Topic: Freedom of speech

[Macphisto80]

The Interview

Is that freedom of speech, or just blatant racism and dehumanisation of a group of people dressed up as satire?

[Xabi Gerrard]

Actually we were debating freedom of speech.. Which we seem to have gone some way from!!

I think the "choice of faith" tangent was relevant to freedom of speech tbf. Many people were of the view that you can have freedom of speech if you want to insult something someone chooses, but you can't have freedom of speech to insult something someone doesn't choose about themselves.

[Fiasco]

The Interview

Is that freedom of speech, or just blatant racism and dehumanisation of a group of people dressed up as satire?

I think first and foremost it's a case of opportunism. Sony would have been aware of the tensions and animosity the U.S share with North Korea and perhaps saw pound signs. It makes sense from a purely business perspective. Beyond that I can't comment as I haven't seen the film and don't plan to.

[TepidT2O]

The Interview

Is that freedom of speech, or just blatant racism and dehumanisation of a group of people dressed up as satire?

Is it racist to mock the North Korean governmental system?
The pompous leader, the murderous regime?

I think the issue with the interview is mostly  that it's crap (ok, I haven't seen it, I must admit)

[macca888]

I think the "choice of faith" tangent was relevant to freedom of speech tbf. Many people were of the view that you can have freedom of speech if you want to insult something someone chooses, but you can't have freedom of speech to insult something someone doesn't choose about themselves.

If you can show me where anyone has said that on this thread, I'd be grateful, because I must have missed it.

[Macphisto80]

Others have given you the Old Testament verses.

Here is a New Testament one

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

Romans Chapters 24 through 28

So you can't do what many Christians do and disregard the inconvenient stuff from the OT.

Jesus is quoted as saying not one jot or tittle of the laws will be changed.


Also you refer to those believing things that you don't as "crackpots". How is this not what you are complaining of others doing to you ?


It is very common for priests not to teach these things, they would just rather talk about the nicer stuff, it helps to keep people coming back.

The crack pot statement was obvious, I thought. It's obvious to me that those who stand and preach about gays being evil, and stuff like standing outside churches with signs praying for more dead soldiers and plane crashes, because they think the Bible tells them so and that Jesus wants it that way, well, forgive me for saying that they are indeed fucking nuts. Is it illegal what they are doing? No. Should it be? Yes. Why? Imagine that being your loved one's funeral.

Now, I think you're just arguing for the sake of trying to argue. Have some context, please.

[Macphisto80]

Is it racist to mock the North Korean governmental system?
The pompous leader, the murderous regime?

I think the issue with the interview is mostly  that it's crap (ok, I haven't seen it, I must admit)

Dunno. Haven't seen it, although I've read it being described as that.

[Xabi Gerrard]

If you can show me where anyone has said that on this thread, I'd be grateful, because I must have missed it.

Here's a couple from the Charlie Hebdo thread, of which this is an off-shoot;

There's no equivalency
Being a terrorist or a jew is a choice - being black isn't

So the answer becomes pretty straight forward; mocking people for their inherent characteristics (skin colour) isn't acceptable, mocking them for their choices (like their belief systems, religion) is fine

The point is skin colour is not a choice, just a sexuality is not a choice, but religion is a choice.  You can therefore mock someone's choice, for instance, religion.

 

[Alan_X]

The irony of talking about it on RAWK

Moderation on a football forum does not affect your freedom to express your opinion. There are other places you can express them and you are free to set up your own website and say whatever you want about any subject you choose.

We aren't a public service - we're a private site run by volunteers. We have site rules that are designed to encourage intelligent debate. A lot of people like it that way.

[electricghost]

The crack pot statement was obvious, I thought. It's obvious to me that those who stand and preach about gays being evil, and stuff like standing outside churches with signs praying for more dead soldiers and plane crashes, because they think the Bible tells them so and that Jesus wants it that way, well, forgive me for saying that they are indeed fucking nuts. Is it illegal what they are doing? No. Should it be? Yes. Why? Imagine that being your loved one's funeral.

Now, I think you're just arguing for the sake of trying to argue. Have some context, please.

I agree with you , I think they are crackpots too.

Now what if I said that someone who believes in a God and goes to church to see a priest whisper words of Latin to a cracker which then turns into the body of Christ for him to eat, was a crackpot.

Is that allowed or would you try to prevent this ?

[macca888]

Here's a couple from the Charlie Hebdo thread, of which this is an off-shoot;

 

Cheers. I had a quick flick through here but I wouldn't have thought to mine another thread for those quotes.

Anyway, I don't agree with either of those posts, but I believe the posters should be free to give those views, as misguided but well-intentioned as they seem. I agree that religion should in no way be conflated with race or sexual orientation, but I think everything is fair game for freedom of expression purposes.

[Macphisto80]

I agree with you , I think they are crackpots too.

Now what if I said that someone who believes in a God and goes to church to see a priest whisper words of Latin to a cracker which then turns into the body of Christ for him to eat, was a crackpot.

Is that allowed or would you try to prevent this ?

What do you mean? Would I prevent someone from eating a cracker believing that it was "the body of Christ"? Na, why would I? They're doing no harm. It's not like they're causing offence to anyone.

[electricghost]

What do you mean? Would I prevent someone from eating a cracker believing that it was "the body of Christ"? Na, why would I? They're doing no harm. It's not like they're causing offence to anyone.

No I meant should I be able to say that person was a crackpot for having that belief, as many Catholics do,  or would you try to prevent me or others attacking religious beliefs such as these.

[TepidT2O]

Here's a question about freedom of speech.

Does it apply equally for all religions in this country?

I ask this because of the recent events.  The BBC had a rule (until two days ago) that there was no circumstance upon which they would show an image of Mohammed.  However, they were perfectly happy to show Jerry Springer the musical.

Do we have freedom of speech when it's ok to insult one religion and not another?

[goalrushatgoodison]

Absolutely. But that responsibility lies with the individual, not with the law. If a well known rock star who has taken heroin says "everyone should do heroin, it's amazing" that's irresponsible as he's influential and taking heroin is pretty dangerous. But he should be allowed to say that legally.

I'm not sure he should be actually. I do understand the distinction you were making though.

The Law has always evolved to stop people taking advantage of loopholes. When it comes to freedom of speech however, legislators are reluctant to amend except to deal with the most extreme cases I.e incitement to commit violence etc. I don't think this is right. I think that restrictions on what the media can say should be introduced to deal with the widespread abuse of the freedom to speak that some elements continue to practice.

[Macphisto80]

No I meant should I be able to say that person was a crackpot for having that belief, as many Catholics do,  or would you try to prevent me or others attacking religious beliefs such as these.

Most Catholics (I assume any intelligent ones anyway) don't actually believe that they are literally eating Christ's body. Communion, as far as I've always viewed it, is a suggestive thing. It's symbolism. Either way, you aren't forced to do that in church. It's a choice. You choose to take it, or you don't. No, I don't think anyone is nuts for participating in a ritual like that if it ties in with their faith. If someone wants to have a go at it, then that says more for them than it does for whoever practices it, because what harm does it do anyone to accept a gesture of faith? I wouldn't stop anyone attacking it either. That's their prerogative, although, I wouldn't understand why they would.

[TepidT2O]

Most Catholics (I assume any intelligent ones anyway) don't actually believe that they are literally eating Christ's body. Communion, as far as I've always viewed it, is a suggestive thing. It's symbolism. Either way, you aren't forced to do that in church. It's a choice. You choose to take it, or you don't. No, I don't think anyone is nuts for participating in a ritual like that if it ties in with their faith. If someone wants to have a go at it, then that says more for them than it does for whoever practices it, because what harm does it do anyone to accept a gesture of faith? I wouldn't stop anyone attacking it either. That's their prerogative, although, I wouldn't understand why they would.

Transubstantiation is central to Catholicism.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Absolutely. But that responsibility lies with the individual, not with the law. If a well known rock star who has taken heroin says "everyone should do heroin, it's amazing" that's irresponsible as he's influential and taking heroin is pretty dangerous. But he should be allowed to say that legally.

Off course he should.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hhmn5VR7DY

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I think that restrictions on what the media can say should be introduced to deal with the widespread abuse of the freedom to speak that some elements continue to practice.

No, no, no.

You really don't want to go down that road.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Here's a question about freedom of speech.

Does it apply equally for all religions in this country?

I ask this because of the recent events.  The BBC had a rule (until two days ago) that there was no circumstance upon which they would show an image of Mohammed.  However, they were perfectly happy to show Jerry Springer the musical.

Do we have freedom of speech when it's ok to insult one religion and not another?

No, nor does in most countries.

[TepidT2O]

I'm not sure he should be actually. I do understand the distinction you were making though.

The Law has always evolved to stop people taking advantage of loopholes. When it comes to freedom of speech however, legislators are reluctant to amend except to deal with the most extreme cases I.e incitement to commit violence etc. I don't think this is right. I think that restrictions on what the media can say should be introduced to deal with the widespread abuse of the freedom to speak that some elements continue to practice.

What restrictions would you introduce?

Please give examples to support your argument.

[Macphisto80]

Transubstantiation is central to Catholicism.

Aye, but it's all symbolism. From the cross, to the cup of wine and the bread, which isn't even bread. They don't let you near the wine, the stingy fuckers, so I never got to taste that. Although it wouldn't go down well giving a cup of wine to kids.

I should add that it's the same with holy water. It's just water until a priest blesses it. It's just whether or not you've the faith to accept it or not.

[goalrushatgoodison]

What restrictions would you introduce?

Please give examples to support your argument.

Well, for instance, as it stands if a media outlet defames somebody, the victim, for want of a better word, has recourse to civil proceedings. It is unclear whether the perpretrator(s) can be criminally prosecuted. Criminal Law appears to protect the individual who makes the decision to publish. Surely that's not right. If an outlet publishes something about a person or group of people that turns out not to be true the editor and/or owners of that outlet should be criminally liable.

[TepidT2O]

Well, for instance, as it stands if a media outlet defames somebody, the victim, for want of a better word, has recourse to civil proceedings. It is unclear whether the perpretrator(s) can be criminally prosecuted. Criminal Law appears to protect the individual who makes the decision to publish. Surely that's not right. If an outlet publishes something about a person or group of people that turns out not to be true the editor and/or owners of that outlet should be criminally liable.

That's libel.  We already have laws for that though.  I'm not sure about defamation of character though, I'm not sure the law is workable or reasonable as it stands.

[goalrushatgoodison]

That's libel.  We already have laws for that though.  I'm not sure about defamation of character though, I'm not sure the law is workable or reasonable as it stands.

The Uk does have a law for Civil Defamation/libel and while the law of Criminal defamation/libel may not be completely eradicated from the statutes it has become obsolete because of the competing principles of freedom of expression. For me this is a backward step purely because the media constantly abuses the right to have freedom to speak.

Italy is one country that still prosecutes criminally for defamation.

[QC]

Well, for instance, as it stands if a media outlet defames somebody, the victim, for want of a better word, has recourse to civil proceedings. It is unclear whether the perpretrator(s) can be criminally prosecuted. Criminal Law appears to protect the individual who makes the decision to publish. Surely that's not right. If an outlet publishes something about a person or group of people that turns out not to be true the editor and/or owners of that outlet should be criminally liable.

Do you really want the state to have the power to bring defamation/libel claims?

[goalrushatgoodison]

Do you really want the state to have the power to bring defamation/libel claims?

I would like the State to have the power to criminally prosecute the Officers of media outlets who perpretrate defamation/libel and to use that power.

That's not withstanding the fact that such a law can be argued to silence opposition rather than stop the unfair tarnishing of an individual's reputation.

[TepidT2O]

I would like the State to have the power to criminally prosecute the Officers of media outlets who perpretrate defamation/libel and to use that power.

Defamation and libel are different things though...

[QC]

I would like the State to have the power to criminally prosecute the Officers of media outlets who perpretrate defamation/libel and to use that power.

That's not withstanding the fact that such a law can be argued to silence opposition rather than stop the unfair tarnishing of an individual's reputation.

It's dangerously close to government censorship. I think civil remedies are more than adequate, although the typical damages awarded could be raised to enhance the disincentive.

[goalrushatgoodison]

Defamation and libel are different things though...

Well they are but I would have thought that libel covers the newspapers while defamation (slander) covers the TV. I am prepared to stand corected as it is possible that the TV would also fall under libel. As for the internet - who knows theres a bit of both in there!!

As I feel all media outlets should be subject to criminal prosecution I used both terms (possibly mistakenly)

[QC]

Defamation and libel are different things though...

Libel is a form of defamation.

[goalrushatgoodison]

Libel is a form of defamation.

Given your username I am not surprised you know that


Yep I knew that too. In my posts - for defamation read slander. I was trying not to be too clever. I should have known better.

[TepidT2O]

Libel is a form of defamation.

I suppose it is...

[goalrushatgoodison]

It's dangerously close to government censorship. I think civil remedies are more than adequate, although the typical damages awarded could be raised to enhance the disincentive.

In theory the judiciary are independent of the other branches of government but let's not open that can of worms eh.

Any increases in damages wouldn't effect the Officers though. Ultimately it is the individual's who are abusing freedom of speech albeit with the media outlet being the orifice.

[Corkboy]

Given your username I am not surprised you know that

I wouldn't rush to that conclusion.

[Red Beret]

You want to claim that Saville, Hall and Harris followed those rules?  No.  They didn't obey the law - they just didn't get caught.  Power and influence gives a whole different set of rules.

Fact is nobody can look at that image and tell me what it says is fundamentally wrong.  You can complain about the wording, the context and even the age/maturity of the person who put it together, but really is it telling you something that is wrong?

I don't think it is.

As for how to fix it, I have no idea, bar a revolution that kicks the bastards out of our country, but then the countries that still have the bastards will just gang up on us with sanctions etc, because they don't like their way of life to be challenged.

[TepidT2O]

Stephen Fry on the cartoon issue.... He (of course) nails it.

I expect some think my being in Paris at the moment rather vain or sanctimonious or publicity-seeking — something bad anyway. It’s really just a coincidence that I happen to have this one free weekend, the only one for months. Paris seemed like the place to be and for once I really really don’t care what people think. Usually, as my friends never tire of telling me, I care far too much. But this is one instance where my sense of what I think is right trumps my sense of what is embarrassing. How unEnglish of me.

Untouched

I heard a very interesting remark yesterday made by Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister: “The [Charlie Hebdo] attacks show clear flaws in intelligence.” He spoke a thundering and resounding truth but not, I think, the one he meant.

We strive to find words strong enough to convey our outrage at the obscene atrocity committed in Paris last Wednesday morning. But it is easy to overlook the most apt word: stupid. Incredibly, imponderably, staggeringly, bowel-shatteringly dumb. ‘Clear flaws in intelligence’ indeed.

I cannot be sure exactly how many people have seen one or more of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that “insult” Islam or mock its prophet since the murders, but I should imagine the number is now in the tens of millions. Had the brothers stayed their bloody hands it would have been 60,000 at the very most. Mohammed must be very cross indeed that his two cretinous representatives have spread the ‘insults’ so far and so wide. If Said and Cherif Kouachi had had a grain of sense in their terminally moronic heads they could have foreseen that their actions would create secular martyrs, propagate those images they so disliked and increase yet again reasonable people’s dislike of the faith they claimed (rightly or wrongly) to represent.

Untouched
I have been told on twitter that the staff of Charlie Hebdo spewed ‘hate’. It is exceptionally important to remember that what they actually spewed, if you want to use that word, was contempt. Contempt for Islam, for Christianity, for Judaism – for anything they could have a go at. They were often, in the weasel word of our age, ‘inappropriate’. Their cartoons bordered on racist and repulsive. Had I been a Parisian I don’t doubt I would be a regular reader of Le Canard Enchainé (which approximates our venerable and superb Private Eye) and that I would look down my Parisian nose at readers of so vulgar and sophomoric an effusion as Charlie H.

But what has that to do with anything? I remember all those years ago when the fatwa was declared on Salman Rushdie, plenty of British writers and commentators who absolutely should have known better claimed that The Satanic Verses ‘really wasn’t that good’, the implication being that it was therefore hardly worth making a stand against the death sentence laid on its author. As it happens (not that it matters of course) … The Satanic Verses is one of the great post-war comic novels. Similar horrible nonsense was spouted recently by some on the subject of the Sony film The Interview. ‘Oh, it’s actually rather poor.’

The now forgotten writer, broadcaster and Christian apologist Malcolm Muggeridge destroyed his legacy as a serious and interesting man in fifteen footling minutes on television in which he languidly described Monty Python’s Life of Brian as ‘tenth rate’ … as if that were a reason to stop it being screened. Utterly disingenuous. He wanted to stop it being screened because he was ‘offended’ by its ‘blasphemy’ and so he offered the same non-argument as those advanced by his fellow Festival of Light founder Mary Whitehouse of hilarious memory: “Oh I’m not shocked, oh no. In fact I found it rather boring.” . Of course you did darling, and therefore we must certainly censor it right away. Bah! These days Life of Brian regularly comes top in all time best comedy film polls and Muggeridge might only be warmly remembered for being the MI5 officer who debriefed in kindly manner P. G. Wodehouse and his wife in Paris after its liberation in 1944.

So let no one think that in order to be defended against censorship of any kind, let alone the terminal horrors of Wednesday 7th January, a work of art or a film or a novel or a cartoon need be ‘first rate’ (whatever that means).

And aren’t we all tired of those who claim to know the answer to life, death and the creation being so fucking sensitive about their knowledge? If I knew the answer to it all, if I thought I understood the wishes of the author of the universe and was privileged to understand what happens to us after death, the last thing I would be is all prickly and defensive. ‘Mock me all you like,’ I’d cry. ‘Go on, laugh your socks off, paint crude daubs, make mocking films. They pass me by as the idle wind which I respect not.’


Whether it is deluded pricks chanting Christian slogans like Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo or deluded pricks chanting Islamic ones like Said and Charif Kouachi in Paris the result is the same: in this breast at least arises even more, as if that were possible, contempt for the dumb, semi-literate, ill-founded, unreasoned drivel that forms the basis of their juvenile, crazed and self-defeating actions.

There will be a march here in Paris tomorrow and I shall do my best to slip into the human stream and chant in my schoolboy French accent:

“Je suis Charlie. Nous sommes Charlie. Paris est Charlie. Le Monde est Charlie. L’humanité est Charlie.”

[Corkboy]

Yeah, he is good.

[oldfordie]

Well, for instance, as it stands if a media outlet defames somebody, the victim, for want of a better word, has recourse to civil proceedings. It is unclear whether the perpretrator(s) can be criminally prosecuted. Criminal Law appears to protect the individual who makes the decision to publish. Surely that's not right. If an outlet publishes something about a person or group of people that turns out not to be true the editor and/or owners of that outlet should be criminally liable.

It's very hard to pass laws that allow fearless investigative reporting yet stop gutter press editors abusing there position to print malicious lies.
Maybe every editor should be licensed. they could be hauled in front of some sort of panel who have the power to take away the licence to run a media outlet if they feel his intention was malice rather than investigative reporting.
To be honest I can think of faults with this but something has to be done. the gutter press should be held more accountable.

[TepidT2O]

As a satirist who focuses on the Middle East, I’ve bumped up against my share of boundaries. Two years ago, for example, I struggled with how to satirize the tendency of some Western observers to distort conflicts in the Middle East by attributing those conflicts to “ancient rivalries” rather than, say, contemporary political struggles. Ultimately, I decided that the best approach would be to push that logic to its absurd conclusion by writing a "tribal" guide to the region, which relied on familiar stereotypes about Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and others. I hoped readers would understand that these caricatures were meant not to be crude and bigoted, but rather to show how disconnected the ancient-rivalries thesis is from reality. And readers did understand—for the most part. This ability to test the boundaries of good taste, and even to be offensive, is essential to effective satire. But it’s now under threat.

Following the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris and the cold-blooded murder of 12 people, a familiar refrain rang out in some quarters. The assault on the satirical magazine, so the argument went, represented a collision of cultures: a Western one that champions freedom of speech and an Islamic one that does not tolerate offenses to its religious symbols. But one of the real storylines here isn’t some clash of civilizations; it’s the steady erosion of freedom of expression and the rise of the right to be offended—in the West as well as other parts of the world.

The culture-clash interpretation of the horror in Paris transcends political divides in the West. On the right, some claim that Muslims’ beliefs are incompatible with modernity and Western values. On the left, some construe the attack as a retaliation for severe offenses, essentially suggesting that Muslims are incapable of responding rationally to such offenses and that it is therefore best not to provoke them. The latter explanation is dressed up in the language of social justice and marginalization, but is, at its core, a patronizing view of ordinary Muslims and their capacity to advocate for their rights without resorting to nihilistic violence. This outlook also promotes the idea that Muslims and other people of Middle Eastern origin are defined primarily by their religion, which in turn devalues and demeans the attempts of Arab and Middle Eastern secularists to define themselves through varying interpretations of religion or even by challenging religion and its role in public life. By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved.

Related Story

Is ISIS Funny?
Given that I often deal with the issue of jihadism in my satire, the Charlie Hebdo attack highlighted the dangers that my colleagues and I face when we mock extremists. Still, there is a risk in framing what we do as satirists and cartoonists as a heroic battle against extremism. For one thing, this implies that only ‘worthy’ works of satire should be defended on the grounds of free speech. For freedom of speech and expression to mean something, they must be defended on their own terms, not because of their political usefulness in the fight against extremism.

This is a critical distinction given the current climate in the West, where a culture of taking offense has found fertile ground and is increasingly restricting what artists and writers are able to do and say. The British writer Kenan Malik traces the origins of this trend to 1989, when the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomenei issued his infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie for allegedly blaspheming Islam in The Satanic Verses. In From Fatwa to Jihad, Malik argues convincingly that the response to the fatwa and similar threats has been counterproductive, coming to pose a grave threat to free speech. “Internalizing the fatwa has not just created a new culture of self-censorship, it has also helped generate the same problems to which self-censorship was supposedly a response,” he writes. “The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence.”

This dynamic, in turn, is breeding an insidious form of censorship, which is much more powerful and constraining than official censorship, and more difficult to confront. As the United Nations noted in 2014, threats to freedom of expression in North America and Western Europe are now coming more from private organizations than governments, with the principle especially contested online. We hear regularly of plays, books, and artwork—be it an anti-slavery exhibition in London accused of “complicit racism” or an irreverent Bible production in Northern Ireland branded as “blasphemous”—that are kept from the public because they could cause offense to one group or another. The slightest whiff of controversy is often enough to make publishers and curators bow to the intimidation. The demands to censor Charlie Hebdo cartoons aren’t driven by a uniquely Muslim sense of outrage.

A Tunisian friend once told me a telling story about the time he was invited, along with fellow activists, to a seminar on freedom of speech run by an EU organization. The instructors focused on the benefits of restrictions on the freedom of speech, such as hate-speech legislation and avoiding offensive language, but the activists were far more interested in learning how to assert their freedom to speak, write, and break social and political taboos. These days, I sense exhaustion about preserving such freedoms in the West, whereas activists and citizens in Arab and Middle Eastern countries are eager to establish these freedoms and leverage them for social and political change.

In my own experience, I encounter more concern about my writing and drawings being offensive from Westerners than from fellow Arabs (I’m Lebanese and based in London). “Are you allowed to say this?” they ask, betraying anxiety about what constitutes acceptable speech today and a desire for an external authority to validate the exercise at the expense of autonomous decision-making.

Restricting free speech further would be precisely the wrong response to the carnage in Paris.
The murders in Paris have certainly brought the struggle for free speech into stark relief. But it’s premature to expect the episode to reverse the trend toward more restrictions on expression in the West. This week, for instance, the gush of support for freedom of expression was quickly countered by backlash against an op-ed written by Anjem Choudary, in which the radical British Islamist justified the Charlie Hebdo attack by claiming that Muslims don’t believe in free speech and that France shouldn’t have allowed the cartoons to be published. Many people argued that he shouldn’t have been given a platform in the press, particularly at a moment like this (for a sense of the intensity of the response, just look at Twitter).   

But restricting free speech further, even in the case of so-called hate speech, would be precisely the wrong response to the carnage in Paris. Instead, we should reassert the rights of satirical magazines and radical preachers alike to express their views, and the freedom of anyone and everyone to challenge them. That’s the best lesson to learn from this tragedy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-and-the-right-to-be-offended/384404/