http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ory.html#page=1

 

12 people were killed in France because they stood up for what they believed in and refused to give into threats.

 

I don't know anything about the newspaper or whether it was actually funny. But I do believe in free speech. In their honor I have changed my icon to one of the controversial front pages from their newspaper.

 

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

 

At this point we know these acts arnt because of religion, I wish they would stop hiding behind that.

It's about deeply held beliefs. Some people will just label it religion and decide it doesn't matter or isn't important.

Cartoonists around the world respond:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-r...sacre-in-paris/

 

It's about deeply held beliefs. Some people will just label it religion and decide it doesn't matter or isn't important.

They are just peanut butter and jealous.

The AP and several other organizations censored images of the comics these people drew when they were shown in demonstrations.

 

The AP received complaints that they were still hosting an image of the "Piss Christ" piece, which depicts a crucifix submerged in the artists urine, but were censoring those comics.

 

The AP then pulled images of that as well.

Jesus christ, AP. That's not the right reaction.

How is showing Mohammad "provocative?"

Islam does not allow for any depictions of Mohammad.

 

edit: well, Islam as interpreted by some sects, notably Sunnis, anyway. Shiites don't have a problem with them these days at least per wikipedia.

Edited January 7, 201511 yr by StrangeSox

How is showing Mohammad "provocative?"

Like any religion there are crazys that think anything depicting anything is bad.

But the modern and civilized world all agrees that's a bunch of nonsense and that even if it is provocative, freedom of speech and freedom of press is more important. So why do we (westerners) give a s*** about what Muslims like or don't like? It's asinine. Not to be all left and right about this, but it's the left being a bunch of wimps, not wanting to offend anyone. f*** that. I hope every western paper across the world responds to this with a picture of Mohammad on the front page. Give a message that we don't give a s*** anymore. No more consideration for scumbags' sensibilities. Be a f***ing grown up and don't look at a paper if something offends you. That's what 99.9% of the world does, so why do we act like these assholes deserve anything different?

 

It's been over 13 years since 9/11. It's been decades since extremists started their most recent jihad. And nothing has changed. The world has gotten worse. Every 2 years we can expect something like this to happen. So why are we still pretending that if we place nice it'll stop? It won't.

Edited January 7, 201511 yr by Jenksismybitch

I'm so glad people like Charlie Hebdu stand up for free speech in true circumstances of courage, where violence is actively charged and carried out against them.

 

But give AP some slack. It's really hard to do what Charlie Hebdu and the people that work there do, AP has thousands of employees all over globe who may get attacked. They have skin in the game, nobody is going to come after soxbadger for putting up the image on a chicago baseball message board.

 

That said, there is a really wrong thing to do, and it's blame Charlie Hebdu for provoking. The fault is those that respond to speech with violence.

I'm so glad people like Charlie Hebdu stand up for free speech in true circumstances of courage, where violence is actively charged and carried out against them.

 

But give AP some slack. It's really hard to do what Charlie Hebdu and the people that work there do, AP has thousands of employees all over globe who may get attacked. They have skin in the game, nobody is going to come after soxbadger for putting up the image on a chicago baseball message board.

 

That said, there is a really wrong thing to do, and it's blame Charlie Hebdu for provoking. The fault is those that respond to speech with violence.

 

No, see that's the complete wrong way to look at it. The fact that the AP and other publications go along with that censorship nonsense is a factor here. It narrowed the pool of potential targets to this paper, a repeat "offender." If every publication said "f*** it, we don't care if .000001% of the global population gets offended by this publication," terrorists wouldn't know who to attack.

 

edit: and the fact that certain publications are censoring the cartoons that caused this is beyond pathetic.

Edited January 7, 201511 yr by Jenksismybitch

No, see that's the complete wrong way to look at it. The fact that the AP and other publications go along with that censorship nonsense is a factor here. It narrowed the pool of potential targets to this paper, a repeat "offender." If every publication said "f*** it, we don't care if .000001% of the global population gets offended by this publication," terrorists wouldn't know who to attack.

 

edit: and the fact that certain publications are censoring the cartoons that caused this is beyond pathetic.

 

It's admirable to take a stand that puts your own life in danger. I find it a harder decision if your stand puts another person's life in danger. Those at Charlie Hebdu were there for a reason, AP is just different. Yeah, it would be cool if a bunch of papers colluded, but, it's pretty easy when you are 100% certain nothing will happen to you to do it.

FWIW, Sunni Muslims make up about 20% of the world's population and would be offended on some level with depictions of Mohammed being published. It's a pretty silly mistake to conflate "people who would be offended" with "people who would commit terrorism over it."

Here's your Obama Administration position on this:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/07/...-charlie-hebdo/

 

On September 19, 2012 at the White House daily press briefing then press secretary Jay Carney condemned the judgement of Charlie Hebdo magazine for publishing “deeply offensive,” anti-Islamic cartoons.

 

Partial transcript as follows:

 

REPORTER: The French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and schools in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?

 

CARNEY: Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.

 

In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

 

Now, it has to be said, and I’ll say it again, that no matter how offensive something like this is, it is not in any way justification for violence — not in any way justification for violence. Now, we have been staying in close touch with the French government as well as other governments around the world, and we appreciate the statements of support by French government officials over the past week, denouncing the violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas.

 

Translation: "It's highly offensive. They shouldn't have done it. I know, we have this thing called freedom of speech/press. I'm not really saying they don't have the RIGHT to publish it, but it's a terrible decision to do it so they shouldn't have done it."

It's admirable to take a stand that puts your own life in danger. I find it a harder decision if your stand puts another person's life in danger. Those at Charlie Hebdu were there for a reason, AP is just different. Yeah, it would be cool if a bunch of papers colluded, but, it's pretty easy when you are 100% certain nothing will happen to you to do it.

 

But no one can say this anymore. It's all incredibly rare, but anyone can be a target. Running in a marathon can make you a target. Drawing a cartoon can make you a target.

 

And if the AP (and others) had balls to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem. People could choose to work at an organization like that and "risk" an attack. That's still not an excuse to abandon your principles because of fear.

FWIW, Sunni Muslims make up about 20% of the world's population and would be offended on some level with depictions of Mohammed being published. It's a pretty silly mistake to conflate "people who would be offended" with "people who would commit terrorism over it."

 

Sure, hence the % I threw out. Millions of people are offended by a lot of things - gays, Kardashians, Cubs fans, etc. Some of that stuff "offends" me and "makes me mad." That doesn't stop the media from publishing it.

 

So the only real justification here is the threat of violence. Which means they've won. They've put so much fear into the western world that the west is willing to abandon its principles.

Edited January 7, 201511 yr by Jenksismybitch

They've put so much fear into the western world that the west is willing to abandon its principles.

Didn't the AP just do that because of Catholics too?

Didn't the AP just do that because of Catholics too?

 

4 years later because they knew they were going to be criticized. But yes, that too was pathetic and wrong.

The real purpose of the icon is to show that at the end of the day, it is up to individuals to stand behind their own ideals. Its easy for a group to target a single newspaper, its nearly impossible for a group to target individuals spread across the world.

 

If more people see the cartoon because of the attack, then in the end, the terrorists have lost.

The real purpose of the icon is to show that at the end of the day, it is up to individuals to stand behind their own ideals. Its easy for a group to target a single newspaper, its nearly impossible for a group to target individuals spread across the world.

 

If more people see the cartoon because of the attack, then in the end, the terrorists have lost.

 

Tough to do when major media outlets censor the image that caused all this. I'm not sure what Fox/CNN/MSNBC/BBC etc are doing with it. I'm sure even if they show it there will be a ton of "we're so sorry we're showing you this but...."

Thats why we do what we can. Even if its just 1000 people on a random message board, you try and get the message out, because thats all I can do.

But no one can say this anymore. It's all incredibly rare, but anyone can be a target. Running in a marathon can make you a target. Drawing a cartoon can make you a target.

 

And if the AP (and others) had balls to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem. People could choose to work at an organization like that and "risk" an attack. That's still not an excuse to abandon your principles because of fear.

 

No one is abandoning their principles. You are hysterical. A bunch of courageous journalists in france were gunned down today, and a bunch of Americans freak out about how they are going to die in a terrorist attack.

 

Something bad happened to some good people, acting like this is a turning point in a war gives them way more power than they have.

No one is abandoning their principles. You are hysterical. A bunch of courageous journalists in france were gunned down today, and a bunch of Americans freak out about how they are going to die in a terrorist attack.

 

Something bad happened to some good people, acting like this is a turning point in a war gives them way more power than they have.

 

?? It's censoring speech, literally a tenant of our society.

 

And I'm not concerned about being a victim. I'm concerned that the west continues to act like being nice curbs this kind of behavior when all evidence indicates that it doesnt.