'je suis, CHARLiE'

Edited January 8, 201510 yr by dee-luded

FWIW, I live in France - though far from Paris.

The tragedy of it all, the loss and brutality, the randomness of the killings of the policemen and of people who just happened to be in the building, has shocked and touched people deeply here. Even in the small town where I live, there have been gatherings, both organised and spontaneous.

As well as affecting people on a personal level, the freedom of speech element can’t be underestimated. France is a place where discourse and argument is very much a valued part of the culture, and this feels like an attack on people’s very identity, the make-up of who they are.

Difficult times, with a whole country in mourning and police with machine-guns in the railway stations.

As well as affecting people on a personal level, the freedom of speech element can’t be underestimated. France is a place where discourse and argument is very much a valued part of the culture, and this feels like an attack on people’s very identity, the make-up of who they are.

Incredibly, some media outlets have not exactly come rushing to the defence of free speech and expression.

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

Of course there will always be debate about balancing rights and responsibilities in civil society, but free speech doesn't count for much if it's not absolute.

Incredibly, some media outlets have not exactly come rushing to the defence of free speech and expression.

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

Of course there will always be debate about balancing rights and responsibilities in civil society, but free speech doesn't count for much if it's not absolute.

interesting

also did you notice this article was written in nov 2011 and not in response to recent tradgedy

Incredibly, some media outlets have not exactly come rushing to the defence of free speech and expression.

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

Of course there will always be debate about balancing rights and responsibilities in civil society, but free speech doesn't count for much if it's not absolute.

I disagree. There have to be SOME limits, hate-speech for example.

Plus isn't slander a crime? Or is it just a civil offence? Been a long time since legal studies in high school

interesting

also did you notice this article was written in nov 2011 and not in response to recent tradgedy

haha, no I didn't!

It was doing the rounds on Twitter soon after it all happened, just assumed it was fresh analysis. Although I did think, "gee, that's extremely provocative today".

I guess the broader argument remains, and I think I read somewhere that USA Today took a similar line.

I disagree. There have to be SOME limits, hate-speech for example.

I guess that's the $64million question, where do we draw the line?

And perhaps just as important, who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

Some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff was extremely provocative, if not offensive.

As for slander (defamation) - I don't really think of that in a free speech context. Few people would argue that free speech protects the right to injure someone's reputation publicly based on falsehoods.

let's not start one of those endless arguments about the derfinition of free speech and what it means and doesn't means

let's not start one of those endless arguments about the derfinition of free speech and what it means and doesn't means

So you want to close down free speech on the topic of free speech ..

FWIW, I live in France - though far from Paris.

The tragedy of it all, the loss and brutality, the randomness of the killings of the policemen and of people who just happened to be in the building, has shocked and touched people deeply here. Even in the small town where I live, there have been gatherings, both organised and spontaneous.

As well as affecting people on a personal level, the freedom of speech element can’t be underestimated. France is a place where discourse and argument is very much a valued part of the culture, and this feels like an attack on people’s very identity, the make-up of who they are.

Difficult times, with a whole country in mourning and police with machine-guns in the railway stations.

i love the french people, visited there with a 'nuclear chiponshoulder' back in '92; came away in love with the warm natured friendly people. fun loving people. not unlike what we were, back in the early 80's.

Some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff was extremely provocative, if not offensive.

Not just some of, pretty well all of.

But one of the impressions given is that it was mainly anti-Islam, but that's not the case. They just take/took on everyone, all the time. The front page of the Christmas issue was a send-up of the virgin birth. The current issue lampoons a leading French writer. Their main targets were/are politicians. From what I've seen, the references to Islam were few and far between.

Extraordinary images from the storming of their hideout. Never seen so many armed police in one place. Let's hope it ends here.

Just came back from France and was there for the attack that unfolded last week.

People I talked to were embarrassed and shamed at how their country would be perceived - the home of terrorists. My obvious response was sympathy for their plight but reassurance that this was not a French problem but a global problem.

not sure "reassurance" has the best connotation, nut

maybe "realisation"?

DC - realisation is a better choice of word.

Just came back from France and was there for the attack that unfolded last week.

The media made a big deal out of the fact that channel 9 Today Show host Lisa Wilkinson was "caught up in the horror" of the Paris attacks.

Turns out she was holidaying there.

In that vein, I just wanted to reassure you that, today, we are all 'Je Suis Nutbeans'

make that je suis écrou haricots

though i think he may prefer Eímai paximádi fasolió̱n (Είμαι παξιμάδι φασολιών)

pity we can't all see the simple, that is to put our support out there for our french friends.

Empathy goes a long way, & what goes around comes back... so lets create the positive, rather than give our minds energy to the negative dark side of our potential thoughts.

A good read here on the new edition of CH and how the remaining staff got it together.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/arts/international/charlie-hebdo-staff-prepares-next-issue.html?_r=0

I think the cover is superb.

Not just some of, pretty well all of.

But one of the impressions given is that it was mainly anti-Islam, but that's not the case. They just take/took on everyone, all the time. The front page of the Christmas issue was a send-up of the virgin birth. The current issue lampoons a leading French writer. Their main targets were/are politicians. From what I've seen, the references to Islam were few and far between.

As I was there and it was all unfolding I sat with my French hosts from a B&B I was at and they pulled out some back issues of Charlie Hebdo. (And translated as my French is appalling)

The references to Islam were NOT few and far between but hardly surprising as the prior to the publicised attack there had been three drive down attacks in French cities and radical Islam is a hot topic. But as pointed out nothing was off limits and ridulculing government and politicians was always prevalent.

What was clear to me is that the magazine could never get published in Australia. our laws would not permit it. It makes you realise what a highly emotive subject "free speech" is and the biggest question - where do you draw the line?

I am torn between not having a problem with any material published or speeches made that will offend me and worrying about the publishing or speaking of highly provocative material that may lead to discrimination and/or violence. I have no problem with offence - I obviously have a problem with discrimination and violence. It is so subjective as to what is offence and what is offence that could normally be expected to lead to unwanted actions.

As I was there and it was all unfolding I sat with my French hosts from a B&B I was at and they pulled out some back issues of Charlie Hebdo. (And translated as my French is appalling)

The references to Islam were NOT few and far between but hardly surprising as the prior to the publicised attack there had been three drive down attacks in French cities and radical Islam is a hot topic. But as pointed out nothing was off limits and ridulculing government and politicians was always prevalent.

What was clear to me is that the magazine could never get published in Australia. our laws would not permit it. It makes you realise what a highly emotive subject "free speech" is and the biggest question - where do you draw the line?

I am torn between not having a problem with any material published or speeches made that will offend me and worrying about the publishing or speaking of highly provocative material that may lead to discrimination and/or violence. I have no problem with offence - I obviously have a problem with discrimination and violence. It is so subjective as to what is offence and what is offence that could normally be expected to lead to unwanted actions.

imo, things that are left unsaid, un-discussed or argued, can fester like a pedophile in a Rams clothing...

learning is made the hard way, from dialogue, even if heated, rather than keeping things locked in a closet. we can see the result from ideas far to entrenched & not allowed to question or make light of as it were.

everything should be able to face the sterilizing UV light of day. no matter the threats or war, because the thing is it is unhealthy hidden away & no progress is made from within locked closets.

comm'on all Ye faiths, put your dirty linen back on the outside linen line.

a religion of peace and tolerance

btw this is no extremist terrorist group action

asia bibi - deaf ears for mercy

a religion of peace and tolerance

btw this is no extremist terrorist group action

asia bibi - deaf ears for mercy

I read this and I am surprised you didn't hear my jaw clunk as it hit the desk.

I am stated "anti capital punishment" but I can respectfully listen to arguments to the contrary and whilst not agreeing, understand views to the opposite when we are talking about crazed and inhuman killers. But this ???

I also try to draw a distinction between moderate and peace loving muslims and radicals murdering in the name of their Islam.

I wish it was black and white but when you read news like you have posted DC, it is very hard to see where exactly the line between the two is.

I read this and I am surprised you didn't hear my jaw clunk as it hit the desk.

I am stated "anti capital punishment" but I can respectfully listen to arguments to the contrary and whilst not agreeing, understand views to the opposite when we are talking about crazed and inhuman killers. But this ???

I also try to draw a distinction between moderate and peace loving muslims and radicals murdering in the name of their Islam.

I wish it was black and white but when you read news like you have posted DC, it is very hard to see where exactly the line between the two is.

the number one thing it highlights nut, is the necessity of separating religion from the secular or state

unfortunately islam has a habit of overreaching into areas beyond religion (imo)

i think this tendency more than anything is what leads to a lot of problems

I read this and I am surprised you didn't hear my jaw clunk as it hit the desk.

I am stated "anti capital punishment" but I can respectfully listen to arguments to the contrary and whilst not agreeing, understand views to the opposite when we are talking about crazed and inhuman killers. But this ???

I also try to draw a distinction between moderate and peace loving muslims and radicals murdering in the name of their Islam.

I wish it was black and white but when you read news like you have posted DC, it is very hard to see where exactly the line between the two is.

punishment by death, or to kill? surely only for self defence, or to kill to protect the vulnerable or innocent from unsolicited Violence...

the world is going stark raving atmo, with punishments of death for a perceived insult??? madness