Censorship is absolutely necassary in any civilised society to protect the rights of the innocent and voiceless.

Resolute wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 3:39pm:


It might be nearer to the one which makes you feel better about Islam being ridiculed, but...no matter which way you want to go....it is abusive ridicule, hiding behind what the author deliberately draws as 'humour' to put scorn/derision or, if you like,  public hatred on something.  I've never been a fan.

Resolute wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:


Some people react better to being abused than others.  If I ask that you not abuse me, and you continue, then don't be surprised is I react badly in your direction.  That's a natural enough, human reaction.

Slaughtering people over a f'king cartoon is not just "reacting badly".

Your argument is rediculous.

satire
ˈsatʌɪə/Submit
noun
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
"the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time"
synonyms:      mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature; More
a play, novel, film, or other work which uses satire.
plural noun: satires
"a stinging satire on American politics"
synonyms:      parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit, take-off, squib, travesty; More
a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.
"a number of articles on Elizabethan satire"

Well there ya go, another definition.

Yep it sure seems to fit that satire is a form a abuse, no question there. The irony is that historically, Satire came about in response to abuses of power, namely by the church and/or state....

It was, in effect, the only come back the "commoners" had to play with. Perhaps it still is.

Now any satirist can pick any target they like, as is evidenced by the amount of satire available and the myriad targets presented. Sad but true.

To my mind all satire needs to be viewed on a case by case basis - and even then still not silenced.

A voice of dissent is a powerful foundation of democracy and freedom - a lone voice of dissent even.

To silence dissenters is to become fascists. To practice satire is most certainly an act to poke the bear as it were. Many satirists though, do so with good reason.

Let's face it, the terrorist situation of the modern world has demonstrably brought the worst out in people (other than the worst on display by terrorists I mean), however, there are also examples of the best too.

To my mind our media (or sham that purports to be media) needs a shake up. Not a ban, not censorship - there are very few examples of appropriate censorship after all, but a media shake up would not hurt. Give us all of the news in full, rather than the "coke" add snippets of cherry picked information designed to do nothing more than form public opinion. If it is soundbite news then it is no news at all.

If our politicians and religious leaders were not so contemptible, then satirist would not have so much material with which to play. Try just once not shooting the messenger eh?

Something like this seems to fit the bill.

Aussie wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:


I understand there is a risk that people will respond inappropriately Aussie. Further, to resort to violence (which we are all equally capable of) is to demonstrate a lack of capacity to argue the point.

Whilst that point though is valid, i.e. if I chose to verbally abuse (whether humorously or not) and, in response, someone decides punching me is an apt response, then likewise, that person need not whine when they get smacked back.... Violence begets violence after all. I might not advocate violence as an answer, but do not mistake that as an incapacity to respond. There in lieth the whole problem with addressing commentary and/or pictures with physical force, you just might bump up against someone who can use a bit of force back - then we have a "that escalated quickly" situation... The point in the end gets lost.

So, no I won't complain if someone goes to smack me, I will (hopefully) simply respond/react to minimise the risk to my person.

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:



what makes you think this is about Politicians????...

it isnt its about MADMEN with GUNS AND BOMBS...


if you asked two weeks ago should we shut down Charlie Hebdo I wouldnt have known what you were talking about......

now if you ask me.. should they stop offending these madmen...

I will say YES...I dont think a cartoon is worth 12 lives...and all the others that followed....

phem weve had many threads on here about abusive behavior and what to do about it.. banning is one of them.....please dont say this is different.. banning is banning is banning....

would you like to see banning .. banned on ozpol...???..because it only offends a few...

did Larrys cartoon offend you?.... did it amuse you? did it stop any terrorist act??....I havent seen much on this since it first aired....I thought it was revolting and served no purpose at all..