Attack on Charlie Hebdo: Long live comics, and long live freedom of the press

[Bemopolis]

Well then, clearly Hindu extremists have missed the mark by not murdering Gary Larson for his many blasphemes.

[Bemopolis]

Maybe that point would have been easier to find if it weren’t encased in a burrito of apologist nonsense.

[Bass]

Not my words, but I feel it does a good job explaining the whole horrific incident:

Unlike U.S. “liberals” most of the world does not consider free speech as an absolute right. Indeed like screaming “fire” in a filled theater, insulting the beliefs of other people is likely to get you hurt in most parts of the world. To claim such insults should not matter is itself an insult in that it declares one culture, that of absolute free speech rights, to be superior to other values. It is indecent.

That the Charlie Hebdo satire was indecent and insulting does not justify the murderous attack, but explains the probable motivation of the attackers. It is deeply wrong to kill people for their speech. But it is also wrong to insult others for no good reasons, be it profit or “free speech” worship.

[dawdler]

… if freedom of speech includes the right to be gratuitously offensive, why don’t these brave publications also publish gratuitously antisemitic or holocaust-denying cartoons?

Irrelevant. Free speech/expression is exactly that - free. Nobody else gets to define criteria or it’s no longer free.

[bwv812]

@Brainspore

The covers pictured above indicate that they haven’t shied away from mocking Judaism either. I don’t think holocaust-denying is really in the same category since that’s less “lampooning the genuine foibles of organized religion” than “being dicks just for the sake of being dicks.”

I think some cartoons targeting Islam essentially are being dicks for the sake of being dicks. And even the ones where there is a legitimate satirical message, they often feature knowingly-offensive images of the prophet when it would have been possible to convey the same satirical message without that imagery.

@dawdler

Irrelevant. Free speech/expression is exactly that - free. Nobody else gets to define criteria or it’s no longer free.

And the reality is that, outside the US, speech is not free. Hate speech is criminalized in most places. As I said above, holocaust-denial and antisemitism is illegal in France. Speech there is not free, yet people are defining free speech as relating only to the publication of anti-Islamic messages, and not to antisemitic or holocaust denial.

[dawdler]

Understood. I am clearly projecting our ideals of freedom of speech onto the world. I’m OK with that.

[Brainspore]

@bwv812

I think some cartoons targeting Islam essentially are being dicks for the sake of being dicks. And even the ones where there is a legitimate satirical message, they often feature knowingly-offensive images of the prophet when it would have been possible to convey the same satirical message without that imagery.

I think the idea is “we don’t tailor our magazine to spare the feelings of Politicians or Christians or Jews, so why the f*ck should we go out of our way to avoid offending Muslims?” The magazine’s main focus is contemporary political issues. Islamic extremism is a fairly big political issue in France right now, and it becomes moreso every time someone pulls a horrible stunt like this attack.

[Mister44]

@bwv812

Re-publication of these kinds of cartoons has been done on the same sort of “freedom of speech” grounds. But if freedom of speech includes the right to be gratuitously offensive, why don’t these brave publications also publish gratuitously antisemitic or holocaust-denying cartoons? Surely that would be an even greater stand for the principle of freedom of speech, since both of those things are illegal in much of Europe.

Like reasonable people, however, magazine editors generally don’t do this sort of thing.

I am confused by your question. I don’t know what cartoons they printed, and I don’t speak French, so even if I saw them I doubt I would get most of them. But anyway, I am sure the cartoons aren’t made purely to be the most vile rubbish in the interest of free speech. Assuming it is like most political cartoons, it has some humor, and some truth or message or provokes some thought.

At any rate, I am sure there are publicans that have anti-Semitic cartoons. I am sure there are many Islamic publications with such cartoons. I am sure this is offensive to Jews around the world.

So anyway - what is the point? They aren’t making fun of enough people or you feel they are picking on only some people or what?

[anon3894935]

I hope France is able to recover from this tragedy. I imagine if this happened in the USA, it would lead to the outlawing of either political cartoons, masks/hoods, journalism, or all three (the guns, for better or worse, would of course remain untouched).

[pbasch]

For the record, bwv812, Charlie Hebdo has often mocked Jews and Christians, and shown pretty rude cartoons of Jesus and other Jews. You can call it anti-semitic and anti-christian, if you are so inclined. “Holocaust-denying” cartoons, while they would be offensive, would also be idiotic, since the denial of the Holocaust is pretty much fringe nuttiness. I’m pretty sure they have done cartoons satirizing Holocaust denyers, however.
As for “freedom of speech”, there really is no such constitutional “right” that I know of in France or anywhere outside the US (in fact, it’s pretty constrained here, as well; viz, ag-gag laws). There are cultural norms, however, that the press is more or less sacrosanct.

[anon15383236]

@Mister44

I don’t know what cartoons they printed, and I don’t speak French, so even if I saw them I doubt I would get most of them.

For the curious, there’s a gallery here, including ones that mock other religions.

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

[bwv812]

@Brainspore

I think the idea is “we don’t tailor our magazine to spare the feelings of Politicians or Christians or Jews, so why the f*ck should we go out of our way to avoid offending Muslims?”

Yes, but their response to this is to push the envelope and redouble their efforts at making cartoons that Muslims will find offensive, under the guise of “free speech.” As I said earlier, a braver and more principled defense of “free speech” would be to deny the holocaust. Being intentionally offensive, such as by responding to Muslim anger by deciding to produce a cartoon book about the life of the prophet, doesn’t strike me as hugely principled or satirical in motivation.

@Mister44

Assuming it is like most political cartoons, it has some humor, and some truth or message or provokes some thought.

At any rate, I am sure there are publicans that have anti-Semitic cartoons. I am sure there are many Islamic publications with such cartoons. I am sure this is offensive to Jews around the world.

Unfortunately, much of the message seems to be: “Muslims find this offensive but we have the free speech right to be offensive, so here’s more stuff to be offended by. (And why won’t you integrate into European society and become more like us, when we’re clearly very welcoming?)”

It would probably be illegal for a French publication to print the antisemitic cartoons that regularly run in state-run Iranian media. If you want to say you’re publishing cartoons because you’re a defender of free speech, you should publish those Iranian cartoons, or something similar, in France. They don’t. So, yes, I think there’s a clear double-standard at a play, and that “free speech” is merely a gloss on the deeper vein of anti-Islamic sentiment they’re mining. It would be like US publications running lynching or slavery cartoons, and then doubling down on any backlash by saying they’re simply defending free speech.

[Brainspore]

@bwv812

Yes, but their response to this is to push the envelope and redouble their efforts at making cartoons that Muslims will find offensive, under the guise of “free speech.” As I said earlier, a braver and more principled defense of “free speech” would be to deny the holocaust.

Completely different scenarios. The cartoons making fun of Islam are tackling what the editors consider actual issues with Islam, including the editors’ belief that journalists shouldn’t have to self-censor just to appease another person’s religious doctrine.

On the other hand denying the holocaust wouldn’t be making any kind of coherent statement about Judaism, because presumably the editors aren’t stupid or crazy enough to doubt the reality of the Holocaust.

[PhasmaFelis]

@wrecksdart

Without wanting to get all shouty, you’d really understand the murder of 12 people because some particular magazine cover was found to aggravate someone?

I think you misunderstood. “I’d maybe understand” referred to Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons, not to the attack.

I’m inclined to agree. The cartoons were kind of a dick move. That doesn’t mean they should be censored, and it certainly doesn’t mean anyone should be killed. Free speech means you’re free to be a dick, and I’m free to say you’re being a dick; it doesn’t mean I can kill you for being a dick.

To extend the analogy–if I say “you’re being a dick, and I wish you’d stop,” that’s not censorship. If you say “Hmm, you’re right, I’ll stop being a dick,” that’s still not censorship. It’s only censorship when I say “Stop being a dick or I’ll kill you/throw you in prison.”

[bwv812]

@Brainspore

The cartoons making fun of Islam are tackling what the editors consider actual issues with Islam, including the editors’ belief that journalists shouldn’t have to self-censor just to appease another person’s religious doctrine.

But you are bundling up the idea of self-censorship with “actual issues with Islam,” when self-censorship (or governmental censorship) isn’t limited to Islam. And many of those “actual issues with Islam” appear to be the prohibition on depicting the prophet. That’s not much of an actual issue with Islam except when it comes to the extreme prohibition on all figural art and the destruction of things like the Bamiyan Buddhas. A clever cartoon related to this might be something like ASCII art that depicts the prophet while delivering a message, like Arabic figural calligraphy.

I’m also not sure why self-censoring for another person’s religious doctrine is worse than self-censoring because a view isn’t mainstream, or isn’t politically correct. It’s OK to use free speech to offend minority populations, but we can’t use free speech to offend the majority? That’s principled.

@Brainspore

On the other hand denying the holocaust wouldn’t be making any kind of coherent statement about Judaism, because presumably the editors aren’t stupid or crazy enough to doubt the reality of the Holocaust.

Yeah, it’s not like a Holocaust-denial cartoon could be a coherent statement on freedom of the press, post-war guilt, belief in the outsize power of Jews, or the belief that journalists shouldn’t have to self censor to appease the states view of what might be harmful to jews (especially since it’s a wing-nut belief). They could also start to carry classified ads for Nazi memorabilia (also illegal in France) as another statement on the dangers of censorship.

[darren_cullen]

False equivalence. There are different types of wrong, insulting people’s religion is nothing compared to murder.

As Christopher Hitchens said about Salman Rushdie’s fatwa:

“To indulge the idea of religious censorship by the threat of violence is to insult and undermine precisely those in the Muslim world who are its intellectual cream, and who want to testify for their own liberty—and for ours. It is also to make the patronizing assumption that the leaders of mobs and the inciters of goons are the authentic representatives of Muslim opinion. What could be more “offensive” than that?”

[Jambeeno]

If it was Islamic extremists, this NSFW Onion piece is again apropos.

[Brainspore]

Here’s a couple of covers which might match your criteria. The first depicts a Jewish person making a statement about the “exchange rate” of Jewish to Palestinian lives that’s a clear reference to how the Nazis exterminated Jews during the Holocaust. The second depicts a Jewish person making out with an SS Officer.

If you’re still going to stick with the opinion “these Charlie Hebdo guys are willing to make fun of Islam but are afraid to publish anything offensive to Judaism” then I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Edit: I apparently misattributed these images (French reading comprehension fail), see @just_some_guy’s response below.

[agger_modspil]

@Mister44

You don’t think things like lampooning to out right blasphemous images don’t upset these people? They do. They just don’t kill other people over it, they write letters to the editor and boycott that media. Like reasonable people.

This is not true if you insist in generalizing to “they”. There has been violent attacks on anti-Christian satire, as well as legal censorship.

E.g., many years ago theaters showing “Life fo Brian” received terrorist threats. Fanatics exist everywhere.

[Norzhi]

@wrecksdart

Without wanting to get all shouty, you’d really understand the murder of 12 people because some particular magazine cover was found to aggravate someone? Holy shit that’s ridiculous.

What I meant was that I’d understand the drawings if it only annoyed the nutters. Not the killing. I even said so in my original post. Around the point where I said “none of these people deserved to die”, or thereabouts.