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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
I mentioned this earlier in this thread too, but I think this is more of a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario than Streisand effect. But with more than 2 participants. You're certainly correct otherwise though;
If the vast majority of papers (> 80%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that terrorism does nothing (or very little) to deter printing blasphemous content. Terrorists will be deterred from bombing or shooting up publishers and cartoonists, since backing up a threat of death *still* didn't deter these papers from publishing, and now they're less inclined to publish in the future.
If none of the papers, or very little (less than 10%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that threats of death work, because most of the papers declined to print potentially offensive material. This reinforces the notion that death threats do work when carried out. But this also puts greater risk on the few places that do publish, because now there's less targets to choose from.
Choosing not to publish the cartoon is the best decision as the individual organization, but the worst decision for the greater good (assuming "greater good" means less terrorism and greater freedom of speech).
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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."