Good for them. You canât terrorize those that wonât be cowed. Heroic.
But was it actually a satirical magazine? If youâre punching up, itâs satire. If youâre punching down, itâs shit.
If youâre flailing in all directions, what is it?
Yes, Charlie-Hebdo attacked Islam. It also attacked Catholicism, the far right, and several French Presidents- it was banned for making fun of de Gaulleâs death. And while a lot of its cartoons were racist, Charb also drew this for the French anti-racist organisation MRAP:
[Translation]
Speech bubble: âIâd definitely hire you, but I donât like the colour of⌠um⌠your tie!â
captions: Letâs Break the Silence!
Discrimination, letâs open our eyes!
MRAP Campaign of struggle against racist discrimination
[/Translation]
Ballsy move. Good on them.
60K issues is hardly the Le Monde.
I think mocking the people who literally murder you with assault rifles is the definition of punching up.
Most definitely.
Extra-extra-extra like!
You make it sound like they picked on Islam while giving majority groups a pass. As of 2007 [just over half the population in France identified as Catholic,][1] and Iâm pretty sure that over the course of the magazineâs run Charlie Hebdo published more covers mocking the Catholic Church than any other religion.
I donât buy the argument that itâs OK to satirize the beliefs of one religion but not another. And I definitely donât buy the argument that youâre âshitâ if you make fun of the religious extremists who threaten to murder you (and ultimately make good on that threat).
Besides, many of the most controversial covers were less anti-Islam than anti-extremist. Like the one where ISIS was preparing to behead the Prophet, or the one where the Prophet was weeping and bemoaning that âitâs so hard to be loved by dicks.â
[1]: Religion in France - Wikipedia
Desperate. 
I like that their response is to ramp up production. Intimidation like this canât stand. Some might say âgood riddance,â but if free speech doesnât protect indiscriminate assholes, then it doesnât do its job well. More. Louder. More vulgar.
How do I get one?
They came out in support of Franceâs burka ban, so they werenât exactly stellar defenders of the freedom of expression.
Obligatory: The didnât deserve what happened, though. Not even remotely.
Itâs interesting how the response to The Interviewâs limited screenings was more nuanced, along the lines of âLetâs support free speech by paying money to see this movie, even if it is a piece of shit made by Franco and Rogen that wouldnât otherwise deserve my support.â Here, there seems to be more support both for the free-speech aspect of what Hebdo is doing, as well as their message.
Perhaps thatâs because the people who didnât care for The Interview didnât react by forcing their way into the studio and slaughtering the filmmakers with assault rifles.
âCharlie Hebdo will print 1 million copies of next issue instead of 60,000 as usualâ
. . . aaaaaand thatâs how terrorists learned about the Streisand Effect.
Isnât wearing a burka the antithesis of free expression? No-one can see what expression is on the wearer âŚ
Yes, but it was pulled from wide release because of the fear of movie-house slaughters. But if people actually had been killed, would the movie have become more praiseworthy?
Your government telling you what article of clothing to wear or not wear is squashing freedom of expression. It doesnât matter if weâre talking about saggy pants, a burka or a hijab.
I actually agree, but find conversation with someone whose face is covered rather one sided and impolite â Iâm communicating more than they are. A more nuanced approach to the issue would be a statement along the lines of:
âThe wearing of complete facial coverings while in conversation with someone in [our country] is generally considered grossly impolite and is therefore culturally inappropriate. You are however free to wear whatever clothes you wish and cause offence at will. Likewise the persons you wish to speak to are also at complete liberty to either accept your mode of dress; ignore you; or âif on private premisesâ request that you leave until you choose to adhere to social norms.â
âŚwhich is fair to all parties.
But they did threaten to, along with movie-goers who would see it or any other movie in a theater it was playing at, thus why the main theater chains refused to show it.
