Attack on French satirical magazine who posted jokes about the prophet Mohammed - 12 killed

[Lio]

I dont mind a joke about jews or the holocaust between people in a pub or someone on a lunchbreak telling a joke to his mate. But in the context of a political satire with nationwide or worldwide distribution, the scope is different and as such your responsibilities are different and if the breadth of your talent as a satirical cartoonist is to draw little caricature of Ikey Solomon or Fagin to denote jews then perhaps you're not talented enough for the job at hand i.e. Intelligent satire.

No they shouldnt be exempt but they shouldnt be subjected to the cartoon strip equivalent to being called a heeb.

I had to google almost everything you wrote in there

Problem is everyone should recognize what you're drawing, so it's only logical to use the clichés that are specific to one group of people. I have no problem with that myself.

[SoulMonster]

There's nothing cute about anti-semitism either. Again, i can understand the sensitivities, dont let the holocaust just become a word. Go back to that thing about areas of sensitivity and appreciating where they lay.

To me, it's not even that. I wouldn't laugh at the Holocaust. It's horrible beyond words. But the Holocaust is no reason to not laugh at Jews, like you do at any other group/people/religion/whatever. Laughing at a joke about Jews doesn't mean you condone the Holocaust or are anti semitic. Jews have a tendency to overreact and call the slightest criticism/joke anti semitic and the West have the tendency to bow to that.

I dont mind a joke about jews or the holocaust between people in a pub or someone on a lunchbreak telling a joke to his mate. But in the context of a political satire with nationwide or worldwide distribution, the scope is different

Yes, the scope IS different. It is much more important to be critical of things that deserve criticism when you have a global audience than when just chatting with a friend or two. When the world is listening you can really make a difference. In addition, you have to be much more careful about what you say, because you risk offending many more than just your mates.

As for childish and racist jokes about Jews or anyone else: Lenny, I don't think anyone likes them.

[Len Cnut]

I dont mind a joke about jews or the holocaust between people in a pub or someone on a lunchbreak telling a joke to his mate. But in the context of a political satire with nationwide or worldwide distribution, the scope is different and as such your responsibilities are different and if the breadth of your talent as a satirical cartoonist is to draw little caricature of Ikey Solomon or Fagin to denote jews then perhaps you're not talented enough for the job at hand i.e. Intelligent satire.

No they shouldnt be exempt but they shouldnt be subjected to the cartoon strip equivalent to being called a heeb.

I had to google almost everything you wrote in there

Problem is everyone should recognize what you're drawing, so it's only logical to use the clichés that are specific to one group of people. I have no problem with that myself.

Well then it goes back to what I said about talent and perhaps, at best, you're not qualified for the job, I have a huge problem with those in that particular context, i have a HUGE motherfucking problem with, for the sake of the convenience of communication (or so i'm told), to adopt these awful Third Reichian caricatures of Jews, well if the world recognises those as symbolic of Judaism over and above anything else well then the whole worlds a problem.Do...not...lower...yourself (not you personally Lio, you know i luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurve you ) I don't think insensitivity is something to aspire to, or a lack of ability to discern the difference between what hurts or what helps your fellow womban...or man

Joking aside, fuck that. Thats what passes for satire these days, a little caricature of Fagin sitting on a bunch of rockets with a star of David on it and bags on money, that kinda shit, clever little caption alongside it? Classy.

There's nothing cute about anti-semitism either. Again, i can understand the sensitivities, dont let the holocaust just become a word. Go back to that thing about areas of sensitivity and appreciating where they lay.

To me, it's not even that. I wouldn't laugh at the Holocaust. It's horrible beyond words. But the Holocaust is no reason to not laugh at Jews, like you do at any other group/people/religion/whatever. Laughing at a joke about Jews doesn't mean you condone the Holocaust or are anti semitic. Jews have a tendency to overreact and call the slightest criticism/joke anti semitic and the West have the tendency to bow to that.

I dont mind a joke about jews or the holocaust between people in a pub or someone on a lunchbreak telling a joke to his mate. But in the context of a political satire with nationwide or worldwide distribution, the scope is different

Yes, the scope IS different. It is much more important to be critical of things that deserve criticism when you have a global audience than when just chatting with a friend or two. When the world is listening you can really make a difference. In addition, you have to be much more careful about what you say, because you risk offending many more than just your mates.

As for childish and racist jokes about Jews or anyone else: Lenny, I don't think anyone likes them.

Right...and this is exactly what I've been saying. Except for the last bit, cuz i love a racist joke...but they have a context. Like for instance I can tell a racist joke amongst my mates cuz i know and they know what level it's being told on and what level you take it on.

My whole point is that satrists with talent, satirists who deserve the title and are given a job whereby they are sort of the standard of satire in the modern world (as nationally recognised political satirists are, for their respective countries) it should rise a little further about the Viz magazine level.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Yes, the scope IS different. It is much more important to be critical of things that deserve criticism when you have a global audience than when just chatting with a friend or two. When the world is listening you can really make a difference. In addition, you have to be much more careful about what you say, because you risk offending many more than just your mates.

As for childish and racist jokes about Jews or anyone else: Lenny, I don't think anyone likes them.

Right...and this is exactly what I've been saying. Except for the last bit, cuz i love a racist joke...but they have a context. Like for instance I can tell a racist joke amongst my mates cuz i know and they know what level it's being told on and what level you take it on.

My whole point is that satrists with talent, satirists who deserve the title and are given a job whereby they are sort of the standard of satire in the modern world (as nationally recognised political satirists are, for their respective countries) it should rise a little further about the Viz magazine level.

Yes, I too want political satire to be as forceful as possible and to not just rely on drawing racist sterotypes for raising cheap giggles from the immature. If you want to offend you better make sure that the political component of the joke is in proportion to the level of offense you will be making, otherwise you end up just offending people without any merit to it, and offendign for offending really has little virtue. An ideal satirical joke should have an intelligent, controversial point dressed in humour and shock value.

Edited January 15, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

Yes, the scope IS different. It is much more important to be critical of things that deserve criticism when you have a global audience than when just chatting with a friend or two. When the world is listening you can really make a difference. In addition, you have to be much more careful about what you say, because you risk offending many more than just your mates.

As for childish and racist jokes about Jews or anyone else: Lenny, I don't think anyone likes them.

Right...and this is exactly what I've been saying. Except for the last bit, cuz i love a racist joke...but they have a context. Like for instance I can tell a racist joke amongst my mates cuz i know and they know what level it's being told on and what level you take it on.

My whole point is that satrists with talent, satirists who deserve the title and are given a job whereby they are sort of the standard of satire in the modern world (as nationally recognised political satirists are, for their respective countries) it should rise a little further about the Viz magazine level.

Yes, I too want political satire to be as forceful as possible and to not just rely on drawing racist sterotypes for raising cheap giggles from the immature. If you want to offend you better make sure that the political component of the joke is in proportion to the level of offense you will be making, otherwise you end up just offending people without any merit to it, and offendign for offending really has little virtue. An ideal satirical joke should have an intelligent, controversial point dressed in humour and shock value.

Agreed although i dont think shock value or controversy are essential though they do have a great deal of merit as tools of satire, in the right hands.

[SoulMonster]

Yes, the scope IS different. It is much more important to be critical of things that deserve criticism when you have a global audience than when just chatting with a friend or two. When the world is listening you can really make a difference. In addition, you have to be much more careful about what you say, because you risk offending many more than just your mates.

As for childish and racist jokes about Jews or anyone else: Lenny, I don't think anyone likes them.

Right...and this is exactly what I've been saying. Except for the last bit, cuz i love a racist joke...but they have a context. Like for instance I can tell a racist joke amongst my mates cuz i know and they know what level it's being told on and what level you take it on.

My whole point is that satrists with talent, satirists who deserve the title and are given a job whereby they are sort of the standard of satire in the modern world (as nationally recognised political satirists are, for their respective countries) it should rise a little further about the Viz magazine level.

Yes, I too want political satire to be as forceful as possible and to not just rely on drawing racist sterotypes for raising cheap giggles from the immature. If you want to offend you better make sure that the political component of the joke is in proportion to the level of offense you will be making, otherwise you end up just offending people without any merit to it, and offendign for offending really has little virtue. An ideal satirical joke should have an intelligent, controversial point dressed in humour and shock value.

Agreed although i dont think shock value or controversy are essential though they do have a great deal of merit as tools of satire, in the right hands.

That was just what I personally prefer in satire. What I am thinking is: If it is intelligent but not controversial, it becomes trivial and redundant. If is funny but not shocking it will not survive as long or spread as far.

[magisme]

Still think it's about free speech?

Notorious French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala has been arrested for being an “apologist for terrorism” after suggesting on Facebook that he sympathised with one of the Paris gunmen, a judicial source has said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman

It is a fine line. I think there is no easy way to go about this.

But Dieudonné being arrested doesn't come out of the blue. He's been controversial for at least a few years now, as an anti semitic comedian. Every couple of months he does something that makes the headlines here in Belgium. There's a picture of him with Mehdi Nemmouche's lawyers doing a quenelle, the reverse Hitler salute. (Nemmouche is the guy who allegedly murdered the people in the Jewish museum in Brussels last year.) Furthermore, Dieudonné has already been convicted for anti semitism.

Personally, I don't think he should be arrested, but what is exercising your right of freedom of speech and what is instigating hate?

The situation is so tense now that actions are taken that probably wouldn't have been taken otherwise.

Now it's a fine line? That's kind of my point, no? This thing was never about unfettered free speech. That was a convenient platform for self righteous dolts. They'll throw you in jail if it's the wrong kind of free speech.

[SoulMonster]

Still think it's about free speech?

Notorious French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala has been arrested for being an “apologist for terrorism” after suggesting on Facebook that he sympathised with one of the Paris gunmen, a judicial source has said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman

It is a fine line. I think there is no easy way to go about this.

But Dieudonné being arrested doesn't come out of the blue. He's been controversial for at least a few years now, as an anti semitic comedian. Every couple of months he does something that makes the headlines here in Belgium. There's a picture of him with Mehdi Nemmouche's lawyers doing a quenelle, the reverse Hitler salute. (Nemmouche is the guy who allegedly murdered the people in the Jewish museum in Brussels last year.) Furthermore, Dieudonné has already been convicted for anti semitism.

Personally, I don't think he should be arrested, but what is exercising your right of freedom of speech and what is instigating hate?

The situation is so tense now that actions are taken that probably wouldn't have been taken otherwise.

Now it's a fine line? That's kind of my point, no? This thing was never about unfettered free speech. That was a convenient platform for self righteous dolts. They'll throw you in jail if it's the wrong kind of free speech.

It was and is about free speech to very many people, in addition to many other things. It might not be the angle you have chosen to take, which is fine. If this to you is more about the consequences of foreign policies, that's fine. But don't define what this is about for anyone else. And don't degrade everyone who has claimed that this case is also about free speech by implying that we support offensive satire targeted at muslims but not at jews. Whatever French government does has no implications on my opinions on free speech and its range.

Edited January 15, 2015 by SoulMonster

[magisme]

Well, since this speech "supporting terrorism" or whatever is the first to attract any legal action as no on ever threatened the magazine's legal right to publish offensive cartoons, then no it wasn't ever about free speech, regardless of how people wanted to twist it. Now with this guy, maybe now we can talk about free speech because, as required for a free speech issue to arise, someone's free speech actually has been threatened. Before? No. Not at all.

[Lio]

Well, since this speech "supporting terrorism" or whatever is the first to attract any legal action as no on ever threatened the magazine's legal right to publish offensive cartoons, then no it wasn't ever about free speech, regardless of how people wanted to twist it. Now with this guy, maybe now we can talk about free speech because, as required for a free speech issue to arise, someone's free speech actually has been threatened. Before? No. Not at all.

He wasn't the first actually. A drunk driver who caused an accident and yelled at the police that he wished there were more Kouachis and he hoped they would be next, got four years jail sentence. There have been five convictions, apparently, the drunk man being the worst.

I'm not in favour of this. To me, it is about free speech. But it's no easy matter, like no matter of freedom is.

[SoulMonster]

Well, since this speech "supporting terrorism" or whatever is the first to attract any legal action as no on ever threatened the magazine's legal right to publish offensive cartoons, then no it wasn't ever about free speech, regardless of how people wanted to twist it.

Right, it was never about the constitutional right to free speech being in any danger. You are right on that. But it was, to many of us, about terrorists trying to scare the media into not exercising their free speech to ridicule aspects of Islam that they (the terrorists) consider sacrosanct.

[magisme]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

Well, since this speech "supporting terrorism" or whatever is the first to attract any legal action as no on ever threatened the magazine's legal right to publish offensive cartoons, then no it wasn't ever about free speech, regardless of how people wanted to twist it. Now with this guy, maybe now we can talk about free speech because, as required for a free speech issue to arise, someone's free speech actually has been threatened. Before? No. Not at all.

He wasn't the first actually. A drunk driver who caused an accident and yelled at the police that he wished there were more Kouachis and he hoped they would be next, got four years jail sentence. There have been five convictions, apparently, the drunk man being the worst.

I'm not in favour of this. To me, it is about free speech. But it's no easy matter, like no matter of freedom is.

I think it is an easy matter legally speaking. Legally speaking, don't outlaw any fucking speech whatsoever. Simple as. Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

[SoulMonster]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

Ten journalists/cartoonists being gunned down is a rather new thing to us Europeans. That kind of "non-legal repercussions" is something I think we SHOULD be able to feel secure about.

[magisme]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

Ten journalists/cartoonists being gunned down is a rather new thing to us Europeans. That kind of "non-legal repercussions" is something I think we SHOULD be able to feel secure about.

Yes. That's why murder is illegal.

[SoulMonster]

Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

And no one has disagreed with you that there are some forms of free speech that are absolutely ethically and morally not only difficult but clearly despicable. We also see the negative implications of satirizing aspects of Islam that inevitaby will risk offending quite many people - we are not indifferent to their feelings - but we still feel that such criticisms serve an important purpose (when done correctly, something Len and I just talked about) and should not only be legally protected but also cherished and protected by anyone else who values the power of free speech, even when it happens to be offensive.

[netcat]

so what exactly did they incriminate to that Dieudonné guy? an FB status? i doubt there's a chapter in French criminal code about being the "apologist for terrorism". there is probably a chapter about "accomplice of terrorists", but obviously that's not the case...

[Lio]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

I think it is an easy matter legally speaking. Legally speaking, don't outlaw any fucking speech whatsoever. Simple as. Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

Even legally it isn't easy. Hate speech isn't allowed, that isn't legal. Negationism and racism aren't either. And don't say you've forgotten about our sexism law

[SoulMonster]

That's what bothers him! How Charlie Hebdo can make jokes about Muhammed but he can't compliment tits on the streets

[magisme]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

I think it is an easy matter legally speaking. Legally speaking, don't outlaw any fucking speech whatsoever. Simple as. Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

Even legally it isn't easy. Hate speech isn't allowed, that isn't legal. Negationism and racism aren't either. And don't say you've forgotten about our sexism law

I think it is easy legally. I just think a lot of your governments, and increasingly our government, have fucked it up. "Negationism"? What the fuck is that?

[Lio]

so what exactly did they incriminate to that Dieudonné guy? an FB status? i doubt there's a chapter in French criminal code about being the "apologist for terrorism". there is probably a chapter about "accomplice of terrorists", but obviously that's not the case...

There is a law on apology for terrorism. I don't know if the translation is very accurate though. It is a law trying to prevent groups from radicalizing.

[netcat]

. A drunk driver who caused an accident and yelled at the police that he wished there were more Kouachis and he hoped they would be next, got four years jail sentence. There have been five convictions, apparently, the drunk man being the worst.

but he probably got 4 years of jail for drunk driving, no?

[Lio]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

I think it is an easy matter legally speaking. Legally speaking, don't outlaw any fucking speech whatsoever. Simple as. Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

Even legally it isn't easy. Hate speech isn't allowed, that isn't legal. Negationism and racism aren't either. And don't say you've forgotten about our sexism law

I think it is easy legally. I just think a lot of your governments, and increasingly our government, have fucked it up. "Negationism"? What the fuck is that?

Saying the holocaust never happened. What is the word?

[magisme]

That's what bothers him! How Charlie Hebdo can make jokes about Muhammed but he can't compliment tits on the streets

Finally someone understands me.

[Lio]

. A drunk driver who caused an accident and yelled at the police that he wished there were more Kouachis and he hoped they would be next, got four years jail sentence. There have been five convictions, apparently, the drunk man being the worst.

but he probably got 4 years of jail for drunk driving, no?

Don't think so. He wouldn't get convicted in less than a week if it was only drunk driving.

[magisme]

You don't have a right to feel secure that there are no non-legal repercussions to your free speech. That has never been a thing.

I think it is an easy matter legally speaking. Legally speaking, don't outlaw any fucking speech whatsoever. Simple as. Ethically and morally speaking, you're right, it's no easy matter, just like Len and I have been saying the whole thread.

Even legally it isn't easy. Hate speech isn't allowed, that isn't legal. Negationism and racism aren't either. And don't say you've forgotten about our sexism law

I think it is easy legally. I just think a lot of your governments, and increasingly our government, have fucked it up. "Negationism"? What the fuck is that?

Saying the holocaust never happened. What is the word?

We call them Holocaust deniers. We protect that speech. You guys don't believe in the principle of free speech so much, so you don't.