French Newspaper Attack

[Texsox]

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.

 

Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger? It seems that each organization could and should make the decision for their own business and employees. Other wise if CNN publishes something Fox News should also. If a liberal talk show host says something, Rush should too. We wouldn't want any individuality in what gets published.

[EvilMonkey]

After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter

 

Bill Donohue said something similar.

Bill Donohue is a self promoter. He isn't in some sort of official position that catholics voted on or anything, just a guy with a limited skill-set who realized that the easiest way for him to make a lot of money was to open a public advocacy firm and start living large off the donations of people whose commitment to a cause exceeds their judgment and skepticism.

[EvilMonkey]

Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger?

If they are a news reporting organization, shouldn't they be reporting the news? And if a cartoon is news, shouldn't they show and report on that cartoon?

[Texsox]

If they are a news reporting organization, shouldn't they be reporting the news? And if a cartoon is news, shouldn't they show and report on that cartoon?

 

If there is a murder with a dismembered corpse, do we need to see the corpse for the news organization to report the killing? Bush decided that news organizations didn't need to show pictures of fallen soldiers arriving in flag draped coffins.

 

Now answer my question. Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger?

[EvilMonkey]

If there is a murder with a dismembered corpse, do we need to see the corpse for the news organization to report the killing? Bush decided that news organizations didn't need to show pictures of fallen soldiers arriving in flag draped coffins.

 

Now answer my question. Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger?

I get sent out on deliveries most days, plenty of danger there, Especially last few days with this snow.

[Texsox]

I get sent out on deliveries most days, plenty of danger there, Especially last few days with this snow.

 

Now if they printed a racists cartoon on the delivery van and send you to an area where people would be offended by it?

[Chisoxfn]

If there is a murder with a dismembered corpse, do we need to see the corpse for the news organization to report the killing? Bush decided that news organizations didn't need to show pictures of fallen soldiers arriving in flag draped coffins.

 

Now answer my question. Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger?

Well, if you are a member of the military or police force, etc, than you are and will be put in severe danger.

[Kyyle23]

The employer isn't necessarily putting them in danger. These cartoonists are drawing their own cartoons, they aren't being mandated to draw them. The newspaper has an identity, everyone knows what that identity is. People who work for TMZ know that they are dealing with the seedy side of Hollywood, people that work at Vogue magazine know they are dealing with fashion, people that work at hustler know they are dealing with porn, and the people at CH know that they deal with satire, and a lot of it has to do with religion. And it isn't the first time they have been attacked, everyone in that building understood the risks.

[Texsox]

Well, if you are a member of the military or police force, etc, than you are and will be put in severe danger.

 

And you have knowingly signed up for a dangerous job. If you are the reporter at Vogue covering the Paris fashion scene does Vogue have the right to put your life in danger by publishing those cartoons?

 

 

The employer isn't necessarily putting them in danger. These cartoonists are drawing their own cartoons, they aren't being mandated to draw them. The newspaper has an identity, everyone knows what that identity is. People who work for TMZ know that they are dealing with the seedy side of Hollywood, people that work at Vogue magazine know they are dealing with fashion, people that work at hustler know they are dealing with porn, and the people at CH know that they deal with satire, and a lot of it has to do with religion. And it isn't the first time they have been attacked, everyone in that building understood the risks.

 

I'm discussing if another news organization decided to republish the materials. Alpha said that CNN and others were wrong for not publishing the cartoons. So my point is more does Vogue have the right to publish those cartoons and put their fashion reporters live's in danger? Alpha believes that CNN, Fox, etc should all publish the cartoon if they are reporting on the story. I disagree. I think those other groups could report the story without the cartoons and the added life risking implications they may cause. I agree if you are working for certain publications, you must understand the risks.

[Kyyle23]

And you have knowingly signed up for a dangerous job. If you are the reporter at Vogue covering the Paris fashion scene does Vogue have the right to put your life in danger by publishing those cartoons?

 

 

 

 

I'm discussing if another news organization decided to republish the materials. Alpha said that CNN and others were wrong for not publishing the cartoons. So my point is more does Vogue have the right to publish those cartoons and put their fashion reporters live's in danger? Alpha believes that CNN, Fox, etc should all publish the cartoon if they are reporting on the story. I disagree. I think those other groups could report the story without the cartoons and the added life risking implications they may cause. I agree if you are working for certain publications, you must understand the risks.

 

Where do you draw the line? Every time a terrorist tells you he is offended by something then you refuse to acknowledge it?

[LDF]

Where do you draw the line? Every time a terrorist tells you he is offended by something then you refuse to acknowledge it?

 

that is my point in a earlier post. i didn't have your way with words to explain

my thought process.

 

very good.

 

so let me continue, this act was just senseless and all it does, will do is to

continue to hate on the Muslims. this was a act of several misfits who thinks

they are doing Allah work.

[Y2HH]

Now if they printed a racists cartoon on the delivery van and send you to an area where people would be offended by it?

 

Not quite the same as printing "racist" cartoons in a newspaper you 1) don't have to buy, 2) don't have to look at, and 3) isn't being force delivered to their homes. Also, equating this to racism?

 

The only way this remotely the same as the scenario you put forth is if they're printing these cartoons, seeking out radical's houses, and delivering them to their doors, or hacking their computers/cell phones and making their browsers default website the newspaper in question.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Y2HH

[Kyyle23]

Supposedly french police have these two guys cornered in a business in Eastern Paris. A communication line has been opened and they expressed their desire to die as martyrs

[Y2HH]

Supposedly french police have these two guys cornered in a business in Eastern Paris. A communication line has been opened and they expressed their desire to die as martyrs

 

They also have a hostage, because they're not cowards or anything.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Where do you draw the line? Every time a terrorist tells you he is offended by something then you refuse to acknowledge it?

 

We do not publish pictures of a beheading yet we cover the story. I don't believe every magazine, newspaper, etc has to include the cartoon while covering the news. Alpha's point was you can't cover the story without also reprinting the cartoon. I disagreed.

[Kyyle23]

We do not publish pictures of a beheading yet we cover the story. I don't believe every magazine, newspaper, etc has to include the cartoon while covering the news. Alpha's point was you can't cover the story without also reprinting the cartoon. I disagreed.

 

A lot of different news companies run those beheading videos with disclaimers. Its a choice the company makes, but it shouldnt be made because of what terrorists want

[Kyyle23]

They also have a hostage, because they're not cowards or anything.

 

what do they care, they have virgins waiting for them

[StrangeSox]

#JeSuisAhmed Reveals the Hero of the Paris Shooting Everyone Needs to Know

 

The recognition of their ultimate sacrifice in the name of free speech and open discourse is beautiful, but it's equally important to remember that the lives of the victims extended beyond the confines of the magazine. Two of those killed, 42-year-old Ahmed Merabet and 49-year-old Franck Brinsolaro, were police officers — the very people tasked with protecting Charlie Hebdo's staff. Merabet's death was captured on film during a French television broadcast and shared quickly across social media. Two masked gunmen can be seen approaching him, ignoring his pleas to spare his life.

 

Who was he? As information about the victims began to filter out, the world learned that Merabet worked at a police station in Paris' 11th Arrondissement, near the location of Charlie Hebdo's offices. Reports also emerged that Merabet was himself Muslim.

 

Merabet, then, died at the hands of one of his own — albeit its fanatical and dangerous minority. It is especially and darkly ironic given that the gunmen allegedly shouted: "We have avenged the prophet Muhammad." The name "Ahmed" shares linguistic roots with "Muhammad," and the prophet was sometimes referred to as Ahmed.

[Texsox]

Not quite the same as printing "racist" cartoons in a newspaper you 1) don't have to buy, 2) don't have to look at, and 3) isn't being force delivered to their homes. Also, equating this to racism?

 

The only way this remotely the same as the scenario you put forth is if they're printing these cartoons, seeking out radical's houses, and delivering them to their doors, or hacking their computers/cell phones and making their browsers default website the newspaper in question.

 

Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people. I disagreed, that isn't even close. I was working with the example Alpha gave. You can report the news without reprinting the cartoon. Also, again my original question is this . . .

 

Is it OK for your employer to knowingly put your life in danger if you are a receptionist, accountant, foreign office employee, for the Chicago Tribune and they reprint the cartoon?

 

Only three people answered, SoxFn mentioned jobs that are already dangerous like law enforcement. Alpha who said his employer sends him on deliveries in bad weather. Is that the same thing? I said no. I say it isn't OK for an employer to knowingly put their employees lives at risk especially when they are working jobs that would not ordinarily involve death threats and there are alternatives that would result in the same result. By covering the story and not reprinting the cartoon the news is covered. Same as we do for violent crimes. No one is pushing to have the crime scene photos released.

[Texsox]

A lot of different news companies run those beheading videos with disclaimers. Its a choice the company makes, but it shouldnt be made because of what terrorists want

 

I agree. Alpha's point is everyone should do it and if they do not they are cowards, liberal etc. I am defending the above bold.

[LDF]

Supposedly french police have these two guys cornered in a business in Eastern Paris. A communication line has been opened and they expressed their desire to die as martyrs

 

there it is a couple of screwed up people with screwed up ideas,

hurting a lot of people including there own.

 

well let them kill themselves, or take them out.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people.

I never said they were one and the same. The level of danger is obviously different, but there is still an inherent danger in having to drive in inclement weather.

 

As for Charlie, the magazine didn't 'order' them to draw those toons, but the magazine sure printed them. Even tried to take steps to protect them. Sure would have been interesting had some of the office staff been packing heat, but I am sure they are happy that the comfort of a gun free zone and strict guns laws protected them. I mean, all those laws they have over there against automatic weapons and rocket launchers sure worked, right?

[EvilMonkey]

I agree. Alpha's point is everyone should do it and if they do not they are cowards, liberal etc. I am defending the above bold.

My point was if you report on the story and only report half of it, then you are doing a half-assed job and a disservice to your readers. Newspapers here sure seem to be strong and brave when it comes to revealing government secrets or blasting the Vatican, but God forbid (or Allah forbid?) they publish anything that insults Islam...

[Jenksismyhero]

Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people. I disagreed, that isn't even close. I was working with the example Alpha gave. You can report the news without reprinting the cartoon. Also, again my original question is this . . .

 

Is it OK for your employer to knowingly put your life in danger if you are a receptionist, accountant, foreign office employee, for the Chicago Tribune and they reprint the cartoon?

 

Only three people answered, SoxFn mentioned jobs that are already dangerous like law enforcement. Alpha who said his employer sends him on deliveries in bad weather. Is that the same thing? Isaid no. I say it isn't OK for an employer to knowingly put their employees lives at risk especially when they are working jobs that would not ordinarily involve death threats and there are alternatives that would result in the same result. By covering the story and not reprinting the cartoon the news is covered. Same as we do for violent crimes. No one is pushing to have the crime scene photos released.

 

Tex, that's a pretty weak argument for several reasons. First, you're assuming it's a foregone conclusion that printing the drawing would result in violence. You don't know that and no one else does either. It's not the same as ordering troops into a battle or ordering police to do their jobs that have inherent risk. Is it an increased risk? Sure, I guess, but if that's the case then why do airlines continue to offer their service given the increased risk of a possible attack? Where's the concern over government officials working in government buildings? There's an increase there too. (2) There's a huge difference between printing gore and violence (which many publications DO publish) based on a business decision (most people won't buy/click on those types of publications because of the gore) and deciding not to publish pictures of Mohammed because of fear. That's what this comes down to. It's not a business decision, it's fear. Which is exactly what they want. I'll say again: based on many responses on this site, the terrorists have won.

 

Let's do a hypothetical: there's a group of crazy evangelicals that kill homosexuals and/or a journalists covering homosexuals in a newspaper that published photos of two men kissing. It happens 2-3 teams over a 6 year period. Every major news publication decides that they're going to stop publishing photos of homosexuals because fear. You're telling me that you'd be ok with that? That fear is a good justification for a restriction on the freedom of expression? No, you wouldn't, nor would the vast majority of the western world.

 

I can get behind not publishing photos because it will cut profits. I can't get behind not doing so because of fear of what people might think.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

My point was if you report on the story and only report half of it, then you are doing a half-assed job and a disservice to your readers. Newspapers here sure seem to be strong and brave when it comes to revealing government secrets or blasting the Vatican, but God forbid (or Allah forbid?) they publish anything that insults Islam...

 

Perhaps we are arguing two different points. I believe we both agree that the story is newsworthy and needs to be reported. I disagree that every media outlet needs to show the cartoon. To me it is the same as a beheading photo, or an accident where someone was dismembered. It is up to the media outlet do decide for their company to include the graphics or not.