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:28PM (#48766765)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by dablow ( 3670865 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:30PM (#48766787)

    ....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.

    • by joebok ( 457904 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Means the terrorists ( muslims ) win.

  • by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:36PM (#48766881)

    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.

    • by Beerdood ( 1451859 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @03:10PM (#48767941)
      I mentioned this earlier in this thread too, but I think this is more of a Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org] scenario than Streisand effect. But with more than 2 participants. You're certainly correct otherwise though;

      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).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:37PM (#48766901)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > 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

    • "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

  • 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)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:40PM (#48766945)

    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.

  • 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 disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:42PM (#48766969)

    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...

  • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:45PM (#48767005)

    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)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • 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.

  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:51PM (#48767067) Homepage Journal

    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].

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • by jd.schmidt ( 919212 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @01:53PM (#48767091)
    Don't censor yourself more or *LESS* because of what happened. If you do either, you are letting these events change your belief in what is right. If you never had a belief in what was right to begin with, well I can't help you there.
  • 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.

  • Self-censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guytoronto ( 956941 ) on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:38PM (#48767631)
    If you as a publisher self-censor to "protect your staff", then you can't complain when the government wants to censor you to "protect the country".
  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <hmryobemag>> on Thursday January 08, 2015 @02:48PM (#48767735) Journal

    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.

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...