In the news

Interesting point of view

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Something of a strawman argument, isn't it? And anyone who thinks that 'Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do' obviously uses a different definition of the word 'racist' to the one I use.

Sorry, but your argument is starting to sound like that of an idealistic teenager who believes in absolute freedoms. The geopolitical reality of the situation is far more complex. Unbridled freedom of speech is all well and good, but it makes for fractious environment.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to suggest your idealism is born out of naivety, just that in an uncensored world nothing would ever get done, on the basis that consensus just isn't feasible.

I think only pro censorship advocates should be censored.

The consensus here seems to be a collusion between the un-PC (a term/concept I'm not keen on) notion of being able to portray Islam negatively in the name of satire (I don't care either way) and the very PC notion of total freedom of expression (which I like but I think is politically and socially dangerous).

50 years ago we'd all be expressing a very different point of view, just as in 50 years time people will be too. It's kind of subjective and we should maybe be a little less sure of ourselves, myself included.

Me waving pictures in your face from WW2 battlegrounds would be wrong, me handing you an envelope of the same pictures after telling you what they are is not. This is the same thing. It's horrible, but a horrible thing has happened and we can learn from it. Getting rid of the images benefits no one, giving people the choice to see them or not hurts no one who has not made the choice to view them. As for relatives of the dead it is the fact they are related to a recently deceased person that causes pain, not that people witness it. It is a sensitive issue and should be treated in a sensitive way, but that does not involve censoring it.

Wow, that was absolutely infuriating to read.

on closer inspection, it's becoming increasingly apparent that none of those cartoons are particularly funny. amusing possibly to the kind of people that own banksy coffee table books and have chairman mao throw cushions.

As for the cartoons, they should be allowed without fear of violence, but they were still shitty, wrong and pointless.

Don't kill other people, don't hurt other people, don't steal from other people.

Don't know why this seems to be so hard to get

http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-context-of-Charlie-Hebdos-cartoon-depicting-Boko-Haram-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens

It seems that cartoon is mocking people who say immigrants get pregnant to get benefits. I'm not French so the subtleties are a bit lost on me.

being able to portray Islam negatively

It's inherent misogyny and homophobia (among others) pretty much does it for itself.

It's not racist per se, but it is provocative. Islam forbids the depiction of Muhammad - Muslims are iconoclasts - so to simply draw the guy is an antagonistic act. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that it was done to wind Muslims up.

Some interpretations of Islam forbid it, as do some interpretations of other daft religions for their chosen celebrities.

#deep

Cos we squat deep ;)

Everyone can dig out an ancient text to do whatever they want.

In general terms you can. If you wanted to invade another country or stone someone to death for some arbitrary crime, you could probably find some religious writing somewhere that allows (or even encourages) it and use it as a pathetic attempt to excuse your violence. But this case is different I think. This wasn't an expression of a general desire to do violence, it was a specific act of revenge against a magazine that had published pictures of Muhammad. How would that desire to inflict revenge for a religious slight exist in the absence of religion?

They've slagged off every religion. Only religion encourages "thoughtcrimes" like blasphemy. Nowhere bar in religion can you get into trouble for "insulting" somebody's imagination.

Look at this guy wanting to use Irish blasphemy laws instead of guns:
http://www.thejournal.ie/dr-ali-selim-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-1870437-Jan2015/

It's victim blaming by degrees to say it was an antagonistic act. That's free society, people disagree, some are douchebags in our honest opinions (ow hai internet), but the reaction to it it ALWAYS yours.

Anything that encourages violence sucks. (including the racism that will now follow)

I'm not saying it's right; just saying that winding up Muslims is a bit like picking on the highly strung, angry weird kid at school. Pick on him if you like, but don't be surprised when he turns around and smacks you in the face.

its called freedom of expression - the (radical) muslims are allowed to say what they like about everything but when a publication lampoons them , they threaten with death and then carry out . the offending cartoons were shown in france but not here in uk in the press , i guess we are afraid ,and are therefor losing our freedom . there was some fleeting images from charlie hebdo on bbc last night but if you blinked you missed them . i noticed the independent covered a article on charlie hebdo january 2013 using a image cropped of the front page cartoon . the british media is afraid and thats not a good thing

They probably weren't shown here as they're shit and French. Also you shouldn't blame this on "the Muslims" it was a group of fuckheads who seemed to be Muslim and interpret their chosen book of fantasy stories in a way that leads them to shoot people.

Yeah, but The Muslims tho

I didn't say it was a good thing, just that we're all aware what buttons we're pressing and the consequences of doing so.

We can cut off our noses to spite our faces, or we can go in hard - it's not up to me, is it.

Worth bearing in the mind that a lot of this stems from imperial times, when we'd shift our allegiances with various Muslim warlords on a whim, making many enemies along the way. 'The Great Game' by Peter Hopkirk provides a good background to all of this. It shows that none of this very new, it's just happening on a grander scale now.

When can we invade Syria and kill the IS chaps?

Are you suggesting that publications across the globe should refrain from negative portrayals of Mohammed and Islam to avoid a 'smack in the face'?

I'm not suggesting anything.