polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2015 at 9:49pm:
Karnal wrote on Jan 9
th, 2015 at 8:57pm:
The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.
Why on earth not? I think the distinction is extremely important - the ability to say "you have a right to publish it, but I don't think you should publish it" is just as important vis-a-vis freedom of speech IMO. Otherwise aren't you saying that accepting the right of people to publish things means you must therefore support them publishing it? What happened to my freedom to oppose? You then just become every bit as anti-freedom as the other end of the scale don't you?
Quote:If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.
All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition, even outrage, towards these images and call on the publisher to desist. And in a trully fair and free society, we should not merely accept muslim's rights to do this, but embrace it as a demonstration of freedom of speech functioning as it should - even if you are at the same time denouncing them as idiots. I happen to believe you can hold all of these views and be the perfect model of a freedom loving citizen. But FD seems to believe that these expressions represent a "chipping away at our freedoms"
Again, G, no one can persuade someone to self-censor without giving them good reasons why they should do so.
The Charlie audience is not Muslims per se, but the Charlie cover does refer to Muslims. It’s fair to expect respect to Muslims, but at first glance, I honestly can’t see how the cartoon we’ve seen here is at all offensive to Muslims.
As far as I know, this has never been explained to the editors (or at least debated in public). Last year, Charlie staff were issued death threats, and told, old boy style, to FO.
And this year, they were slaughtered in broad daylight.
A magazine is a dialogue with its readers, but a magazine like this is a dialogue on a range of debates. Sure, I can imagine situations where certain material should not be published, but there needs to be extremely detailed and compelling reasons why.
Publish the image of Muhammed or get killed is not a good reason, it’s just old boy schtick.
See below to get the general gist.