Topic: Shooting at Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris

[B0151?]

Being black or Jewish is provocative to racists. Practising the Shiite version of Islam is provocative to ISIS. The Gay pride marches around the world are provocative to gay-bashing thugs and murders. Being a doctor or nurse at an abortion clinic is provocative to pro-life Christian extremists.

There are no excuses for extremist violence. If provoking an extremist leads to violence or death then it is still the extremist who is in the wrong. The clue is in the name - 'extremist'.

I've already said there is no excuse for violent response, and that violent responses are THE issue that need to be addressed and solved.

But deliberately provocative is the key phrasing, and why a 'draw a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad' contest doesn't compare to being black or having a job. And, for me, this is different to Charlie in the case that it isn't deliberately provocative for satirical reasons, if something happens PURELY to try and entice a violent response, you do not think that is disagreeable?

[Father Ted]

I've never felt the need to draw a crude cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed myself, and I doubt many others have either. It's not an inalienable right is it?

As far as i know the US constitution doesn't say 'every American citizen will have the right to bare arms, plus the right do draw little cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed fucking a sheep as a wind-up'.

If someone shot at me every time one of my doodles came out, I'd probably just stop doodling. I shouldn't have to, but it's no real effort, unless you're a professional cartoonist working within the narrow 'drawings of deities' market. Generally I try not to incite crazy nutters with firearms, foreign backing and terrorist tendencies.

As an aside - Given that it seems the NSA spies on every person & every single electronic device in America isn't this on them somewhat anyway? Not the actual attack itself but stopping it before it happens, which I thought was the point of all that nonsense. Considering the amount of draconian, undemocratic laws they've brought in in the name of terrorism, they should be able to do a better job of protecting their citizens' rights to childishly offend entire religions.

[B0151?]

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry if any posts have poor phrasing.

I'm just trying to defend my belief that you can think something is disagreeable without in any way excusing the response. Maybe it is a fine line, but I don't think I, and many others who will be saying similar, are doing that.

[B0151?]

It would be a stupid thing to do but if you were beaten or killed it would not be you who was in the wrong. Sectarianism is as stupid and dangerous as religious extremism, racism and any other 'ism' that is used to justify violence.

 My point is this, that stupidity of mine could result in a riot, or otherwise violent situation, that could see other people killed or injured. I think people would have a right to frown upon my role in participating in such inciteful behaviour that had the obvious potential to be the spark for conflict, and I wouldn't think they were in any way excusing the violent response by wishing I hadn't done it and condemning the irresponsibility in doing so.

I suppose we all have different takes on things.

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

Yes and yes.

Alan does the 2nd yes not make them ALMOST as culpable as the attempted murderers.  ie lets annoy the Muslims, they will try attack us and probably end up shot dead?

This is far removed from the anti islamic free speach from the likes of say Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsu Ali or the Danish Cartoonist. 

[Piggies in Blankies]

Alan does the 2nd yes not make them ALMOST as culpable as the attempted murderers.  ie lets annoy the Muslims, they will try attack us and probably end up shot dead?

This is far removed from the anti islamic free speach from the likes of say Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsu Ali or the Danish Cartoonist. 

No, of course it doesn't.


Only one group took the decision to kill.

[Alan_X]

As far as i know the US constitution doesn't say 'every American citizen will have the right to bare arms, plus the right do draw little cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed fucking a sheep as a wind-up'.

It does. The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Edit: also read up on Hustler Magazine vs Falwell. To quote Wiki:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them...

and...

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court...

.... "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

No, of course it doesn't.


Only one group took the decision to kill.

and another group were happy to see people get killed. 

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

As an aside - Given that it seems the NSA spies on every person & every single electronic device in America isn't this on them somewhat anyway? Not the actual attack itself but stopping it before it happens, which I thought was the point of all that nonsense. Considering the amount of draconian, undemocratic laws they've brought in in the name of terrorism, they should be able to do a better job of protecting their citizens' rights to childishly offend entire religions.

One of the attackers was being closely watched and ended up in court but the judge decided there wasn't enough evidence.

[Piggies in Blankies]

and another group were happy to see people get killed. 

Really?

What makes you think that was the case? I see no evidence for this.

[Yorkykopite]

1. Do you think they deliberately held this bizarre competition for the purpose of a response from the Muslim world ?
2 Do you think they are happy with how things turned out ?

1. Probably.
2. Possibly.

For me, I'm not outraged at all at the Texans - rather I wish they were more responsible and less deliberately inciteful. Do you not think that's an OK response? In an ideal world, flag-burning should be a fairly meaningless action, but if I were to do that in an area where there were high sectarian tensions, that isn't very responsible of me, no?

Maybe not (and I'd prefer a loftier form of insult to dogma than they could muster). But we don't live in an "ideal world" and the Islamists, like every stripe of Fascist before them, take offence at all sorts of trivial things. That in itself is worth lampooning. But it also serves as a warning that we fool ourselves if we think we can somehow not make them angry - unless, of course, we throw everything in and behave in exactly the ways they want us to behave. 

[Yorkykopite]

I've never felt the need to draw a crude cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed myself, and I doubt many others have either. It's not an inalienable right is it?

As far as i know the US constitution doesn't say 'every American citizen will have the right to bare arms, plus the right do draw little cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed fucking a sheep as a wind-up'.

If someone shot at me every time one of my doodles came out, I'd probably just stop doodling. I shouldn't have to, but it's no real effort, unless you're a professional cartoonist working within the narrow 'drawings of deities' market. Generally I try not to incite crazy nutters with firearms, foreign backing and terrorist tendencies.

As an aside - Given that it seems the NSA spies on every person & every single electronic device in America isn't this on them somewhat anyway? Not the actual attack itself but stopping it before it happens, which I thought was the point of all that nonsense. Considering the amount of draconian, undemocratic laws they've brought in in the name of terrorism, they should be able to do a better job of protecting their citizens' rights to childishly offend entire religions.

This is wrong on so many levels.

(I guess by the nature of your post that 'Father Ted is not the actual comedy 'Father Ted' but a real Father Ted who you know and admire?)

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

Really?

What makes you think that was the case? I see no evidence for this.

Sorry mate,I thought my reply was going to Alan X who agreed that the American group were happy with the outcome. ie 2 day people.   

Knowing that the reaction they got was the reaction they wanted, I wonder how they would feel if some of the coppers had been killed.


btw I would like to point out that I have no sympathy with the 2 dead terrorists. 

[Piggies in Blankies]

Sorry mate,I thought my reply was going to Alan X who agreed that the American group were happy with the outcome. ie 2 day people.   

Knowing that the reaction they got was the reaction they wanted, I wonder how they would feel if some of the coppers had been killed.


btw I would like to point out that I have no sympathy with the 2 dead terrorists. 

Hypothetical... I see

Perhaps difficult to hypothesise on this issue?

I don't understand this cartoon outrage. 

Ok, that's wrong, I suppose I can understand the outrage, but not the response to it.  If God is really offended, then an all seeing all powerful being will probably sort them out himself.  If not the other hand they have got it wrong and God isn't offended, then it's a bit late to say sorry really.

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

Hypothetical... I see
Perhaps difficult to hypothesise on this issue?

I don't think its hypothetical.  Perhaps you could explain? 
They did something without merit knowing there was a pretty good chance of being attacked. Thats what they wanted and that's what they got. 
What exactly was the point in drawing pictures of the pedophile, errr sorry Prophet Mohammed?

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

I don't understand this cartoon outrage. 

Ok, that's wrong, I suppose I can understand the outrage, but not the response to it.  If God is really offended, then an all seeing all powerful being will probably sort them out himself.  If not the other hand they have got it wrong and God isn't offended, then it's a bit late to say sorry really.

Neither do I mate. Its all crazy to me.

[Piggies in Blankies]

I don't think its hypothetical.  Perhaps you could explain? 
They did something without merit knowing there was a pretty good chance of being attacked. Thats what they wanted and that's what they got. 
What exactly was the point in drawing pictures of the pedophile, errr sorry Prophet Mohammed?

I'm not so sure really.... They did it to prove a point about freedom of speech rather than anything else (or so it seems to me).

As for Mohammed and paedophillia?  Half the world would have been banged up in those days.  It's the way things were here, there and every where and is a bit of a cheap shot when there are so many more legitimate areas to criticize

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

I'm not so sure really.... They did it to prove a point about freedom of speech rather than anything else (or so it seems to me).

If thats the real reason then fair enough.  We don't know and my whole stance was brought about by Alan X answering yes to my questions.  However in my opinion, and it seems the opinion of Alan it was done as provocation.

[Father Ted]

It does. The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Edit: also read up on Hustler Magazine vs Falwell. To quote Wiki:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them...

and...

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court...

.... "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

Okay, fair enough. There's also ways to interpret laws so as to avoid causing a flash-point situation like this. It's not like they were making a heartfelt, essential political point that needed to be heard. The woman behind the ludicrous contest (Pamela Geller) is just hate-fuelled shit-stirrer from what I can tell. Were a group of Muslims to organise such a childish event purely to mock Christianity, then all those tea-party idiots would be out in force picketing and complaining about their rights to not be treated in such a disrespectful manner. And, if you organised a similar event to mock Judaism there would rightly be cries of antisemitism, but when it's Islam then it's fine. Again, I'm not justifying the killings because that would be ridiculous, it just seems hypocritical that you can freely abuse one (minority) religion like that.

This competition was a waste of time, and drummed up purely to offend an already demonised minority, who'll suffer further as a result (I'm talking about innocent American Muslims, rather than terrorist's obviously).

[Santa couldn't find his reindeer]

As for Mohammed and paedophillia?  Half the world would have been banged up in those days.  It's the way things were here, there and every where and is a bit of a cheap shot when there are so many more legitimate areas to criticize

My Pedo jibe was deliberate.  Calling him that added nothing to our debate and was childish.  However I knew you would react to the comment.  Which is the point Im making about these budding artists.

[Father Ted]

But those gunmen don't represent Islam any more than Breivik represented Christianity imo, they represent crazy fanatical terrorism. 

I remember Geller from the New York mosque protests so I know exactly what she would have been aiming for, and she got it. The illusion that she has any interest in free speech or any other intent than attacking Muslims and inciting trouble is a nonsense. I was trying to say that she shouldn't have been allowed to basically dare a terrorist to attack her stupid offensive competition. It was obvious it could possibly incite a response, that the response happened is regrettable and wrong.

At the height of the IRA's campaign, we wouldn't have had 'let's take the piss out of the Irish' day to incite them to launch an attack would we, if someone had organised one you'd hope that the authorities would say to them "this is stupid".

[Piggies in Blankies]

But those gunmen don't represent Islam any more than Breivik represented Christianity imo, they represent crazy fanatical terrorism. 

I remember Geller from the New York mosque protests so I know exactly what she would have been aiming for, and she got it. The illusion that she has any interest in free speech or any other intent than attacking Muslims and inciting trouble is a nonsense. I was trying to say that she shouldn't have been allowed to basically dare a terrorist to attack her stupid offensive competition. It was obvious it could possibly incite a response, that the response happened is regrettable and wrong.

At the height of the IRA's campaign, we wouldn't have had 'let's take the piss out of the Irish' day to incite them to launch an attack would we, if someone had organised one you'd hope that the authorities would say to them "this is stupid".

Of course they represent Islam.  They represent Islam using the words of Hadith and the Quraan to inspire them.

Most Muslims don't interpret them this way, but reading them, I can see why people might.

[Father Ted]

Charles Manson interpreted 'Helter Skelter' as a call to murder people, it didn't make the Beatles' back-catalogue a musical terrorist manual.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I was just presenting an alternative viewpoint to the 'all Muslims are crazy nutters' narrative.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

I was just presenting an alternative viewpoint to the 'all Muslims are crazy nutters' narrative.

What are you talking about?

[Father Ted]

If a small group of people from a religion employ terrorism, it doesn't mean the whole religion is fundamentally based on terrorism.

[Father Ted]

I'm not talking about anyone on here, just the moronic stereotyping within elements of the media.

[Alan_X]

I remember Geller from the New York mosque protests so I know exactly what she would have been aiming for, and she got it. The illusion that she has any interest in free speech or any other intent than attacking Muslims and inciting trouble is a nonsense. I was trying to say that she shouldn't have been allowed to basically dare a terrorist to attack her stupid offensive competition. It was obvious it could possibly incite a response, that the response happened is regrettable and wrong.

That's a very dangerous road to go down. It creates a very simple strategy for anyone wanting to stop freedom of speech or freedom of expression. For example - an openly gay man walks down the street. An anti-gay group shoots him dead and declares any openly gay person is being provocative and will be shot dead. In your world a gay pride parade would 'incite a response, that would be regrettable and wrong...' Do you not allow anyone to dare an attack?

That would have scuppered the civil rights movement in the US at birth. Should Rosa Parks have just gone to the back of the bus? These four students were being deliberately provocative by sitting at a segregated lunch counter. A protest calculated to elicit a response.



You can't say that the reaction to a protest is what governs whether it is a justified protest.

At the height of the IRA's campaign, we wouldn't have had 'let's take the piss out of the Irish' day to incite them to launch an attack would we, if someone had organised one you'd hope that the authorities would say to them "this is stupid".

There were loads of jokes about the IRA at the time.  This is an old Dave Allen joke:

Seamus O'Flaherty arrives at the Pearly Gates. There St Peter is checking the Book of the Dead, letting in the righteous. Eventually Seamus arrives in front of St Peter.

"Why Seamus, I have it recorded in the great Book of Dead, that whilst you were alive, you committed terrible acts of terrorism! Oh, I know you call it Freedom Fighting, but that's just a name. You should know the Lord's Commandment: "Thou Shalt not kill!." This applies to every mortal soul, unless of course he works for God's own Army - the British Army. All the others are deemed murderers, whatever the cause, and are damned to everlasting Hell. And I have to say to you my sad son, that you should not be here. You need to go to the other place!"

Seamus stands there listening.

"Now I've told you Seamus, you cannot COME in here!" re-iterates St Peter, shutting the Pearly Gates to him.

Suddenly Seamus, looking at his watch, breaks his silence:

"Oh, Jesus, Mother and Mary, St Peter! I haven't come here to get in, I've just come here to tell you that you've all got 5 minutes to get out!"

Dave Allen mocked the Church and the IRA and got death threats because of it. Should Dave Allen have been banned for telling jokes?

[Father Ted]

That's a bit of a leap. Geller et al aren't an oppressed minority fighting for their basic rights and they weren't just 'walking down the street'. They were just inciting hatred against Muslims. I'm not saying you can't express an opinion, even if it's horrible and morally repugnant (I don't think this Islaphobia issue is necessarily, I think it's more ignorance than anything).

The IRA was a jokey example, I just thought why would you take the risk? Here, if the loathsome EDL have a March the police are consulted, there's some agreement over where they're going to march and the possibility of other groups turning up to protest is considered. But then we don't have so many guns over here.

But whatever, it's not like I make the laws of Texas anyway.

[Father Ted]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/moghul-texas-shooting-gellar/

It's possible you'd never heard of Pamela Geller before Sunday night's tragic attack in Garland, Texas. You might think she's taking a brave stand for free speech, for American values, and that by supporting her, you're supporting America.

I'm here to disabuse you of that notion. While Geller claims to stand for American values, much of what she does undermines our values.Sunday night, two gunmen opened fire outside an anti-Muslim event in Texas, and were quickly shot dead. Security prevented what could have been a far greater tragedy, and I am thankful for that, and for those authorities who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom of speech. But this isn't only about free speech — which, it should go without saying -- is a right for all Americans. It's also about how some people use freedom of speech to subvert other American values.

I am Muslim, and after attacks like these, folks always ask, "Do you condemn terrorism?" Or they throw up their hands and say, "Where are the Muslims!" Well, to be blunt: Not at the event. In fact, every major mosque in the Garland, Texas, area not only shrugged off the anti-Islam event happening in their backyard, but also declined to exercise their equal right to peacefully protest it.

It appears from early reports that the suspects were not currently involved with a mosque. This is because American Muslims -- our mosques and our leadership -- reject radicalism out of hand.

There's a reason ISIS uses the Internet to propagandize. Jihadists won't gain traction in American mosques.

So why did Geller claim that the attackers represent large numbers of American Muslims — as she puts it, "your everyday, run of the mill moderates praising mind-numbing savagery" — although her only evidence for that are a few Twitter accounts linked to ISIS, one of which may have belonged to one of the attackers, and none of which represent any American Muslims?

It's not as though Geller ever lets facts get in the way of a good opportunity: After the attack, she didn't call for dialogue, for understanding, for bringing people together, which is what real leaders do.

Instead, she went on Fox news and called it a war. And that appears to be what she wants. That's why she's dangerous, not brave. She's not celebrating hate speech for the sake of free speech, but to provoke reactions that polarize America, set people at odds, and alienate Muslims, who are American citizens and often first in line to report planned terrorist attacks. (American Muslims are allies, not enemies.)

And plenty of people know this, not just American Muslims, who might be presumed to be partial.

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who killed dozens of fellow Norwegians and published a long, rambling screed justifying his murderousness, cited Geller repeatedly to justify his terrorist actions. The UK's conservative, right-wing government even banned her from the kingdom (along with her colleague Robert Spencer). Because they know what the Southern Poverty Law Center knows: She's using one democratic value to subvert other democratic values.

Democracy requires free speech, but it also requires individual responsibility. That's at the heart of what makes this country work. So what happens when they clash? What happens when a person uses free speech to stigmatize an entire people? Even though American Muslims condemn terrorism, it's unfair to be expected to. Collective responsibility? Guilty until proven innocent? That's what it means to ask us all to condemn actions, when we have nothing to do with those actions.

There are other American values, too, which deserve mentioning: Exercising your freedoms with responsibility. Yes, we have the right to say things, even offensive things. But should we? Should we act with no consideration of the consequences? Should Geller have hosted an event she knew would draw a violent reaction? Should she put up advertisements in New York with the beneath-contempt claim that killing Jews is obligatory for Muslims?

Note, too, how Muslims responded: With levity and humor. But maybe making this about Islam prevents people from seeing the bigger picture here, the reason American Muslims are rightly and justifiably offended by Gellar and her ilk: Should white activists line up to drop the n-word "to support American values" of free speech? Or perhaps march into Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore waving Confederate flags? You have every right to. But should you?

And should you be surprised if a few people react violently, even if that violence is unacceptable? (Which it is.) What if you kept doing it, over and over again? For what possible reason would you want to?

Don't let Pamela Geller fool you. She might use an American value to defend her work, but it's merely a means to an end, and you won't like where she's taking us.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

Democracy requires free speech, but it also requires individual responsibility.

Pamela Geller is excising her right to free speech (not defending free speech). She has the freedom to think what she wants, and say what she wants (within the confines of the law). She has the right to offend. She has the right to be crass. She has the right to hold moronic cartoon competitions. She has the right to wallow in her own shallow stupidity.

But she doesn't have the right to be taken seriously. Or the right to be free from ridicule, because nothing is sacred.

I can exercise my individual freedom by ignoring her. Had those two muslims done the same, they'd still be alive today.

[Yorkykopite]

Blogger hacked to death by Islamist extremists. Third one this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701001

[Twelfth Man]

Blogger hacked to death by Islamist extremists. Third one this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701001

Another one to chalk up for the merry followers of the desert apparition... Oh, we've lost the argument, so we'll chop you up.

[Packalacky]

Funny thing about this thread is that some of the posters arguing for restricting freedom of speech are now posting on a different thread condemning the Tories for introducing tougher anti hate speech laws... Boggles the mind.

You either believe in free speech or you don't . There's no middle ground. Once you allow the government to dictate what you can/cannot say then it's game over.

[Packalacky]

This is absolute bollocks. There is no contradiction between supporting freedom of speech and supporting a legal framework to handle hate speech. You should be free to say what you like and responsible under the law for inflammatory comments.

Ah hate speech. Like the ones being introduced by the Tories?

When people can agree on what constitutes hate speech then you might have a point, until then, you are simply wrong.

Libel laws for misleading statements or incitement are already in place and cover what you mentioned. Hate Speech on the other hand is just the government telling you what you can/can't say. It is the polar opposite of free speech and you can't support one without dismissing the other.

[jooneyisdagod]

So, should you have the freedom to call a general group of people niggers, for example? Obviously not, right? And you can't in the UK, which is a good thing. Covered by the Public Order Act, not libel law.

However, there are some countries, like Japan, where you legally can, and the reason you can is the spurious argument of free speech. It's bollocks.

You should have the freedom. Whether or not you exercise it is an altogether different issue. The public order act, by the way, is used to ban books, censor films etc all the time in India. So it's not like that's a great solution either. There are two moral questions here. One, is freedom of expression a right? I think we all answer yes to that. The second one is, should the freedom of expression be used to deliberately offend? Given how subjective the concept of offence is, one shouldn't make laws about it. Instead, the laws should be made to tackle the consequences of such statements.

So if someone called a group of people niggers, then what? On what basis are you going to ban that? On the basis that it causes offence? What if calling such a person a racist offended another group of people? Are you going to stop saying it?

I think we can all think of situations where we would self-censor. That is no reason to put in a legal limit to it.

[Alan_X]

Locked for a bit. This has gone way beyond a news story about Charlie Hebdo. I don't have time to moderate this and unless someone else does it will remain locked.

Interesting points but to reiterate, this is a Liverpool Football Club site and discussions on other topics are allowed at the discretion of the moderating team.

When people start discussing whether it's ok to use the word 'nigger' it's not something we can allow without moderation. This does not affect your rights to continue the discussion on other websites or social media.

Thanks.