I mean, it isnt absolutely idiotic
Weāve had language way longer than drones, so in my eyes the lack of accuracy is just laziness.
In the background, a person is giving what appears to be a lesson on how to use a suicide-vest.
In the foreground, two people are looking through a quran with a confused expression on their face
Person A: Are you absolutely sure the Quran says all this is ok?
Person B: Ummmmā¦
I did 0 research, which seems to be the going rate these days, and am slightly hopeful this would insult the nutters more than the moderate/peaceful ones.
3 Likes
A fallacious slippery slope argument isnāt merely one that suggests something is possible, but one that says itās inevitable without providing reasons why.
You asked for an example of another law not relating to the holocaust. Laws banning communist symbols would be an example of this. Anti-hate laws that have been used to suppress speech not relating to the holocaust would also seem to be another example of these laws being used to cover more than the holocaust.
Actually, the second part of the 1990 amendment does just that: āArt 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five yearsā imprisonment or a fine.ā
Again, I donāt think theyāre bad. but I donāt think laws that would ban some of the more egregious anti-Islam cartoons would be bad, either. What Iām saying is that laws that forbid the denial of the holocaust are fundamentally incompatible with the US view of free speech, and are a āsacred cowā about which nothing can be said.
Iām not sure why banning denial of something is the correct standard through which we should check to see whether this law has had a corrosive influence on other aspects of free speech, and why you want to ignore the broader suppression of speech in any form. I mean, the analogy is to sacred cows, not sacred denial-of-facts cows.
But even within your very narrow definition of what could be a subsequent law banning the denial of a fact, how about Franceās 2012 law about denying the Armenian genocide? (Yes, the law has been struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech, but it is being appealed and was still passed in the first place.)
How about these French laws, all post 1990, as evidence that the 1990 law really was a first step with broader implications?
The classical American response to bad speech, false speech, and corrosive speech is more speech. Let this speech battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. All ideas, not just those that we think are sufficiently controversial (or uncontroversial).
Of course, someone has to make the decision about whether theyāre really symbols of hate and repression. Is the hammer and sickle a symbol of hate and repression? Not to tens of millions. Is the Armenian genocide a crime against humanity? Depends on who you ask.
Again, I donāt have a problem with laws restricting speech. Countries can ban what they want. Some will go further than I like, and others donāt go far enough. But I think itās silly to pretend that laws that ban some speech, and some viewpoints, donāt have free speech implications beyond the four corners of that specific law.
Ah, I thought you were addressing a different point in your previous comment.
Yes, there are bar fights in Austria. About 300 convictions each year (population: 8 million). I have never been in one or seen one happening, though. I have not been threatened with physical violence at least since I was about 12. And I can proudly claim that I was the biggest geek in my class. No one has ever swung a fist at me. I guess Austria is a civilized country ;-).
āBut he insulted my [mother/prophet/ā¦]ā is at best a weak excuse when youāre in court for starting a bar fight. It is less than an excuse when used for gunning down people; itās disgusting.
Well, a satirical weekly magazine is the proper time and place to publish stuff like that. And while the legal bounds for free speech might be slightly wider in America than they are in Europe, there seems to be a lot more self-censorship and private-economy based censorship going on. If we canāt agree to ban a type of speech, we donāt think that anyone should lose their job over holding that opinion, either (except for politicians). Itās a matter of theoretical freedom in front of the law vs. actual freedom.
Good to hear that they donāt deserve it. I see people have already called you out for victim blaming and made the obvious 9/11 - US foreign policy comparison, so you know how your statement can be misinterpreted. But iād like to go one step further:
Not too long ago, people could legitimately be surprised by the violence. As far as the Catholics, Jews, Nazis, Politicians, and all the other groups that Charlie Hebdo made fun of are concerned, they still would be very surprised if any of them turned violent. If I draw a slightly irreverent cartoon and publish it, I deserve to be surprised when people threaten to kill me for it. Otherwise I am not free.
And of course people pick their battles. This is not the first time people have been threatened with murder over harmless cartoons, and it is not even the first time Charlie Hebdo has been attacked. They already had specific police protection, it just wasnāt enough. They picked that battle, and rightly so, because it is a battle for freedom, and the choice is between picking it and surrendering.
They didnāt āput pressureā on CH, the president or some minister phoned them and tried to convince them. And they didnāt have any inside knowledge, but everyone knew - they said in public that they wouldnāt stop, and after all āhebdoā means āweeklyā.
As for the nazi memorabilia, I donāt see how that is prior restraint. Publishing the stuff is illegal, why should ebay knowingly break the law? Itās not the police exercising prior restraint against ebay auctions, itās ebay trying to stick to the law.
In the end, South Park was censored more effectively than Charlie Hebdo.
Iām still hoping you will retract or at least silently re-think your statement that āOutside the US, speech is not freeā. Itās not fair.
Signing off for the weekend, have a good time 
1 Like
[quote=āzathras, post:169, topic:49448ā]
No one has ever swung a fist at me. I guess Austria is a civilized country .
āBut he insulted my [mother/prophet/ā¦]ā is at best a weak excuse when youāre in court for starting a bar fight. It is less than an excuse when used for gunning down people; itās disgusting.
[/quote]Maybe people in Austria also display their civilized nature by not making offensive comments to one another?
You may consider it a weak excuse, but at the same time when you insult someone you generally try to find an insult that will actually offend. Successfully offending someone is hardly the mark of a civilized country either.
Why? I mean, a cigarette lighter is the proper device for producing flames, but itās not a good idea to use one at a petrol station. Is it a great idea to continuously publish cartoons that mock a marginalized religion in a way that may increase hatred, and to do so while intentionally causing offense at a time when passions are inflamed?
Well, in the US you can fire anyone for just about any reason.
If eBay said that starting in June, they will show French citizens Nazi auctions, do you think the government would act before June, or wait until after? If Rushdie wrote a book denying the holocaust, but praising the idea of it, do you think the government would act before or after it was published in France?
Speech isnāt truly free anywhere, and is even less free outside of the US. And Iām fine with that, as I think the US approach is too tolerant of speech that should be restricted.
Nah, defecating on milk or various family members? Thatās criminal.
1 Like
Try publishing and tell me how it goes.
Iāll wait.
Edited to add a smiley face:
Sadly, not many people care who Hindu extremists target.
Well thatās only a matter of scale. If they manage to take their brand global I assure you more people will care, if only to fill out the 24-hour news cycle.
Americans love to ignore India.
1 Like
Or maybe they love to ignore violence against Muslims? Or just ignoring stuff in general, unless it possibly affects them or a group they identify with?
Oh thank you citizen. My car runs on self-satisfied condescension, and I was wondering how I was going to make it home tonight. YOU HAVE SAVED A LIFE!
1 Like
Itās what I do.
3 Likes
You were doing pretty well at that yourself; āWell if I havenāt heard of them, they obviously arenāt marketing themselves effectivelyā.
But seriously, the governor in charge during the Gujarat Riots, which have been described as 'premeditated ethnic cleansing carried out with the complicity of the state government" is now the president of India.
1 Like
This made my day today: Arab Newspapers Around the World Respond to Charlie Hebdo Attack.
7 Likes
Sarcasm DO U KNOW IT
I have learned through painful experience that only most heavy-handed sarcasm has even a faint chance of passing successfully through the system of tubes. This is because sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean, we havenāt yet adopted a system of punctuation to indicate sarcastic intonation, nor have we a detailed history of a personās previously stated positions (and the sarcastic or earnest nature of these positions), and since itās the internet, thereās undoubtedly someone out there (and maybe many) who hold that viewpoint earnestly.
So just to clarify, you didnāt mean what you said, you just didnāt realise that I wouldnāt know that you didnāt mean it?
3 Likes
Thereās a corollary to that law of sarcastic posts, which is: no matter how heavy-handed the sarcasm someone will think that you are sincere anyway, so make the joke the way to want to make it (aka The Onion Dilemma).
See you next time ā or if not you, somebody else Iām sure.
2 Likes
Musical Interlude.
1 Like
According to sources I donāt have on hand at the moment (or: I linked to them earlier) CB had a history of mashing up unrelated news stories for its front cover. You basically have to be fluent in the contemporaneous French media to get them. Topical humor neither ages nor translates well.
1 Like
