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.
If you're afraid of people in your own nation, then you have bigger problems than a political cartoon
If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.
I've already seen one mainstream American daily run a bunch of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its online edition, including some depicting Mohammad (yes, THAT Mohammad). Without the mass murder, a lot fewer people would've seen that image.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Perhaps the best strategy in this case would be for all creative artists and writers to produce as much content as they can and Creative Commons license it, so the content can all be broadcast everywhere and we all agree to post and publish it in every medium on every forum possible. That way, anyone who would take offense is so inundated they can not possibly respond.
Anybody that self censors or allows others to censor you, is guilty of aiding the terrorist.
Stand your ground, but be prepared to fight back by being armed to the teeth, and have security measures in place.
Outlaw islam. It's not a real religion anyway; it's an idealogy, a form of government and we already have that. Also use the Mohammed Emote. (((:~(>>
This is a better article[NSFW] from the Onion.
Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.
Sorry, but I don't see much of distinction there. Terrorism and murder are no more, or less, justified by any particular religious belief. Hurting other people because you believe the invisible man in the sky somehow demands it of you is kinda the very definition of bat-shit crazy.
Others here have alluded simiarly. What if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DAILY IN THE WORLD published the same images? They would no longer have a specific target and the streisand effect would be complete.
If the Newspapers of the world had any backbone at all, they'd all band together and republish the cartoon front page on Monday along with pictures of the attackers with captions that say "This image is being published at the request of these 2 infidels."
Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
The difference is that abortion results in a dead baby, so abortion clinic bombers at least think they have some justification, even if few people agree with them that the ends justifies the means.
On the other hand a cartoon is just that - a cartoon; a piece of paper with a drawing. Nobody is harmed by a cartoon.
Do you have ESP?
How about a duty to intelligence?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
See Bullying.
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food,
OMG, they will buy food that they like, the end of civilization is nigh!
> , thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. T
And lo, the Union of Koranic Kitchen Workers soon dominated the land!
> They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
Scary stuff, taking their business elsewhere, that's the worst kind of terrorism!
> 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam'
It will usher in the largest city in Tanzania?
> But what the hell. Celebrate diversity... while you can, anyway.
Turns out the original author of that cut-n-paste is Phil Aguilar. This is a guy in a 'christian' biker gang that likes to get in to bar fights with Hells Angels. So now you know what kind of expert this guy is on Islam. Real scholarly and all.
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks.
And here is a Muslim cleric justifying it. And he is doing a better job — while these outraged Muslims are simply denouncing the attack as contrary to their understanding of Islam, he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit?
Yes. Everything must be open to scrutiny.
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?
No. Absolutely No.
By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists.
The focus come from you not the writer. There are two very important parts to the following quote;
"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.
They are "Charlie ridiculed my faith" and "I died defending his right to do so". You chose to focus on the first part. I choose to focus on the second part. The point of the statement is that even if insult occurred the cop chose to die defending the right to make that insult.
It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.
No one has to focus on what is put in front of them. You have a brain; choose for yourself what to focus on. The point you completely miss is that a Muslim died trying to defend free speech even though the free speech was an insult to his religion. It is just trying to point out that not all Muslims are against free speech.
Short answer: no. If you leave your door unlocked, you are not responsible for your house being burgled. If you (as a woman) dress up nicely for a night out on the town, you are not responsible for being raped on the way back home. Even if you pull down your bra and jiggle your jugs in front of a particularly drunk and horny looking individual in a dark alley. It's not wise, but that's statistics, not morality.
Charlie Hebdo have been threatened before (their office was firebombed if I recall correctly). Should they have stopped making their funnies then? Should we stop making fun of anyone when they threaten physical bodily harm? There are folk out there who, as someone put it, are offended deeply if their ligher doesn't work; should we cater to their whims too? I'd prefer to live in a society of laws rather than whims, and I for one am rather sad to live in a world where a movie like "Life of Brian" probably couldn't be made anymore, especially if they picked Mohammed as a target this time.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If you as a publisher self-censor to "protect your staff", then you can't complain when the government wants to censor you to "protect the country".
So how many people have been shot for drawing or publicizing a child porn cartoon?
Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.
If you can't say how effective it was, you can't really argue for any results.
What I am seeing is that for the past several decades the West, and I mean, European and North American countries, has been vigorously competing among themselves to become the most 'bend over' country for the Moslems
What has all the appeasement programs brought? I mean, ever since the oil crisis during the 1970's the Moslems has brought *NO BENEFIT* for the West
What is more ridiculous is that during the past decades the Western countries have tried their best to DUMB DOWN their respective societies by brainwashing their people with politically correct concept such as "diversity"
Diversity by itself is no problem - I am, after all, a Chinese, and diversity means a Chinese such as me, gets to add my experience, my viewpoints and my voice, to enrich the society that I live in
But too much emphasis in the 'diversity' means the Whites have been actively discounting their own cultural value in order to replace it with ideas / traditions from the Moslem world
What is interesting / troubling is that the Western societies don't seem to detect the irony and the conflict that the Moslem world would bring them
For example - them politically correct folks support feminism, but on the other hand, the same politically correct folks embrace the Moslems' view that the female folks are of the 'inferior' kind, so inferior that the female must wear burka and/or cover themselves up from head to toe
As one whose culture isn't based on the Western politically correct camp, I find it really troubling that a society which encourages feminism equality permits the Moslems to treat their women folks like trash
But then I reckon, to the West, a view from a Chinese is not important at all. After all, the West's suspicion on the Chinese culture gets worsen as time passes by
On the other hand, views from the Moslems, however, must be taken seriously, and must be implemented immediately. After all, to the mostly so-called 'atheist West', their own Western societal value pales when compares to the 'Allah Culture'
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
their religion actually does mandate capital punishment ... unlike any other modern religion.
Biased much?
The main religious text of every Abrahamic religion promotes violence and killing. The Old Testament is still cited by fundamental Christians (see the U.S.) and Jews (see Israel) to legitimize their violent acts. It may not necessarily be violence to other religions, but it's still violence. (I don't know the other religious texts nearly as well so I can't really speak for them, but I'm certain some non-Abrahamic religions promote some form of religious violence in their text as well.)
But the mainstream Jews and Christians have moved away from the extremes of their ideology and on to more moderate viewpoints. They're still picking and choosing the passages to interpret and follow, but now they're picking the less extreme passages and interpreting them in more moderate ways. The fundamentalists in Christianity and Judiasm are marginalized, and given little to no attention (with the exceptions being the fundamental population of Christians in the U.S. and Jews in Israel, and even then, they're kept in check by equally loud or louder moderate voices).
Muslim extremism is still very much in the limelight of their religion. The extreme viewpoints are constantly in the news, constantly being talked about. Hell, the most wealthy, powerful, and famous Muslims, who often act as role models for many other Muslims, are all extremists. Look at the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who are clearly extremists. Extremism is given significant attention. There are entire political parties dedicated to extreme interpretations of the Koran. And even if they're discouraged from the extremes, Muslims are exposed to it from youth. Hell, we're all exposed to Muslim extremism from youth.
That is the difference. That is where Islam is currently at, not at the opposite end of "modern religions" but merely a few centuries behind. Islam is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and is where Judiasm was a thousand years ago. The big question is how to get everybody to reach the points of moderation that Christianity and Judiasm are at. How do you marginalize the extremists?
Denouncing the religion as bad, as you are doing, will not serve those ends. Continuing to bring to attention the violent aspects of the Muslim faith is exactly what people don't do to Christianity and Judiasm (or any other religion for that matter). Implying that it should be gone, as you are doing, is no different than a Muslim person trying to get rid of you for being non-Muslim.
In fact, I'll go a little further and say that the perspective you've taken is exactly the perspective of Muslim extremists. The only difference between you and a terrorist is you haven't quite gotten there. You're still only talking about how bad it is, rather than doing anything about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe you're suppressing that ultimate conclusion to keep your morality. Maybe you're living too comfortable a life and don't want to lose your lifestyle. Maybe you're a coward and trying to incite other people to do what you can't. Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.
That is, of course, the solution. You can't exactly make people cowards, but you can allow them better lives, and promote less extreme versions of their ideology. You can promote the moderate aspects instead of putting the entire religion of Islam on the defensive. You can denounce government leaders or religious leaders who hold extreme viewpoints, and maybe not prop them up as allies or business partners. You can help make the extremists poor and the moderates wealthy, the extremists weak and the moderates powerful, thereby setting role models who are moderate rather than extreme. These things will help, maybe not right away, but over the course of a generation or two, things will change.
What you're saying and trying to imply will not.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
If all the publishers decided to publish, that would be the greatest overall benefit for freedom of speech, because it demonstrates they're not afraid of terrorism.
If all the publishers decided to publish, they would all be dicks. Most publishers chose not to publish because unnecessary offense is not a wonderful stand for freedom of speech, it's being a dick. And yes, you are free to be a dick, and people should not shoot you for being a dick. Still doesn't make it OK to be a dick.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Have you? When, pray tell, did "blacks" fly into skyscrapers full of innocent people? When, pray tell, did "Hispanics" march into a humor magazine and shoot down the cartoonist and anyone nearby? When's the last time "blacks" blew up a night club? When's the last time Hispanics murdered everyone at a resort?
Your problem is that the political correctness butt plug has been shoved so far up your ass by the idiots who think everyone is a special butterfly that you can no longer shit, so you've simply gone blind.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.