Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 126

Thread: Satire and Reaction: Nous sommes Charlie

  1. #1
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373

    Satire and Reaction: Nous sommes Charlie

    I am starting this thread out of respect for Dieter's request to maintain the Je Suis Charlie thread as one for poetry.

    The story so far:

    Quote Originally Posted by virtuoso View Post
    I agree with your freedom of speech mantra, but too often some of the so-called open-minded intelligentsia lash out in an intemperate manner. I do not think that it is prudent to attack any of the major doctrines of a religion. It is alright to question those tenants in a respectful manner, but I do not have any sympathy for the Salman Rushdies of this world. They bring the trouble justifiably onto themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    Intentionally performing blasphemous and sacrilegious acts to twit and goad the faithful is rude and imprudent. However, people who perform such acts do NOT "bring the trouble justifiably onto themselves." Nor should we withhold our "sympathy" from them. That's ridiculous. Rude behavior is no excuse for murder, and suggesting otherwise constitutes blaming the victims. It's reasonable to suggest that we should all be respectful of others' fervent and deeply held beliefs; it's unreasonable to claim that if we are not, horrific crimes are "justified".
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    Here's Adam Gopnik writing about Charlie Hebdo for "The New Yorker":

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...9/satire-lives
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    Thank you for posting that link, Ecurb. It puts into context the asinine comments made by Pope Francis in reference to the Charlie Hebdo killings, in which he defended freedom of speech as a human right "but said it must not cause offense." (NPR), adding: "You cannot make provocations" and "You cannot insult people's faith."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-within-limits

    The Pope's comments are placed under a sharper focus by some of the points made in Gopnik's article:

    [The murdered satirists] worked instead in a peculiarly French and savage tradition, forged in a long nineteenth-century guerrilla war between republicans and the Church and the monarchy.

    ***
    Before Pope Francis' recent comments:

    It is wonderful to see Pope Francis condemning the horror, but also worth remembering that magazine’s special Christmas issue, titled “The True Story of Baby Jesus,” whose cover bore a drawing of a startled Mary giving notably frontal birth to her child. (Did the Pope see it?)

    ***
    Wolinski and his confederates represented the true Rabelaisian spirit of French civilization, in their acceptance of human appetite and their contempt for false high-mindedness of any kind, including the secular high-mindedness that liberal-minded people hold dear. The magazine was offensive to Jews, offensive to Muslims, offensive to Catholics, offensive to feminists, offensive to the right and to the left, while being aligned with it—offensive to everybody, equally.

    ***
    I was amused to hear Pope Francis' doublethink parroted by a network news "anchor" who only a few days before had self-righteously explained to me that the worldwide reaction of horror to the killings was because "nothing is more important to democracy than journalism." Tonight, he assured me that the same sanctimonious tone that the Pope was merely stating "what everyone has been thinking." In other words, the time for pious hand-wringing is over and the ugly truth is wriggling out: satire will not be tolerated; not by militant extremists; not by normative western religion; and not by liberal western media (who will tell you exactly what "everyone has been thinking," thank you very much). Not real satire. If it can't be controlled, it won't be tolerated. This is an Ecumenism that John XXIII never dreamt of. Crazies of all stripes arm in arm. We are the world.

    It is also a call to arms--to pens, to brushes, to keyboards. No one loves a satirist, not a real one. It is never going to be okay to say that the king is a fink--and mean it. It is never going to okay to say that there are some damned silly things about our religions--and mean it. It is never going to be okay to hold up a mirror to the media (everyone hates them anyway, they just won't report it). And that is to say nothing of Russia and China.

    But as a skinny Woody Guthrie wannabe groaned many years ago: "the times they are a'changing." And this time, I suspect he may be onto something. I hear people on the left and right and middle say that they are not going to put up with PC anymore. It's not important that we all define PC as the other person's viewpoint: because the real point is that once you recognize that your political opposites are accepting prepackaged opinions handed down to them from on high--things that make them feel comfortable, or smart, or smug--it is only a matter of time until the virus of reason makes its way to your inner ear and whispers, "Oh yeah man, there's a lot of that going around."

    And they're killing the satirists now, that's the pertinent point. They are all done not loving them and they have started actually wasting them. And the supposed defenders of human rights and Constitutional liberties have already started to equivocate.

    JerryBaldy made a call a few posts back to stand up and be counted. Fine. Personally, I make a point of not satirizing individuals on a site like this. I have no desire to hurt people's feelings, and if I do hurt them, I apologize immediately. And that apology is sincere. And I will continue to respect the "check your politics at the door" policy of this site, which I believe to be a wise one. But as of this moment, Pope Francis (and others) are officially on-limits. Je suis Charlie. Nous sommes tous Charlie. It's only scary if you cower alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by DieterM View Post
    Allow me, virtuoso, to protest most vividly! If I understand you right, you hold Salman Rushdie responsible for the abominable death sentence a senile fascist leader in Iran launched against him (I say "fascist" because any regime based on religion is perforce fascist; in democracy you can refute, contradict, and fight with democratic means any law you don't like; in a religious regime, the base of society is a law written by God, thus indisputable, thus immutable, thus un- and antidemocratic). That's your right. And it's my right to think the very idea just as abominable as the silly fatwa itself. I haven't read a single book Mr. Rushdie has written, but I have all the sympathy of the world for him. Freedom of speech is not a mantra, it has nothing "so-called open-minded", it is never intemperate. Either one accepts freedom of speech (within the limits of national and international law, I insist on that point) or one does not. There's no in-between. As to the prudence of attacking a religion—the question is not whether it is prudent or not, but whether it is permitted and permissible or not. As luck would have it, blasphemy is not mentioned in French law. Therefore, you are allowed to say, sing, write, draw, yell blasphemy all day long. Why should one "question [religion] in a respectful manner"? You can discuss and attack and ridicule and refute socialism, conservatism, ecologism, what have you not; so of course you are allowed to discuss and attack and ridicule and refute any religious doctrine you like. I know you wrote "religious doctrines" in one sentence and "tenants" in the next. The difference is absolute, and "Charlie" never mistook one for the other. They always mocked the doctrine, never made any attacks "ad hominem". Because you can insult a person; you cannot insult a belief, a philosophy, etc. In democracy, the only thing that should count is the democratically voted law. The rest belongs to your private sphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by DieterM View Post
    As for the rest, I wanted to say I'd like this thread to become a poetry-thread again. Otherwise, I'm quite afraid this site's mods might close it, which I would really find regrettable. If anyone wants to start a related thread in the General Discussion section, say, or the Philosophy section, I'd be the first to participate. I think there's a whole lot of things to discuss re. this issue, especially for us, who per definitionem, as readers and writers, are concerned by it. But please—if you want to comment on the poems already present in this thread, or if you want to share your own, related poem, be my guest. Otherwise, please, let's discuss the core subject in another section (and if anyone opens that thread, please share the link so that we can all move there and debate).

    Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by virtuoso View Post
    I agree Dieter that everybody should have the freedom of speech to say what they want. However, if you ridicule the devout, fervent disciple who is ready to die for his beliefs, then you are asking for it. Those who use satire to make a mockery of a deeply held belief system are not honorable in my view. I do not believe in using violence as a means to address even blasphemy, but some of the more fundamental Islamic and Christian sects have believed in it. All I am saying is that if you want to question their beliefs in a vitriolic, sacrilegious manner, then you deserve to live your life looking in the rear view mirror. You mock a lion, then you must expect him to act with rage. I did not mean to imply that any columnist or analyst deserved death, but they do deserve to live in a bit of fear.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 01-16-2015 at 04:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Registered User NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,426
    Blog Entries
    464
    As for the thread, I am thinking it will fall under politics in all likelihood.

    As for the debate - de-escalation should be the word of the day.


    I remember Zen teacher Hanh talking about this type of thing. . he has some wonderful thoughts on how to achieve peace, by the way. In the talk he told about a seminar that they held for Israeli's and Palestinians.

    I don't remember the whole thing in detail, but the general sum of it was, to get to share stories in a safe setting. . . to bring them together in a peaceful way. And from he said, it was fairly transformative. When each person understood that the other side was suffering deeply, they began to empathize with them as human beings, and in this way they were able to make progress towards peace.

  3. #3
    Registered User DieterM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    825
    Thanks for joining in, NikolaiI. I don't think this can be considered "politics" in the way the Forum Rules define it; at least I hope it doesn't. We won't discuss French or US- or UK- policy, anyway. It's rather a general question, the question whether someone really thinks she/he IS Charlie or whether she/he only tries out the attitude of pretending to be. A rather fashionable attitude, I daresay, because even politicians I won't name and who are light years away from being Charlie have sported it last Sunday during the huge Paris gathering.

    I guess I AM Charlie. Meaning that I've started reading the weekly the day I arrived in France. It's the only paper I read, besides the second national satirical weekly we have in this country (and we're more than lucky to have them both; both represent high-quality journalism with a slice of humour that doesn't respect any boundaries). More than once, I've looked at their covers, mouth open, whispering, "They haven't dared…!" And yet they had. Yes, Charlie has always been and will continue to be rude, of bad taste, respecting no one and nothing. And outrageously hilarious. It is a French tradition to think you can laugh of anything. One humorist said back in the 70s, "You can laugh about anything, but you can't do it with anyone." Meaning you can make fun of Jews (Jewish jokes have a long, long tradition all over Europe—most of the time, these were jokes invented by Jews, mocking Jews, and which made Jews laugh loudest) before a public that knows what you're laughing about. You can't make fun of Jews before a public of neo-Nazis. Another example: Cabu, one of the cartoonists killed last week, once drew a cartoon involving people with Down's syndrome. When someone asked him why he made fun of them, he answered, "Why, as a kid my best friend had Down's syndrome. You know I make fun of anyone and anything. By drawing that cartoon, I simply wanted to show I considered them as normal as anybody else."

    The point I want to make is: those who think the Charlie cartoons are not funny, well, they have a very simple solution—they don't read them! And if someone thinks he's been insulted by a cartoon, well, he can always sue Charlie! People did quite often. French imams and bishops amongst them. They never won because you have the same right to ridicule religions than to mock any other ideology. And sometimes Charlie lost and apologized. If we step back from our rights, for which people have died in the past, we give up hope that things will get better little by little.

    One last thing. The latest cover of Charlie showed the prophet, weeping, "Je suis Charlie" written over his chest, under the headline saying "All is forgiven". And people have protested! What is revolting, disturbing, unpeaceful about THAT, I ask? How can you discuss with someone who doesn't want to discuss? Who doesn't want to understand the message?

    Sorry this is a bit of a mess. And a huge thanks to Pompey Bum for creating this thread.
    "Im Arm der Liebe schliefen wir selig ein…" ("Liebesode" - Otto Erich Hartleben)
    New poetry collection available (Kindle and paperback)

  4. #4
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    I have never read Charlie Hebdo. Words and images can constitute "fighting words" (as they are described in U.S. law). In other words, they can be so inflammatory as to constitute an assault and excuse someone (legally and possibly morally) from fighting back. This seems reasonable. If someone says, "Your mother is a whore," there is no proper response other than walking away or punching the person.

    In past centuries, insulting or inflammatory remarks might lead to a challenge and a duel. We have ceased the practice of dueling (a good change, don't you think?), but at least there was some honor involved in dueling. The person who was challenged could avoid the duel by apologizing, or refusing to accept the challenge (and being considered a coward). "Walking away" might include the "cut direct" -- refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other person when your ran across him socially.

    One reasonable question is: What constitutes speech so insulting that it can be called "fighting words"? How about, "There is no God but Allah"? Would it be reasonable for Christians to consider that blasphemous and insulting?

    Another question is, "What response is appropriate and proportional?" Even those who might punch someone for saying, "Your mother is a whore" probably consider shooting the person dead a disproportionate response.

    virtuoso says, "You mock a lion, then you must expect him to act with rage." Isn't he comparing humans (the Muslim terrorists) to beasts? Mightn't some people consider this blasphemous and insulting? Does he "deserve to live... in fear" as a result of his remarks?

  5. #5
    Registered User NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,426
    Blog Entries
    464
    No one deserves to live in fear, and the best thing we can do is to work to build a world where that's no longer necessary.

    I'm reminded by this incident of something I read about Black Elk recently. I've known he was a medicine man, and I've always been interested the things he had to say. Recently I learned that he also, along with Lame Deer, became a Heyoka at some point. Heyoka is a sort of a sacred clown, or jester - the tradition is they often do or say things in a backwards way, to get people to look at things differently. Some of the things they will do is riding a horse backwards, or dress very warmly in winter and complain it is cold. . and, it's a sacred thing of the people, in the words of Lame Deer -

    "For people who are as poor as us, who have lost everything, who had to endure so much death and sadness, laughter is a precious gift. When we were dying like flies from white man's disease, when we were driven into reservations, when the government rations did not arrive and we were starving, watching the pranks and capers of Heyókȟa were a blessing."

    —John Fire Lame Deer[2] Heyoka

    Principally, the heyókȟa functions both as a mirror and a teacher, using extreme behaviors to mirror others, thereby forcing them to examine their own doubts, fears, hatreds, and weaknesses. heyókȟas also have the power to heal emotional pain; such power comes from the experience of shame — they sing of shameful events in their lives, beg for food, and live as clowns. They provoke laughter in distressing situations of despair and provoke fear and chaos when people feel complacent and overly secure, to keep them from taking themselves too seriously or believing they are more powerful than they are.
    But I find it a little different from Hebdo for a couple of reasons - primarily, because I believe laughter to be a good thing, but not really when it's used to laugh at people when they're down. Like - the way I see the role of this kind of person is to help things - I mean, help society and so forth. .

    And it's complex times - we're too complacent about some things, and too fearful about others. It's honestly a mix about a lot of things - if we're going to save ourselves, we have to come to sanity on so many matters. . . take back power as people, not give it away to a stagnating culture, and that type of thing. . in many ways, things are upside down. . .

    There are a lot of forces in the world today which try to teach people that they don't matter, for one, and that they're not free, for another - these are two of the basic essentials that individuals have to learn for themselves, for life to begin to be as it should be.

    I'm touching on a lot of topics, I know.

    I really do believe it's possible to see all these things clearly. . .I mean - as complex as humans are, we can understand them because we can know that they all have a lot of universals - pain, happiness, hopes, all of that - and we all have been in a place where we weren't feeling okay enough with ourselves and we lashed out. .

    A self-realized person from any country will have a lot of similar qualities - they'll have peace, cheerfulness, ability to see things and understand things and people as they are, and a very good knack for how to do things well. Ah- yes, and one of the most important, such a self-realized person from any culture, won't be trying to control others. . .

    Now - it isn't easy, sometimes, to understand other cultures. . . We're so very different in a lot of ways, but similar in others.

    To understand that we're all suffering is useful - but that we all that the capacity for realization of the highest human achievements.

    The only thing I really want to say is that peace is possible - we can work for it, and one of the most important things we need to realize is that we have power, we can take that power back, and use it for good - don't give it away and all that - but we have to know that it's possible to have peace with one another - I rather believe that idea is essential.

    I don't have all the answers or anything, I just know that everyone can heal, and everyone can find peace - it starts within us, the individuals, and from us it can go to society.

    Now - as for understanding cultures - it's not easy for us who grew up in France, or North America, or many other places perhaps, to understand, but for most Muslims - and this is the ones who would never in a million years resort to violence to try to express their feelings, as well as people who unfortunately do - even if we are broadcasting a positive message, such as All is Forgiven - for them, images of their prophet are something that causes them pain - it doesn't matter if the image is a positive one, or a negative one, although I am sure negative ones are worse - but even a positive one, saying let us be friends and forgive, is painful to them because it is an image -

    Now - I am not saying there are not real issues, in a lot of places, especially Muslim countries, that need to be addressed - very much so there are. But I've seen so much pain - wars caused by division, by people giving up their freedom to think for themselves, giving up their power, largely based on the edifices of division and reactivity and this sort of thing.

  6. #6
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    It's sad, NikolaiI. It is precisely BECAUSE religion is so important to people that it makes a good subject for art. Serrano's "Piss Christ" wouldn't be as moving with a less freighted and iconic image. https://www.usc.edu/schools/annenber...mages/502.html

    It seems to me the motive of the artist and the quality of the art are significant. If ALL some artist wants to do is insult and enrage religious people, that's pretty rude. That's why, "Your mother is a whore" constitutes fighting words: the ONLY reason to say it is as a challenge. In a way, challenges deserve (or at least can be fairly met with) an acceptance of the challenge. If the motive for blasphemy is provocation, that's rude, and a challenge, just like other provocations.

    On the other hand, if the art is beautiful (as is the case with "Piss Christ"), or if the symbolism is trenchant, or if the meaning is intellectually as well as politically provocative, we can (I think) excuse the rudeness. Some things are worth being rude about; others are not.

    (In either event, of course, the artist shouldn't have to fear being mowed down for his rudeness. A more appropriate response would be to refuse to buy his work, or to refuse to speak to him if introduced, or maybe even call him by a rude name, like "dweeb".)

  7. #7
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by DieterM View Post
    And a huge thanks to Pompey Bum for creating this thread.
    Oh you are welcome, Dieter.

    Quote Originally Posted by DieterM View Post
    I don't think this can be considered "politics" in the way the Forum Rules define it
    Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal. I applauded you for envisioning this thread. As you say, there is much to discuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by DieterM View Post
    It's rather a general question, the question whether someone really thinks she/he IS Charlie or whether she/he only tries out the attitude of pretending to be. A rather fashionable attitude, I daresay, because even politicians I won't name and who are light years away from being Charlie have sported it last Sunday during the huge Paris gathering.
    I observe that the slogan has energized many, but that it may mean quite different things to different parties. In some cases there may be an element of hypocrisy or political opportunism. The slogan's appeal may be self-serving, as with the journalist I mentioned, explaining that "Je suis Charlie" was a popular mandate for protecting journalism (but soon after equivocated on the underlying issue of free speech). For an American neo-conservative, it may mean: "Okay French people, let's go fight radical Islam together!" For PEGIDA, it may mean: "Let's get Muslims the hell out of Europe!" For many people, it was simply a humane statement of sympathy to the French people in the face of a national tragedy. You have said that the for you, the pertinent issues are rights and progress: "If we step back from our rights, for which people have died in the past, we give up hope that things will get better little by little." For me, it is because I refuse to surrender the option of over-the-top satire (as you say "humour that doesn't respect any boundaries ") as a moral response to the rejection of reason and/or good will, particularly in the face of violent intimidation. I may choose to refrain, but I will not surrender that choice to murderers (or anyone else). That is why I stand with the satirists of Charlie Hebdo. That is why je suis Charlie.

    So my first point is that the appearance of solidarity is to some extent illusory. My second is that things are going to get messy now. I continue to see Catholic attempts to distance the Church from sympathy for Charlie Hebdo. Despite neo-conservative aspirations, there's no current mandate for a return to war (thank God). Xenophobic groups like PEGIDA are nothing but trouble. And rude, honest people like me are never very popular. So where does that leave "rights, for which people have died in the past" and "hope that things will get better little by little"? I don't doubt that things will get better in time. But I suspect they are going to get a lot worse before that. Moral pessimists (like me) have a credo: "The truth will set you free. But first it will make you miserable."

    What can be done for now? Honest talk here and now is important. I am always shocked at how many hundreds of people read the silly things I write on the threads here. It is important, despite our differences, for us to articulate a common ground upon which good men and women may stand together: We are not afraid. Might, even that of "lions," does not make right. And we don't give a damn if we've got your sympathy or not. That's a good start.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 01-18-2015 at 09:46 AM.

  8. #8
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,089
    Blog Entries
    72
    It's one thing to fight for free speech -- which is what everyone should do but few have enough courage to do so.

    It's quite another to consider free speech "trendy," which is what some Hollywood types did at The Golden Globe awards last week. (These were probably the same Selfie enthusiasts from last summer who gleefully allowed buckets of ice water to be dumped on their heads, ostensibly to elicit donations against a disease, but let's face it,couldn't pass up another trendy photo opp.) But on the latest Red Carpet event they were emblazoning "Je suis Charlie" on their designer handbags or pinned to their tux lapels, as if they'd actually been present in that Paris office the day of the attack. I'd be very surprised to learn that these celebs actually had ever heard of the French weekly, let alone subscribed to the magazine or had even read it. "Je suis Charlie": --this from rich and privileged residents of a company town where one of the main employers, a massive studio, nearly allowed itself to follow the dictates of a foreign power which allegedly spearheaded cyber attacks and threats of violence against the procuction company to block the release of a movie which satirized the leader of that oppressive regime.

    Llke many Americans, I only learned of the existence of the publication when the horrifying news broke; I'd feel like a damned hypocrite if I implied otherwise. Even so, I can only admire the heroism of those Parisian cartoonists and writers who literally gave their lives for their work. The thing is-- my fellow NitLetters, either you support free speech or you don't. There's no namby-pamby half-way fence sitting. On a recent tv show I heard Salman Rushie say that the danger is in saying "I support free speech but--" There really can't be any "buts" about it. We're not talking about The Supreme Court Justice's distinction of "yeliing fire in a crowded theatre;" we are talking about political and social discourse, art and literature. You can say "x" but you can't say "y," because that will offend somebody. But how does one determine what exactly "x" and "y" are? Who has the authority to rule on what can be expressed and what cannot? That's the problem with drawing lines, by adding "buts."

    If you want to say or write what you want, you have to let others with opposing views say it as well. If the political views of a slated college commencement speaker clash with yours, why not let him talk? If his thoughts are as bad as you say, then none of the graduates will agree with him anyway. It doesn't matter if a radio talk show host spews stupidity or hate. Let it get aired out. Once the world gets a whiff, folks will smell it for the garbage that it is. This is where you step in -- present your alternative ideas in engaging, expressive, convincing ways.

    It also helps to have an educated public, having evolved into listeners and viewers who at least have been taught rudimentary critical thinking skills. Satire and ridicule can be effective for shining a spotlight upon the darkness. A big problem is that it takes intelligence, not just from the writer but also the audience. For instance, Americans are especially literal-minded.

    It also requires fearlessness. As one of the surviving editors said on a later newscast, "They [the murderers] can kill us, but they can't kill our ideas." I sure as hell wish I could be that brave.

    Speaking of the survivors, we all know what happened almost immediately after the crime. The paper went straight back into producing the next issue,this time with unprecedented circulation numbers in the millions. Unlike the aforementioned Hollywood types, and unlike yours fooly, the staff at Charlie Hedbo have balls.

    Can I say "balls" or will it be censored? See what I mean?

  9. #9
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    There already is no such thing as free speech in most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada where things like "hate speech' (if you believe in hate speech laws don't bother talking to me) and holocaust denial or revisionism can result in prison sentences of up to a decade or more; so really you're all fooling yourselves if you think free speech actually exists when there are actual LAWS against it.

    "Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal."

    So 'Je suis David Irving' is not a campaign because why? Because what is offensive to Jews is illegal and what is offensive to Muslims is not?

    Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammad drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 02:58 PM.

  10. #10
    Registered User Emil Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin View Post
    There already is no such thing as free speech in most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada where things like "hate speech' (if you believe in hate speech laws don't bother talking to me) and holocaust denial or revisionism can result in prison sentences of up to a decade or more; so really you're all fooling yourselves if you think free speech actually exists when there are actual LAWS against it.

    "Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal."

    So 'Je suis David Irving' is not a campaign because why? Because what is offensive to Jews is illegal and what is offensive to Muslims is not?

    Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammed drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.
    Well said. I can remember a time when people were allowed to say and write what they liked except in the case of personal attacks which, quite rightly, were dealt with through the laws of slander and libel. Then the liberal element ( I'm being polite here ) came out from under their stones in the wake of WWII and
    began to impose their view of what could and could not be said or written.
    It is an interesting thought that Voltaire has seen his most famous dictum ( I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ) trampled into the dust by the very people who once championed him as an example of liberal rectitude.
    "L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.

    "Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.

  11. #11
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin View Post

    "Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal." [--Pompey Bum]

    Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammed drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.
    I'm not sure what my view that discussing reaction to the Charlie Hebdo killings doesn't violate the site's policy on debating current politics has to do with "hate crimes" or Holocaust denial. But I certainly oppose the criminalization of free speech. (I talk in one of the posts above about my objection to mandated "politically correct" thought, too, if that cools anyone's jets).
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 01-18-2015 at 12:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Registered User NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,426
    Blog Entries
    464
    Nevermind, all my main points were in my previous post.
    Last edited by NikolaiI; 01-18-2015 at 12:09 PM.

  13. #13
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    The U.S. has not outlawed “hate speech”, and it is harder to successfully sue someone for libel here than in most Western countries. Nonetheless, I wonder if proponents of "freedom of speech" would also support eliminating copyright laws? Obviously, copyrights limit free speech, as do laws against (for example) fraud.

    My own opinion is that copyrights should be strictly limited to the economic realm, and that free speech should reign outside of that realm. I know a woman who produces high school plays. Not only does the school have to pay for the right to use a copyrighted play, but some playwrights make ridiculous demands. One playwright demanded that none of the dialogue could be changed. If that isn't a limit on free speech, I don't know what is.

    I don't mean to derail the conversation, merely to point out that Free Speech is a complicated issue.

  14. #14
    Registered User NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,426
    Blog Entries
    464
    One of the problems with the world is that the things we're taught to be right are the things we've been persuaded to believe are right. . In other words, who wins the persuasion war. I'm rather against it in almost all its forms, to be honest.

    No one's trying force anyone to believe in peace, to work for peace, but I would say - working for peace is better.

  15. #15
    Registered User Emil Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,499
    It is a complicated subject and the law can be quite nebulous in dealing with alleged violations of free speech.
    The crux of the matter is how it is defined and, notwithstanding my earlier post, there have been, over time, obscenity laws of varying degree of severity.
    However, there is a very great difference between banning pornographic publications of children for example: which only the depraved would support, and laws that try to force everyone to walk around on eggshells over the mention of Jews, Palestinians, Romanians, blacks, Chinese, Uncle Tom Cobley and all on grounds of incitement to racial hatred which is the situation pertaining in the UK today and is, in many people’s view, a direct attack on free speech.
    With regard to copyright, I think there is a case to be made for abandoning or restricting it although where documentation regarding patents was concerned, it would have to be protected.
    A more insidious form of interference with free speech is so-called political correctness that tries to inhibit a person’s right to say what may be unfounded or a generalisation but its expression is nevertheless a basic human right. People should be allowed to decide for themselves the level of ‘self-censorship’ they wish to exercise in their daily lives rather than have it imposed by the holier than thou or control freaks.
    When I was a young man, I had a group of friends who would meet regularly for drinks and when any of us bought a round we would raise our glasses with the words: ‘Cheers Queers’. It wasn't aimed at homosexuals in particular or in general; it was just an example free speech.
    "L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.

    "Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.

Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chain Reaction
    By loki456 in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 07:46 AM
  2. Reaction about Discrimination
    By krisgil_aguila in forum Serious Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-30-2010, 09:32 PM
  3. Your reaction?
    By Lokasenna in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:39 AM
  4. Coops Reaction Too-- Two
    By tallcoopscoach in forum Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-08-2005, 11:13 PM
  5. Satire Writers / Satire Readers
    By cabbagewrite in forum The Literature Network
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2004, 03:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •