Slashdot Mirror
Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack
New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship.
Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.
The hilarious thing is that the SJWs are already out there condemning Charlie Hebdo for printing the cartoons that got them murdered in cold blood.
No, really, check out #JeSuisAhmed, the counter-hashtag to #JeSuisCharlie. I am not making this up, the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists.
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition. Genocide on Jahve's orders: look for 'shibbolet'; incest: Lot and his daughters, etc etc. Whether the Prophet was one or the other, who knows? it isn't really relevant. What IS relevant is - do we want to solve the problems, or do we want to see who can produce most insults in the shortest time?
Don't get me wrong - it is right that Charlie Hebdo have the freedom to produce their satire, even if it seems immature and crass. It can never be right to murder defenceless people whatever your excuse. Islamic terrorists are not Muslems, whatever they declare; they bring shame on Islam and on their parents. If there is a God worth a prayer, then he will surely be filled with loathing at what terrorists do in his name.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit? If you go and kick a hornet's nest, is it a surprise that you get stung? It may sound like blaming the victim, but I don't think it is - are you a victim, if you go and look for trouble and find more than you had bargained for? And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
Ahh, the olde everything is black and white world view. Congratulations, you've been pre-approved for membership in Al-Quaeda, ISIS, a few dozen crazy Christian cults, and a mid level management position in the US government branch of your choice.
There's actually a popular concensus that we welcome those who hate us and our Western culture, and we offer them all the freedom they need to practice their bullshit religion until they are strong enough to kill us infidels.
Shows you how much popular consensus is worth.