Slashdot Mirror

The cartoons in question were absolutely racist and disgusting.

The ones that Charlie Hebdo republished in support of free speech or their own? All of them? Even this one which only denounces extremists?

We even have laws against hate speech in the USA.

So? Are you saying that denouncing religious extremism would be outlawed by the same law that allowed religious nuts to disrupt the funerals of thousands of gay soldiers with insults like "Thank God for dead soldiers",

Charlie Hebdo insulted all Muslims. They did it deliberately, they knew it, and that was their goal. Well, they achieved it.

That's your personal interpretation. They criticized extremists of all religions

There was no fun in those cartoons.

The goal of a satirical publication is not just humor but also to get some messages across. And while I don't particularly like Charlie Hebdo in general, some of their drawings make pretty good points.

They were warned many times, but they kept insulting not Christians, not Jewish, only Muslims.

That's a lie: here are pages of Charlie Hebdo caricatures of Jesus and Moise. They even made a Shoah Hebdo edition just like they did a Charia Hebdo one.

What we know is cases like this usually have money involved, and the second known thing is that US Jewish groups support anti-muslim politicians and parties in Europe. Was that the case here? I don't know, looks very likely.

Charlie Hebdo's only source of income was its readership. And suggesting they were funded by politicians really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Some Charlie Hebdo cartoons with translation.
That would be great if magazines worldwide could support Charlie Hebdo and the free world by publishing some of these cartoons (with a better translation ;-)

1. "Mahomet is overwhelmed by fundamentalists" Balloon:"It's hard to be loved by jerks"

2. "Charia Hebdo" Balloon:"100 lashes if you do not LOL [Lit.: die loughing]"

3. "Coran is crap..." "It's not bullet proof"

...

One thing to know is that she thought she could defend herself without an attorney. If she had one, she probably would have win the case... For those speaking french : http://www.lexpress.fr/styles/...

According to some online french media The blogger chose to defend herself without a lawyer. The other side had a competent lawyer who chose to attack on some particular points of the blog post, including the title. The judge (no jury) chose to follow the lawyer, probably because he had no time to spare for a naive defendant. The decision is a "refere", meaning a quick decision which will not set a precedent. The blogger can of course appeal, but she probably will not. At this stage, an appeal would probably cost quite a bit of money and the fine money is to be paid anyway.

Had the defendent decided to take a lawyer, she would have most probably won, and the restaurant would have been forced to pay the court fees. So memo: next time take a lawyer.

And it's on: famous french blogger Maitre Eolas relayed the news much earlier this morning (does the guy even sleep ?), which then was picked up by L'Express (national newspaper) half an hour ago. It will be all over french social networks for the next couple days. Apparently the restaurant is not owned by McDonald's, it is a franchise owned by the limited-liability society Elyrest.

I saw an unofficial poll on theL'Express web site yesterday where only 25% were for this, nearly 1/2 were against, and the others were either undecided or apathetic. So that's a 2-1 margin in favour of those against this law. However admittedly there is a self-selection bias in the poll.

I'd have to agree that it may be premature to judge the issue closed. Clearly, the scientific debate has only ended for some people. For others http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/alle gre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 (see http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 for the English translation), and http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s tory.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 it hasn't.

Of course, pointing out that evidence either for or against catastrophic, human-induced warming is not as conclusive as many would have us believe is not at all a popular position, and tends to draw heated and irrational responses such as ad-hominem attacks. Which, as most fans of intelligent, rational debate will recognize, usually serve as evidence of a weak argument.

As a side issue (and I mean this sincerely, and not as a troll), can anyone explain how climate models can predict global temperatures to within a degree or two years from now, but manifestly can't accurately predict tomorrow's temperature?

Did you know that the "q" in qmail stands for "queer"??? That's SO cool!!!

Top results for one-letter google searches as of Sat May 17
a : Apple
b : B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the ...
c : CNET.com
d : D-Link Systems, Inc.
e : Welcome to E! Online
f : Welcome to F-Secure, Securing the Mobile Enterprise
g : G*Loomis
h : H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences Online
i : Yahoo!
j : J-???
k : KDE Homepage - Conquer your Desktop!
l : LEXPRESS.fr : l'info au quotidien. L'actualité économique, ...
m : 3M Worldwide
n : SBC Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Explorer : Online Learning : ...
o : www.oreilly.com -- Welcome to O'Reilly & Associates -- computer ...
p : Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
q : Q4music.com - The World's Greatest Music Magazine Online
s : GNU's Not Unix! - the GNU Project and the Free Software ...
t : AT&T
u : The whatUseek Network
v : Welcome to Bobby WorldWide
w : Welcome to the White House
x : Netscape.com
y : Yahoo!
z : HealthAtoZ - Your Family Health Site