Good for them. You can’t terrorize those that won’t be cowed. Heroic.
But was it actually a satirical magazine? If you’re punching up, it’s satire. If you’re punching down, it’s shit.
If you’re 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 Gaulle’s death. And while a lot of its cartoons were racist, Charb also drew this for the French anti-racist organisation MRAP:
Speech bubble: “I’d definitely hire you, but I don’t like the colour of… um… your tie!”
captions: Let’s Break the Silence!
Discrimination, let’s open our eyes!
MRAP Campaign of struggle against racist discrimination
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.
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,] and I’m pretty sure that over the course of the magazine’s run Charlie Hebdo published more covers mocking the Catholic Church than any other religion.
I don’t buy the argument that it’s OK to satirize the beliefs of one religion but not another. And I definitely don’t buy the argument that you’re “shit” 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 “it’s so hard to be loved by dicks.”
I like that their response is to ramp up production. Intimidation like this can’t stand. Some might say “good riddance,” but if free speech doesn’t protect indiscriminate assholes, then it doesn’t do its job well. More. Louder. More vulgar.
How do I get one?
They came out in support of France’s burka ban, so they weren’t exactly stellar defenders of the freedom of expression.
Obligatory: The didn’t deserve what happened, though. Not even remotely.
It’s interesting how the response to The Interview’s limited screenings was more nuanced, along the lines of “Let’s support free speech by paying money to see this movie, even if it is a piece of shit made by Franco and Rogen that wouldn’t otherwise deserve my support.” Here, there seems to be more support both for the free-speech aspect of what Hebdo is doing, as well as their message.
Perhaps that’s because the people who didn’t care for The Interview didn’t react by forcing their way into the studio and slaughtering the filmmakers with assault rifles.
“Charlie Hebdo will print 1 million copies of next issue instead of 60,000 as usual”
. . . aaaaaand that’s how terrorists learned about the Streisand Effect.
Isn’t wearing a burka the antithesis of free expression? No-one can see what expression is on the wearer …
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 doesn’t matter if we’re 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 — I’m communicating more than they are. A more nuanced approach to the issue would be a statement along the lines of:
‘The 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 —if on private premises— request that you leave until you choose to adhere to social norms.’
…which 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.