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.
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
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
Then don't. Call them up, sure you're competitors but at least some feel just like you. And if you manage to enlist some, more might join you. Accept conditionals if you have to like "If at least five national newspapers publish we will too" until you have five. Or you were the only one, in which case journalism is already pretty boned.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you're a profiteering advert monetizing clickbait pandering mainstream outlet with a mandate to deliver ROI on content and ensure channel marketing buy-in consistently realizes revenue, then please work to censor all 11 forbidden media words as well as any overt references to political, social, or religious figures that may impact quarterly earnings, subscribership, and total time of view. Also take note that wearable technology is fashionable this year.
if on the other hand you're an actual newspaper, journalist, podcaster, or god forbid television news programme that works to inform viewers objectively and spark meaningful discussion of current events be they political, social, or religious regardless of their tie-in ability to a product or service, please accept my sincere condolences as this type of response has always been a threat to your work. now that someone has actualized it, the real question is, are your convictions still genuine when tested?
Good people go to bed earlier.
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
Who talks like that?
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98% Muslim
Iraq -- 97% Muslim
Jordan -- 92% Muslim
Morocco -- 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan -- 97% Muslim
Palestine -- 99% Muslim
Syria -- 90% Muslim
Tajikistan -- 90% Muslim
Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim
United Arab Emirates -- 96% Muslim
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan -- 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia -- 100% Muslim
Somalia -- 100% Muslim
Yemen -- 100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons.
QUOTE:
"Be
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
You're an idiot. Ahmed was the cop who died and the #jesuisahmed isn't counter to #jesuischarlie it compliments it. "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." Sounds a bit more like Voltaire then a terrorist.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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.
Actually...
"According to Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix, who fought the Moros as a young lieutenant from 1907–1908, the Americans exploited Muslim taboos by wrapping dead Moros in pig's skin and "stuffing [their] mouth[s] with pork", thereby deterring the Moros from continuing with their suicide attacks."
"Moros" = Filipino muslim rebels.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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".
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I know it's really easy to just lambast the publishers as cowards for refusing to publish the cartoons (as you post anonymously or semi-anonymously on slashdot, you brave soul), but it's not an easy choice to make. It's been clearly demonstrated that by publishing mohammed cartoons, there's a non-zero chance that some nut-job will break into your building and murder a bunch of your staff. Are you as an editor willing to take that chance? Are you willing to put your staff at risk, even for a minimal chance of violence against your station? It's sooooo easy to criticize them for not publishing offensive cartoon, but I really doubt that the majority of you would post a crude drawing of mohammed on your facebook accounts, or drop off a few thousand copies of an offensive cartoon in your neighborhood mailboxes (with your personal address listed). Because then you're truly willing to take the same upon the same risk that these cartoonists (and their publishers) take.
From a litigation standpoint alone, is it worth publishing an offensive cartoon? Probably not if you're in a litigious friendly nation. If you're the editor, and if some shit goes down, and there's the slightest possibility your organization could be held liable for the deaths of your staff because you totally *knew* this could happen, and could have avoided it by not publishing the offensive article - you bet your ass they'll get sued by the families of the victims. That risk probably isn't worth whatever benefit they get for being more ballsy in the eyes of the viewer. The editors know this and factor this in their decision making.
Whether to publish or not is more of a Prisoner's dilemma than it is Streisand effect as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, except with more than 2 "prisoners" (publishers - assume not publishing is equivalent to testifying in the analogy). The better move for yourself is to not publish and have no risk. But the better move for the collective is to publish. 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. It also minimizes the risk for each publisher, because terrorists don't have the resources to target all of the publishers in existence. They might even give up completely, realizing there's too many people offending their religion. But if nobody publishes cartoons out of fear, it reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (and the censored SouthPark scene in the "I learned something today" segment is true). If only handful of publishers decide to publish offensive mohammed cartoons, then it still reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (because most publishers aren't doing it, clearly because they're afraid of terrorism), AND it puts these few publishers at a much greater risk of terrorism. It fucking sucks, but the only way this is going to work is if a large majority of publishers decide to print these cartoons as a response.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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
You mean like these ones?
It's hard to receive money from jerks!
Having diner with assholes.
Pope 23 and his three dadies.
The Talmud is horseshit.
Will do anything to get new customers!
Next week, I will show you the resurrection trick
Yeah, these guys went down on the extremists of some religions (the Christians, The Muslims and The Jews, the current largest in France) just as much as they did on politics, celebrities, social conflicts and others...
Growing up there, I saw plenty of these cartoons. Some are not very funny, some are, some are very intelligent, some very dumb... but if the one thing I remember is that : if it hurts you at some point, it means that there is a layer of truth deep down.
Monde de merde...
Israel, where the Jews lived 2000 years ago (along with a bunch of other people), where various people including some Jews lived for the following 2000 years, and which was then taken by force, from the people who had been living there continuously for generations, by the British and friends, and given to people mostly born in Europe who may have been extremely distant descendants of the Jews who had lived there those 2000 years before, as a way of assuaging their own guilt over not stopping Nazi assholes.
Oh, and by the way, the Jews' folk history says that they originally took that same land from its prior inhabitants in a genocidal invasion. I don't know if that's true, but since that's how people usually get land, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we can find the descendants of the Philistines or the Midianites or whoever, can we give the land back to them? I honestly don't know who they'd be, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of them were among the people displaced to create Israel...
Israel is there now, and it would be a stupid mistake to ignore that or try to undo it. What's done is done, and 60 years makes Israel as legitimate as any other state. That doesn't change the fact that it was another stupid mistake to create Israel in the first place, and, yes, that mistake was absolutely an imperialistic and racist one.
States based on ethnicity or religion are a bad idea anyway, no matter how popular they may be.
Oh, and to avoid being called an "islamofascist", I'd like to point out that Muhammed was a pedophilic warlord cult leader. Actually not a bad guy as pedophilic warlord cult leaders go, but a pedophilic warlord cult leader nonetheless. And obviously he was not inspired by any real sky fairy. Not that any of that is relevant to anything going on this century. In independent news, the most visible carriers of the banner of Islam right now are fanatical tribal assholes who can't handle the real world, are trying to hide from it using religion, and would make any bad thing Israel has ever done look like naughty toddler games if they got any real power.
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."