[karajorma]

Luis there are only so many times I can state that I don't give a **** about what the extremists want or about insulting them. I just don't see any point in insulting moderates too. You basically are labelling any non-extremist collateral damage and that's what I take exception to.

This on the other hand, is fine by me.

[Luis Dias]

So instead you actually reading the article and understanding what I mean with what I am saying you went out to restate your opinion for the nth time.

That's it, I'm done here, it's like talking to a wall.

[The E]

Regardless of everything else said on this topic (And Luis, just FYI, your words here managed to sway me from my initial positions on the subject of freedom of speech to be more along the lines of your views), I just wanted to state that my personal hero in this mess is not the staff of Charlie Hebdo, but Ahmed Merabet, a french police officer and devout muslim who was executed by the terrorists on their way out of Charlie Hebdo's offices. After all, he (unknowingly) embodies the spirit of "I disagree with your opinions, but will defend your right to voice them".

[Aesaar]

Karajorma: Again, why should Islam be exempt from the kind of mockery we feel no hesitation subjecting Judaism and Christianity to?  Why is it wrong to draw Muhammad, but fine to draw Jesus as a zombie?  Why is it wrong to mock Islam's touchiness but perfectly fine to caricature the Republican party as a bunch of crusty rich old white guys? 

It's a ****ing joke, and I'd argue that given the fact that reading a magazine or looking at drawings of Muhammad on the internet is a purely voluntary thing, it's actually an excellent environment in which to make such jokes.  They don't like it?  They can turn off their computers or not buy the magazine in question.  At no point does it become acceptable to stop other people from seeing or reading something just because you might find it offensive.

I'm going to reiterate Luis' point as well: If we surrender here, how long until theyfind something else?  Maybe they'll go after the West' willingness to allow women to dress how they like?  After all, women walking around uncovered and having the audacity to challenge men goes against the Qur'an in their minds, and that's profoundly offensive to Islamists.

Luis Dias: that's an excellent article.

[karajorma]

Who says it should be exempt? I'm against people asking for the doors to be opened and for every idiot in the world to post pictures of Muhammed. Leave comedy to the comedians.

So instead you actually reading the article and understanding what I mean with what I am saying you went out to restate your opinion for the nth time.

That's it, I'm done here, it's like talking to a wall.

Ironically that article is blocked in China. I went with the excerpt that you posted and flagged the rest for when I can get access. But understanding is a two-way street Luis and you haven't stopped arguing that my objection is to pissing off extremists.

Karajorma's question fails to address why there haven't been any murders of any cartoons or any satirical writer against judaism, despite there being reasons for perhaps a hundred times more grievances than any islamists could ever grab on to. (That's why islamism is usually riddled with holocaust denial, they cannot bear the thought of not being the most oppressed group in the world)

I look forwards to seeing you repeat Ernst Zündel's Holocaust denial. Just not on this board, mkay.

If free speech really is that important, let's see you defend it when it's something you really hate. Okay, he wasn't killed but I assume that's the point of the article you just posted.

[Aesaar]

Who says it should be exempt? I'm against people asking for the doors to be opened and for every idiot in the world to post pictures of Muhammed. Leave comedy to the comedians.

Who are the comedians?  Are we going to start issuing licenses to determine who can mock Islam and who can't?

And here's the article's text.  Hopefully pastebin isn't blocked: http://pastebin.com/w94Lsnyc

[Luis Dias]

Karajorma, can you please not re-edit your previous comments in a way that makes my replies look like ****?

I have written extensively on why these depictions are necessary. The battleground is in the big silent majority of muslims' hearts and minds. You feel as if these cartoons are offensive to them and so counter-productive. I feel that these cartoons are the necessary medicine to the authoritarian mindset within their own communities. I believe history proves my thesis is much stronger than yours. Irregardless (what a word!), it's the enlightenment tradition of free speech, from Marquis de Sade to Mark Twain to a gazillion people, that we must enact and hold dear. So yeah, what if trolls be trolls and they will just express a graphical "**** you!" to Islam? It's still defiance against authocratic autoritarianism, and it's not just healthy and commendable, it's necessary.

Some will be more childish than others. Everyone will do their best.

[karajorma]

I have written extensively on why these depictions are necessary. The battleground is in the big silent majority of muslims' hearts and minds. You feel as if these cartoons are offensive to them and so counter-productive. I feel that these cartoons are the necessary medicine to the authoritarian mindset within their own communities. I believe history proves my thesis is much stronger than yours. Irregardless (what a word!), it's the enlightenment tradition of free speech, from Marquis de Sade to Mark Twain to a gazillion people, that we must enact and hold dear. So yeah, what if trolls be trolls and they will just express a graphical "**** you!" to Islam? It's still defiance against authocratic autoritarianism, and it's not just healthy and commendable, it's necessary.

Some will be more childish than others. Everyone will do their best.

And some will use it as a massive opportunity to spread their hate-filled agenda. There are far too many people who would twist that idea into something, nasty, ugly and racist.

I find it hugely ironic that some of the people I'm having to explain that to are the very same people who were against Gamergate because they believed that the whole thing was basically a paradise for internet trolls, doxxers and general scum. Is it so hard to see that a call on the average internet user to Draw Muhammed would be far, far worse than Gamergate ever was?

Don't call for Draw Muhammed. Call for people to draw the leaders of ISIS. Make this personal. Cause that will be far more productive than Drawing Muhammed ever will.

[Aesaar]

Free speech means having to accept people will use that freedom to say **** we don't like.  It's still worth it. 

It's not laws against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial that keep Nazism down.

[MP-Ryan]

And people like Flipside and myself have every right to say perhaps you should try to change your mind about what you decide to say before you say it.

Which is fine, although the reason I keep seeing come up - that such cartoons are offensive to Muslims as a group and they accomplish little - is dubious. The cartoons serve a very important purpose - they show there are people who say they are part of a religion who are willing to threaten and kill other people over drawings.

Ironically though I have seen posts saying that those who don't want to do that should be shamed or don't support free speech.

Individuals? No. Media organizations - like our own cowardly CBC? Oh hell yes they should be shamed for it.

In that sense, today, anyone who stands up for free speech and liberty generally should be supportive of the past and continued publication of this [IMHO] offensive and tasteless material precisely BECAUSE people were murdered because of it.

So a simple question. Would you republish anti-Semitic literature because someone got killed by a Jew for publishing it?

Change this Charlie Hebdo situation motivating material to any other group, religion, politician, etc and I would still be saying the exact same things in this thread.  Would I personally republish it? Probably not, because I don't tend to publish extremely offensive material as a rule (one of the reasons I haven't posted a number of the Hebdo cartoons directly).  Would I link to it and shout that "people were murdered for these words!" Oh yes. Very much yes.

I'm going to reiterate Luis' point as well: If we surrender here, how long until theyfind something else?  Maybe they'll go after the West' willingness to allow women to dress how they like?  After all, women walking around uncovered and having the audacity to challenge men goes against the Qur'an in their minds, and that's profoundly offensive to Islamists.

Freedom of speech is the right and freedom upon which all of our other rights and freedoms depend.  Any restriction on it restricts fundamental liberty.  Courts have rightly carved out some very limited exceptions where freedom of speech does not apply, but, as I said - very limited.

[Ghostavo]

karajorma, just to clarify something, are you in favor of removing any depiction of women without burkas on television (and other media)?

[Scotty]

Kara isn't saying it shouldn't be allowed, or that it's even not right.  He's saying that it's counter productive and stupid for the reasons stated.  With the amount of misinterpretation going on in this thread you'd think some members of this forum were running for political office and want to get practice arguing totally unrelated issues in.

I highly suggest that everyone in this thread take an extra five minutes next time they post and try to avoid projecting things no one has said into posts they disagree with.

[Col.Hornet]

Things are just getting worse. Yesterday one police officer was killed, today these scumbags took hostages in a shop with kosher food.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1420806403
Probably that's the same animal which is responsible for the death of policewoman.

Looks like there will be a lot of work for French security services in the nearest future.

[Bobboau]

I find it hugely ironic that some of the people I'm having to explain that to are the very same people who were against Gamergate because they believed that the whole thing was basically a paradise for internet trolls, doxxers and general scum. Is it so hard to see that a call on the average internet user to Draw Muhammed would be far, far worse than Gamergate ever was?

I would like to just point out I have been entirely consistent here.

[Luis Dias]

I find it hugely ironic that some of the people I'm having to explain that to are the very same people who were against Gamergate because they believed that the whole thing was basically a paradise for internet trolls, doxxers and general scum. Is it so hard to see that a call on the average internet user to Draw Muhammed would be far, far worse than Gamergate ever was?

I would like to just point out I have been entirely consistent here.

And I would just like to point out that if talking about gamergate is not kosher here (and I fully accept with the rationale), then could the moderators not toy with these shenanigans? I don't accept the analogy here, but to explain why it would drive me towards an unwarranted and unwanted topic.

Having said that, given the choice between "moderation", "self-censorship", "not be obscene", etc and "free expression everywhere", I'll choose the latter every god damned second. And it's not because I'm an anarchist asshole (I probably am), but because I do not recognize other people's moral authority to declare what third parties' sense of humour are correct or not. Not even merely in principle, in "etiquette" fashion. All these calls I see in some media right now on the "decorum" and "let's not be racist" and other idiotc simplistic moralizing concern trollings are failing our civilization.

This should be a watershed moment, and still I see some people hesitating. (Although I'm happy people like The_E are coming down from their fence-sitting in this particular case).

e: warn me if I'm going too aggressive here. I've drunk a couple coffees and I feel the caffeine boiling my blood a bit. It might express itself a bit around here, my apologies.

[karajorma]

Would I personally republish it? Probably not, because I don't tend to publish extremely offensive material as a rule (one of the reasons I haven't posted a number of the Hebdo cartoons directly). 

And this is the exact same point I have been making for four pages now with everyone else saying that they should do it and encourage other people to do the same or worse.

Would I link to it and shout that "people were murdered for these words!" Oh yes. Very much yes.

Where have I said I wouldn't do that?

[The E]

Having said that, given the choice between "moderation", "self-censorship", "not be obscene", etc and "free expression everywhere", I'll choose the latter every god damned second. And it's not because I'm an anarchist asshole (I probably am), but because I do not recognize other people's moral authority to declare what third parties' sense of humour are correct or not. Not even merely in principle, in "etiquette" fashion. All these calls I see in some media right now on the "decorum" and "let's not be racist" and other idiotc simplistic moralizing concern trollings are failing our civilization.

This should be a watershed moment, and still I see some people hesitating. (Although I'm happy people like The_E are coming down from their fence-sitting in this particular case).

I should be clear here: Were I in a position to do so, I wouldn't publish cartoons as the ones under discussion here. Not because of fear of the reaction, but because like Karajorma, I don't think they're helping the cause. They're a form of preaching to the choir, and while there is a place for that, it's not one I would want to provide. That being said, I am perfectly fine with others publishing such works and wouldn't want them to stop just because I disagree with them on that count; The best remedy for speech that offends being more speech and all that.

Basically, yes, you have a right to troll as hard as you want and not get killed over it. However, that does not mean that you have a duty to do so, or that doing so is a sacred act that must be enshrined.

[Luis Dias]

My disagreement lies in the description of the act as trolling, but I do understand why it is being discussed as such. If it were mere trolling, I would be agreeing with both you and Karajorma on that point. I don't see it as trolling, and especially not as being addressed to the choir. I tried to convey exactly why that was not the case, and I think I can't "one up" myself at that, so there's that.

[Ghostavo]

Kara isn't saying it shouldn't be allowed, or that it's even not right.  He's saying that it's counter productive and stupid for the reasons stated.

What the difference between "not right" and "counter productive and stupid"?

[karajorma]

You have the right to be counter productive and stupid if you wish. I've never said that people can't draw Muhammed. I've said that I really wish they'd understand that the end results might not go the way they wanted and think about whether they should do it or not a lot harder.