SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked on January 7th:
The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports. [...] Kushner, in an email to The Times, said she was withdrawing from the May 5 PEN gala because she was uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo's "cultural intolerance" and promotion of "a kind of forced secular view." Those views, The Times added, were echoed by the other writers who pulled out of the event. Carey told The Times that PEN, in its decision, was going beyond its role of protecting freedom of expression." A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom-of-speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" he said in an email to the newspaper. Novelist Salman Rushdie, a past president of PEN who spent years in hiding because of a fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses, criticized the writers for pulling out, saying while Carey and Ondaatje were old friends of his, they are "horribly wrong."
Glenn Greenwald has written about the controversy over at The Intercept, which is hosting letters and comments written by Deborah Eisenberg and Teju Cole. Greenwald notes:
Though the core documents are lengthy, this argument is really worth following because it highlights how ideals of free speech, and the Charlie Hebdo attack itself, were crassly exploited by governments around the world to promote all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with free expression. Indeed, some of the most repressive regimes on the planet sent officials to participate in the Paris “Free Speech” rally, and France itself began almost immediately arresting and prosecuting people for expressing unpopular, verboten political viewpoints and then undertaking a series of official censorship acts, including the blocking of websites disliked by its government. The French government perpetrated these acts of censorship, and continues to do so, with almost no objections from those who flamboyantly paraded around as free speech fanatics during Charlie Hebdo Week.
From Deborah Eisenberg's letter to PEN's Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, March 26, 2015:
I can hardly be alone in considering Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that satirize Islam to be not merely tasteless and brainless but brainlessly reckless as well. To a Muslim population in France that is already embattled, marginalized, impoverished, and victimized, in large part a devout population that clings to its religion for support, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.
Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not. And yet the staff apparently considered the context of their satire and its wide-ranging potential consequences to be insignificant, or even an inducement to redouble their efforts – as if it were of paramount importance to demonstrate the right to smoke a cigarette by dropping your lit match into a dry forest.
It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible. The point of protecting all kinds of expression is that neither you nor I get to determine what attitudes are acceptable – to ensure that expression cannot be subordinated to powerful interests. But does that mean that courage in expression is to be measured by its offensiveness?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:14PM
I currently live in France, and have done so for over 7 years, and I am also a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo. I really cannot understand the problem here. CH satirizes all religions equally, as well as politicians, world figures, terrorists, rioters, sports personalities and anything else that is currently in the news. But in TFS they are only complaining about how it affects Muslims?
The Islamic Faith may be very special to those who follow it, but to everyone else it has no special status in the world. No one should be made to suffer because on their faith, but that does not mean that they have the right to dictate to everyone else how their faith should be treated. If your faith cannot withstand criticism, then it is time that you had a long and hard think about it, and decide whether it deserves to be a faith at all.
If you are easily offended then do not subscribe to Charlie, but to others including myself it presents plenty to amuse me while at the same time making me think quite deeply about many current issues - in fact, everything that satire is supposed to do.
Just my €0.02 worth...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:55PM
This is the best response on here. The correct response is bafflement and then education that CH is an equal opportunity satire shop.
What's going on, essentially, is that you actually see the breadth of CH's typical output. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, CH gets in the news basically exclusively regarding their Islam satires - usually the ones which depict Mohammed - plus the (absolutely insane) fallout from said drawings. That's it.
So when many people outside France see or hear about CH, we think that's essentially all they do. Because none of the rest of their stuff "newsworthy," or their other satire targets don't get so incensed they go and murder people over it, we're left seeing only these snapshots.
It says more about the target than about CH, in my humble opinion.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:02PM
Reminds me of the comedy central show South Park here in the states. Every so often they hit a hot button issue and a person or group gets all fired up because they are making fun of a person/group/religion. But for some reason many people don't realize they make fun of everyone equally.
The late Isaac Hayes left that show years ago because of their portrayal of Scientology. But he had no problem doing the voice of one of the characters prior to this when they were only satirizing Jews, Christians, Mormons, Islam... If you support free speech then support it. If you need to use "except" or "but" when describing your support, are you really in support of it?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:29PM
The Islamic Faith may be very special to those who follow it, but to everyone else it has no special status in the world.
Maybe it should, though. Like any other religion. This concept is called respect.
Maybe they should censor their Mohammed caricatures, as in put a black rectangle over the eyes? That would have actually make the drawings funnier and more critical, while at the same time not directly trampling on the feelings of a large part of their population.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cwix on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM
Do you really think that would temper their anger? I highly doubt that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:37PM
You only offer respect to someone just to temper her/his anger?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM
So if I am a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can I have a ban on all pictures, references and jokes that contain colanders?
Why is it only pictures of Mohammed that need black rectangles over the eyes? Why not depictions of the Pope, Christ, and Buddah also? All are frequently depicted in CH without a murmur being heard. So what can atheists or those that chose a more obscure faith ask to be censored or treated differently? Or does the restriction only apply to faiths that someone has agreed should be recognised. Is there a list somewhere of religions that must be 'respected' as opposed to those that have no such protection? Have the Muslims approved it? How about Druids, those who believe in the Norse Gods, or those that believe that the wind and sun should be worshipped? What about people who have never heard of a specific faith? Are they also guilty of not showing the appropriate respect?
I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing. You can celebrate it in groups if you desire, but it is something specific to an individual. As such, it should not, indeed ought not, to affect anyone else at all. Charlie Hebdo doesn't mock any specific religion for the sake of it - but it does question why a caring deity demands the heads of those who who wish to laugh, dance or educate both sexes equally. It does question the extent of Catholic influence in France. It does question why the death of a number of athletes in a multiple helicopter crash was even possible in the name of 'entertainment' when everyone else involved travelled safely by road. The camera crews travelled by bus and car, why did the athletes have to be flying fast and low to get to the same place? And it does question why one religion demands a level of respect that is not afforded to, nor expected by, any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:55PM
> I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing.
You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true for everybody. For many people, probably even a majority, their religion is part of their culture and culture is a shared experience defined by the community itself.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:34PM
It doesn't make my belief any less valid. There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture. Those cultures are free to follow whatever beliefs they wish, but they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion. This is the problem with the teachings of several popular religions - they specifically say that 'there is but one God, and you shall have no other Gods but Him'. The problem lies in deciding who 'He' actually is.
However, it is also said that one should never argue about religion, and so I'm off to my bed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:48PM
> It doesn't make my belief any less valid.
Sure, for you personally it does not. For everybody else who see the world differently it surely does.
> There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture.
Religion is not based on culture, it is part of culture. Just like music, politics, art, food, etc are all part of culture too.
> they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion.
That's a phrasing that will lead to a conclusion that misses the broader issue. Every culture has norms. The question is do you want to respect a culture's norms or not? How about when your culture is the 800lb gorilla and their culture is the 95lb weakling? I am of the opinion that the 800lb gorilla has a duty to the 95lb weakling to give him more leeway than he would another 800lb gorilla.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:34AM
How much murder does your leeway allow for?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:40AM
We aren't talking about murder. We are talking about disrespect.
Peculiar that you would go there though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:55AM
"We" includes more than just yourself as one AC and janrinok. There's Geotti and one more AC in the form of myself, which is at least three individuals any way you slice it.
I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect". Lack of respect is a far cry from murder and in no way justification for it. When you claimed to allow for more leeway for minorities, it interested me to know just how much murder your leeway would allow for. After all, what will "demands [soylentnews.org]" accomplish if they aren't backed up by a threat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:31AM
> I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect".
Then go reply to someone else who is talking about what you care about.
Your conflation of the two unrelated issues suggests agenda pushing rather than truth seeking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:09AM
I read something that appeared to be deceptive and had a chance to ask for clarification, so I did. The issues are of course related (even within this thread), because you are proposing that "more leeway" should be given to religious minorities. Within context of this thread and article, this suggests you are stating that murder is something that should be given leeway. I asked how much leeway/murder you considered appriopriate for repugnant speech.
So... how much do you consider to be appropriate?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:56PM
Well, there is a distinction between recognized religions and sects.
But I do understand your point, and I guess the only way to address it is on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it was a potential affront (i.e. blasphemy [wikipedia.org]) to a *lot* of people [wikipedia.org] (though many of those probably care little about satire).
Let's also not forget that in Christian history, blasphemy was punished as well until, well, not too long ago [wikipedia.org] and depictions of Christian holy characters was controversial [wikipedia.org] as well.
In the end, I'm sure dialogue can solve many issues and yet still there will always be fringe groups of fanatics.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:23PM
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:27PM
I agree with all that you say and yet, I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin. That's my belief, of course, but it's quite a good foundation to build a society upon as far as I see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:21AM
That is a phrase entirely hollow, without meaning. What rights? how far do they extend? Does everyone have the same rights? Does everyone have equality in those rights? Are all rights two-way or just some, or maybe none? Who decides the answers? Are there really any practical rights or only societal rights? Either way whence does rights come? Who decides that? and so on.
The phrase "I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin." is only indicative of a lack of overlap, which itself is wrong. Communal property, businesses, marriage assets, even free speech or the right to life. There are plenty of overlap for things generally agreed as being rights.
It is not just my belief, but my logical summation that any society of significant civility would have to begin with something at least rational. That sentiment is not.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:25PM
You call 1730 "not too long ago"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:14PM
As a matter of fact, in this context, I do. (My point being, give 'em some time, Muslim faith seems to develop at a faster rate, comparatively speaking.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:31AM
Would you provide some exposition on this?
I'm hard-pressed to even write a summary of a guess at your specific reasoning, as the logic for my abandoned draft post branched out almost exponentially regarding historical events, dates, times, and comparisons between both Christianity and Islam.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:04PM
Maybe it would be prudent to give the Muslim faith at least 610 years [wikipedia.org]
additionally, before comparing it to the modern Christian understanding?
Would you provide some exposition on this?
I'll provide my reasoning instead, though I'm unsure, whether you will accept this as a valid argument: if we take e.g. state secularism into account, and/or the tolerance towards other religions, I think they do develop at a faster rate, societally speaking. Just look at where Christian society was half a millennium ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:52PM
> Maybe it should, though. Like any other religion. This concept is called respect.
I am a strong supporter of these people withdrawing from the conference.
But I also think Hebdo has a right to do what they did, they just don't have a right to any respect for it. They gain respect for taking on the powerful, but they lose it for beating up on the disempowered and they especially lose respect for acting like the two are morally equivalent just because they have a superficial similarity of form.
> That would have actually make the drawings funnier and more critical, while at the same time not
> directly trampling on the feelings of a large part of their population.
The problem really isn't the technical depiction of Mo, its the shitting on the weak. Your "solution" would not go over any better, probably worse because it would be seen as even more insulting - just like you described.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:11PM
I'm not sure there is a solution for this, except through mutual understanding, which is probably nearly impossible to achieve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:01PM
Respect? Would you respect someone's religion if it was antisemitic and not only called for the genocide of that ethnicity but actually participates? Would you change your behavior to respect their religious right to commit war crimes?
If you have not gotten the hint, you are already defending those same people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:10PM
It is people like you who prove these people right about withdrawing.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:22PM
Would you care to explain to me how the war in demolition of Gaza in 2014 was not a genocide? Bitch please.
All you fanatics (regardless of religion) should take it out on each other on another planet and leave civilized people alone.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:20AM
Would you care to explain to me how the war in demolition of Gaza in 2014 was not a genocide?
And here we see the value of supporting free speech. It lets idiots reveal themselves to everyone else so well.
Genocide, I think this word does not mean what you think it means. To speak of genocide you really should be speaking of some violent act or series of acts that results in the death of a measurable percentage of a distinct People and the intent has to be the elimination of said People and not just a side effect of war, etc. So riddle me this, at what point has a measurable (and it really should be double digits to not pale in comparison to actual genocides) percentage of the population of Gaza been killed? And that is assuming you could refer to the population of Gaza as a 'People' and not just as a subset of pretty much the same Arab population in a hundred mile radius of that disputed territory. Unless you can first point out the first element of the crime, the killing part, we have no need to even laugh at your proposal of motive.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:11AM
It lets idiots reveal themselves to everyone else so well.
Great isn't it? I'll let it stand there and have you figure out yourself how you just did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM
Yeah, we should treat it as we treat Christianity. If Christians have to put up with this piece of art which was funded by the US government [wikipedia.org], then Muslims can put up with a drawing of their Prophet.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:15AM
Maybe then they should be the ones to decide?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:43AM
Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response for printing grossly offensive words on paper?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:46AM
[...] then Muslims can put up with a drawing of their Prophet. (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176334)
Maybe then they should be the ones to decide? (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176366)
Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response [...] (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176386)
You fail at reading comprehension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:35AM
Oh, really? Here's my editorialized version of the conversation flow; feel free to point out where my lack of comprehension fits in:
AC1 [soylentnews.org]: "Christians have to put up with 'Piss Christ', so Muslims can put up with drawings of Mohammed."
Geotti [soylentnews.org]: "Perhaps Muslims should decide for themselves what they should have to put up with?"
Myself [soylentnews.org]: "Just how should Muslims decide to 'not put up with' repugnant speech? In the case at hand, some Muslims murdered many people in and nearby Charlie Hebdo's office; is that something you see in any way as an acceptable way to 'not put up with' repugnant speech?"
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:17PM
You do, because a (predominantly) Christian society with a (mostly, if not 100%) Christian government decided that it's ok to do caricatures of their idols/symbols/legends/whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:11AM
Which Muslim society with a Muslim government is being discussed? France? Of course not. The murders at Charlie Hebdo weren't committed with government permission, nor is France's government Islamic.
My comprehension appears solid and my original question remains valid: Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response for printing grossly offensive words on paper? [soylentnews.org] I'll even give you a free "gimme" answer: Yes, but only within their own countries. Note that France is not such a country yet.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @11:34AM
No, the statement was that they should be the ones to decide, whether it's ok for depictions of their idols. And that's why you fail at reading comprehension, and I at communication, obviously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:39AM
I think I see a source of communication difficulty here: what is the logical conclusion of a group who decides to use government to enforce any given decision? The logical conclusion is that government then enforces the decisions with enforcers that ultimately rely on lethal violence to make the governed obey the government.
That's why I keep drawing parallels between government enforcement and murder, because even though "murder" is a loaded term indicating a crime, my premise is that a killing over speech alone is indeed a crime (or should be, in any country considering itself civilized and/or free).
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @02:49PM
my premise is that a killing over speech alone is indeed a crime
And I agree with that premise. In fact, I'd say killing is always a crime, unless, maybe (and only in some cases) euthanasia.
Regarding our discussion here, you're conflating two different things, the right of someone to express their opinion freely, with absolute disregard for others and the reaction to such an expression.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:24PM
My premise places those two concepts together ([1]unlimited speech and [2]killing over such speech) because the combination applies to both the topic of the SN article and this thread. Writers of repugnant speech (among others) were killed in response to the repugnant speech. The killings were wrong because no one can justify killing a human over mere speech alone; in a free society where the government has lawful authority only from the consent of the governed, neither can the government limit speech because such limits are ultimately imposed with lethal force. (Evil slavery-based governments, of course, can impose as many restrictions on their citizens as they like.)
Both concepts being conflated act as a rebuttal to your earlier question [soylentnews.org] because, particularly in the case at Charlie Hebdo, murder was the result of some Muslims deciding that they didn't want to put up with someone else's speech.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:17PM
The killings were wrong because no one can justify killing a human
You should have ended the sentence right there.
Both concepts being conflated act as a rebuttal to your earlier question because
I disagree. We're talking about different things here. (The majority of moderate) Muslims are the ones with the ultimate (moral) decision-authority about whether it's ok or not to do caricatures of their symbols. Whether the authors were killed or not has nothing to do with this statement. And if and when they decide that it's ok, any incident like this should be handled like any other murder (by fanatics).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:10PM
The morality of killing humans in circumstances beyond those involving speech is a side topic that will more than likely just distract from this discussion, so I won't reply to that point unless you insist. We seemed to agree that it is wrong to kill a human over matters of any sort of speech [soylentnews.org], so that should be the point of agreement to build upon.
Just how should Muslims go about enforcing such decisions [soylentnews.org]? What's an appropriate response by Muslim(s) who have decided that it's not okay to draw a picture of Mohummad's face, and a Frenchman draws just such a picture?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:02PM
What's an appropriate response [...]
I guess the appropriate response is to go to a court of law. And the enforcement does not have to be lethal, it can be incarceration or whatever else is seen as fair. Obviously, the parties to the conflict should go for a compromise (i.e. no death penalty, but no unsanctioned insults either), unless someone can come up with a win-win solution for this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:34PM
Leaving aside the matter of whether imprisonment is an acceptable response to speech, I'd already addressed your approach of using government to control speech, in a post linked in the first sentence of the paragraph containing my quote you used: this post [soylentnews.org] specifically points out the problem with government imposing restrictions on speech: all government enforcement is done with the threat of death.
Here's the quote again:
Now, you're free to advocate for speech controls in slave-based countries, or for a change of government away from freedom to slavery for the USA (granted, usurpers at all levels have already beaten you to the punch). I was shying away from focusing on the USA as an example, but after the recent event in Texas [soylentnews.org]...
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM
I included "And the enforcement does not have to be lethal" specifically in response to your "all government enforcement is done with the threat of death" statement (which, btw, is incorrect, it's the threat of just force, not death.)
But what would you suggest, if you don't want to include the government in the process? Obviously not "just let 'em sort it out themselves," since that will only lead to rifts and strife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:40PM
All government force rests upon the threat of death, to include the most trivial of fiat offenses: ignore a citation, receive a fine; ignore the fine, a court summons is issued; ignore the summons, an arrest warrant is issued; refuse to respond to enforcers with a warrant, and the enforcers will resort to violence; resist the initial violence, and the enforcers will use lethal force. That basic force continuum is true of crossing any government edict, from having a burned out tail light to committing murder. Free nations are those whose governments' just authority is derived from the consent of the governed. In a free nation, government can no more justly impose a penalty for speech than a random person on the street could; after all, that same random person is the source of a free government's authority [constitution.org]!
Thankfully, for Muslims who want to live in a slave nation under the rule of Islamic law, such countries and governments already exist. Saudi court gives death penalty to apostate ex-Muslim man [reuters.com]
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @10:10PM
I disagree. The government relies on force, not on deadly force. In your example you could as easily replace the killing part with "they taser (i.e. overwhelm) you and put you in jail".
So, what is your proposed solution to the CH dilemma, force the affected to just accept their fate without any recourse? I believe this would be unacceptable, so what would be a compromise if not court (ergo, government)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:30PM
I agree. What force is acceptable to use against the human source of even the most repugnant speech? Here's a thought experiment: if you and I were seated at a bar, and I took offense at your words, what would you agree to as a suitable level of force I should use against you for offending me via speech? After all, as I am wary of leaving unrepeated, the authority of a free nation's government is a mere derivative of the individual's.
Someone who takes offense at speech is not forced to do anything. Barring the rare mental or physical limitation, each human is personally responsible for his/her own actions. Someone who resorts to murder after taking offense from mere speech has made a choice to do so.
If a Muslim wishes to live under Islamic law and see those who insult Islam punished, there are existing Islamic-governed countries to emigrate to. If anyone resorts to force over another's speech in a free country, then depending on the amount of force used, that person has committed a crime ranging from battery to murder. (Or, as in the case in Texas, those who have made a choice to initiate force can be shot dead by the intended victims.)
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46PM
What force is acceptable to use against the human source of even the most repugnant speech?
If this speech incites violence, it should be handled according to law. At least in Germany, incitement is a crime punishable by law, and, IMHO, as long as this law is used as intended by the government, i.e. to defend the peace, law and order of this society here (I know, I know, but please, let's keep this can of worms' lid closed. Suggest another term, if you must.), it's totally ok. Of course, it's probably impossible to draw a line.
I base this opinion on the premise that it is necessary to voluntarily limit one's freedoms in order to enjoy the benefits of society (e.g. "we're not alone in the world, so respect others"). And that's what kids learn, when they grow up: that they can't do everything they want - or to put it in different words: that there are consequences for one's actions.
Someone who takes offense at speech is not forced to do anything.
What I meant to say was "what is your proposed solution to the CH dilemma, leave the affected to their fate?"
Someone who resorts to murder after taking offense from mere speech has made a choice to do so.
Agreed and condemned.
If a Muslim wishes to live under Islamic law and see those who insult Islam punished, there are existing Islamic-governed countries to emigrate to.
What if the center of life is e.g. France, and that's where he/she was born, grew up with etc.
So let's say that he is a true Frenchman (of Muslim faith) and just wishes this rule to be respected?
The only (accepted/legal) way would be to lobby such a non-discrimination/respect law through the legislature, and that's totally ok.
So the real question is whether it was incitement on the part of CH (and it was to an extent: since the caricature is satirical, it is provocative in nature.) and where to draw the line.
Maybe the solution is like with drugs/arms/anything dangerous: government puts some limits and protections, but ultimately you're responsible yourself if you take too much of the wrong substance, shoot yourself, or e.g. anger the wrong people too much. After all this is a free society and we don't want a nanny state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:46PM
"Incitement" is also against the law in the USA, thus neither it nor Germany are de facto free countries. I can't speak for Germany, but such laws in the USA are themselves legally inoperable [soylentnews.org]. A free country's government has no authority to limit speech in any way, because if I as an individual person do not have the right to assault or imprison you for even repugnant speech, neither can I delegate that authority to a government!
The concept of incitement does have grounding in practical reality ("people" as a group have a tendancy to act stupidly). Practical reality also shows that many people in a group will choose to drink themselves to death using alcohol, causing all manner of problems along the way to the grave. Attempting to address these things with the force of government in the USA produced Prohibition [wikipedia.org] , a disasterous trainwreck. In short, free people must be able to make stupid choices; else, they are not free people. Where such stupidity infringes on the property ownership of others (e.g. a victim's human body and/or other possessions), the authority of the victim can be delegated to a government for use in seeking justice rather than presenting the appearance of mere revenge.
The logical foundation of laws against "incitement" is that some people simply are not responsible for their own actions. This is an extremely demeaning and dehumanizing stance to take: "you just can't help yourself, so government is here to help you". Barring the rare mental or physical limitation, each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. Otherwise, such a non-responsible person could commit crimes of murder, robbery, assault, etc., and be completely unaccountable beyond that of the danger presented by what amounts to having a wild animal near other humans. Once discovered, such a non-responsible criminal cannot be trusted to roam free again, and thus needs to be either imprisoned for life (an expensive undertaking), or merely "put down" for pity or convenience.
Thus, by supporting the view that "incitement" is a crime, and that certain types of humans are not responsible for their own actions, the logical conclusion is that such non-responsible humans could be exterminated enmasse as a safety or convenience measure. In context, that appears to be an unprovoked massacre of Muslims! I cannot support that, and I am certain neither do you. The only alternative, then, is to treat each individual as being responsible for their own actions, thus rejecting the concept of incitement as a crime.
Yes.
This is not to say that the affected have no legitmate recourse left to them. Such recourse in a free country includes using "freedom of association" to disassociate from the speaker and supporters of repugnant speech. This freedom is used constantly: think of an off-putting person you might know, perhaps a loud-mouthed jerk. There is freedom to decline to invite that jerk to social gatherings; to refuse attendance to the same if the jerk is present; to boycott the jerk's business or to speak to the jerk's boss about how you as a customer feel about one of the boss' employees (e.g. the Adria Richards brouhaha [wordpress.com]); to refuse service to the jerk at your business; or to show direct support for others targetted by the jerk (e.g. Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day [wikipedia.org]); ultimately, to use tools of free people including speech to communicate to uninvolved listeners why they should also choose to have nothing to do with the jerk.
The above actions take a lot of work. However, that is the lot in life for free people, as the alternative is just one shade or another of literal slavery. Slaves can live very comfortable lives, as evidenced in many developed countries. Freedom has a cost, and part of that cost is the inability to do things the "easy way" by punching a stupid jerk in the face or outsourcing that initiation of violence to government enforcers.
In countries where governments rule by sheer force, that is a viable approach. I argue it is still an extremely dangerous approach, as it creates a new special class of people that can wield the violence of government against others. Such an approach is illegal - literally criminal - for governments of free nations who derive their authority by delegation from the governed. For example: if I cannot personally wield violence against you for disrespecting me, neither can I delegate the use of such violence to a government.
Such solutions are acceptable in nations ruled by governments with unlimited power (or self-limited power, ultimately the same thing). Such solutions are not legal in free nations, such as the USA. The fact that the USA has such laws on the books is just an example of illegal laws which have already been recognized as having no legal power; enforcement of such non-laws are done with the same authority as a mugger's: "do this, or I kill you". The mere existence of such "limits and protections" on "dangerous" things is what defines a nanny state.
The idea that some groups of people are better off not being free is not new. Entire books were written to propose the idea that American slaves were better off as chattel property [unc.edu], a view which I reject in whole.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:26PM
I partly agree with the first part of what you say. Some points, which were a thorn to my eye are:
The logical foundation of laws against "incitement" is that some people simply are not responsible for their own actions. [...] The only alternative, then, is to treat each individual as being responsible for their own actions, thus rejecting the concept of incitement as a crime.
While this seems to make sense, it is also necessary to consider that some people are well-versed in rhetorics, dramaturgy, NLP (and other "tricks"), and some of these people are (or can be) malicious in nature. Other people don't have the time/skill/will/etc. to pick apart statements by such "agents of chaos," however it would be unfair to say that they are fully responsible for being gullible in the face of professionals, who spend all their time perfecting their skills of manipulation. These people perform lots of useful functions in (or even form the backbone of) our society and their wishes can not be simply ignored. Thus, again, drawing the line is not a simple matter and there has to be a better solution than a categorical denial of their integrity.
if I cannot personally wield violence against you for disrespecting me, neither can I delegate the use of such violence to a government.
And yet, (and with all the moral dilemmas associated with it,) sometimes communities and societies may choose violence in certain circumstances. It is also a matter of historical practicability that we can decide as a people that certain rules should be followed or not, thus society > individual (in, probably, most cases) and can decide to e.g. banish someone [let's not resort to physical violence here].
The mere existence of such "limits and protections" on "dangerous" things is what defines a nanny state.
It should be noted that we are far from the peak of our development a a race. Contexts and circumstances keep changing and the codex of laws should adapt. Just as you don't give a child full autonomy from the get go, so it might be prudent to look for similar ways to let a population evolve.
While I don't know and have trouble coming up with specific proposals on handling above evolution, I believe it is safe to say that being categorical is often merely a compromise, but not a solution. We could, as a race, together, work towards finding acceptable norms, however. Maybe (and with the help of the internet), we could further the understanding of ourselves and this dialogue and a previously unprecedented scale and climb the evolutionary ladder. Maybe something like tangible karma, but with mechanisms in place for even the ones without merit to initiate change.
Less related to the previous, but possibly tangentially interesting:
Freedom has a cost, and part of that cost is the inability to do things the "easy way" by punching a stupid jerk in the face or outsourcing that initiation of violence to government enforcers.
On the other side of the spectrum, people who can't behave (i.e. respect others) are a bit akin to parasites, as they create internal tensions and strife, and maybe should be dealt with in some way?
Such recourse in a free country includes using "freedom of association" to disassociate from the speaker and supporters of repugnant speech.
Yes, but what to do about those, who abuse their position in society, by using mechanisms such as mass media (Mr. Murdoch, I'm looking at the likes of you) to mould public opinion in the way they see fit? What could a minority do about that?
PS: Thank you for the constructive and interesting discussion! We might even get somewhere :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:15PM
I suspect this is the crux of our disagreement. In most of the world today, government is the master of the people. (In point of fact, in all of the world today... it's just that for at least for the USA, such usurpation of mastership is literally criminal [soylentnews.org].)
I really like the idea of freedom, so please be understanding of my examples' zealous focus on the only free nation I'm aware of: the USA. The USA was brought into legal existence by the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly stated that its government "[derives] their just powers from the consent of the governed [constitution.org]". The first version of the USA was totally done away with by either the Articles of Confederation (1777-1781), or by the current version of the USA: the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention [wikipedia.org], by elected delegates sent by individual voters. Thus, an individual voter delegated his/her authority to a delegate, and the delegate in turn used his/her authority to create the Constitution. Thus, all authority in question being delegated, government's authority cannot exceed the authority of its original source: an individual human.
The practical application is that laws restricting speech in any way are unlawful to impose upon the USA, and any that have been passed by a legislature are in fact legally void and do not exist [soylentnews.org]. To wit, in the USA, the people are the masters of government, and the unalienable rights of the individual are greater than society!
That is essentially what I suggest as a response [soylentnews.org] to speakers and supporters of repugnant speech, except I use the term "disassociation" instead of banishment. (Banishment [reference.com] implies forcing the banished to leave a given area.) Banishment is perfectly acceptable for use on private property, of course. Freedom of speech does not give authority to a speaker to seize and use the property of others as a means to voice the speech; it merely prohibits government from restricting or punishing speech.
That raises questions that branch out into a huge area of philosophy on society and governance which ultimately faces the problem of "who watches the watchers? [wikipedia.org]" A person is either free, or they are not free; there is no "kind of free" middle ground. A free society keeps an eye on the jerks through the use of "freedom of association" and private societies. A modern-day analog to such private societies is the Underwriters Laboratories [wikipedia.org]. The UL basically tests toasters to make sure that it is highly improbable that a given type of toaster will blow up in the user's face. No toaster manufactuerer is forced to submit their product to UL for testing, but customers who know about the UL tend to highly prefer UL-approved products over others. The same principle can be applied to ethics, the private side of right-and-wrong where enforcement with violence of law is itself wrong.
In almost all cases, a listener to such speech makes a choice to listen. Such is the consequence of being a free person: you can choose to make stupid choices. Choices do have consequences, and if a man chooses to listen to enough neuro-linguistic programming [wikipedia.org] that he convinces himself that murder is okay, then he will likely face the consequences of his string of choices that ultimately began back at the choice to listen to hate-filled NLP. In fact, I am of the opinion that NLP and similar techniques are a major problem in the USA, particularly in the unlawful government-controlled school system.
(I, too, appreciate your thoughtful participation in this discussion. I hope that we can at least identify the foundation of our disagreement and the reasoning behind each position, if not come to actual agreement.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:14AM
What if someone decides the words you write are offensive? By your reckoning, should you not let them decide and you respond by ceasing to post?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:48AM
I don't usually actively go out and provoke someone, knowingly, about a sensitive topic, so I guess an excuse would be ok, but to answer your question, I'd log out and post as an AC ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:30PM
You actively go out and speak knowing that you will, inevitably, offend someone. The difference is minimal.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:05PM
You actively go out and speak knowing that you will, inevitably, offend someone. The difference is minimal.
Indeed; and yet, this is how our society operates. There is a difference between doing something on purpose and accidentally and I believe it is considerable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:33AM
That's only for convenience. The people being offended by your heinous words often don't care that you didn't intend to do so. If I weren't a supporter of free speech, I'd advocate having your arrested.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:01AM
I'd advocate having your arrested.
You'd be welcome to do so ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:43PM
> I am also a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo. I really cannot understand the problem here. CH satirizes all religions equally
That would be totally fine if all religions in France were even close to equal. But surely you know they are not. Hollande is a secular catholic, Sarkozy was catholic, Chirac was catholic, Mitterrand was catholic, etc. You see where I am going with this...
Its like a bully saying, "Why are you mad that I punch kindergärtners? I punch everybody equally hard."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:33PM
LMAO your analogy is fucked up.
To start with it should be why are all of the catholics punching me.
Second off kindergarteners implies youth, and a minority of people who cannot defend themselves. Muslims are no world minority. And they do not need anyone to defend them.
To fix your fucked up analogy:
Q: Why are all the people not in my religion punching me? A: Because you asked for it by threatening and killing them.
Follow up:
Q: How do I keep them from punching me? A: By getting the moderate muslims to get out there and speak up against the violence and threats from their conservative brethren.
If the moderates were out there in the streets calling for an end to the extremism then you would not hear near the amount of crap about their religion. Until the moderates are the loudest voice in their religion they just need to suck it up because the only thing westerners are hearing from muslims is that we are infidels and that we should all be killed. And I refuse to show any respect for anyone that either claims I should be killed, or would tolerate those in their own religion claiming that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM
> To start with it should be why are all of the catholics punching me.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with that. Are you claiming Hebdo are catholics?
> Muslims are no world minority.
In france they are especially marginalized. Consigned to 'banlieue' ghettos with little opportunity compare to the population in general.
> If the moderates were out there in the streets calling for an end to the extremism
The condemnation is a constant drumbeat. [muhajabah.com] It is you who aren't listening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:57PM
You did not read the parent post. He claimed that Muslims were being held back by the Catholic leadership in France.
Yes and Christians are marginalized in a number of countries.
I am listening. they are not talking loud enough. I see on the news thousands of them protesting the cartoons drawn by CH. then I watch the thousands of them celebrate the attack against CH. Yet I see no muslims out there defending others right to think what they want, and I do not see thousands in the streets condemning the actions of the extremists.
Muslims have a responsibility to clean up their own fucking religion. Until they do so, I refuse to show any respect for their religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:07PM
> You did not read the parent post. He claimed that Muslims were being held back by the Catholic leadership in France.
I wrote the parent post and I made no such claim. I said that in France not all religions are equal, I said nothing about one religion holding back another religion.
> I am listening. they are not talking loud enough. I see on the news thousands of them protesting the cartoons drawn by CH.
No you are only hearing what you want to hear. Yeah they are protesting the cartoons just like thousands of Americans thought "Freedom Fries" was good thing.
> Yet I see no muslims out there defending others right to think what they want,
I gave you links to literally thousands saying exactly that.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:21AM
CH satirizes all religions equally
I don't read Charlie, and I'd never even heard of it until this whole business. So I could be wrong, but it seems to me like they don't treat all religions equally - they don't hit Islam nearly as hard as Catholicism. Stuff like this [google.com] really puts the Mohammed cover in perspective.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:45AM