^^^^ Exactly!Once you start deciding what is allowable free speech and what isn't, then you don't have free speech anymore.
^^^^ Exactly!Once you start deciding what is allowable free speech and what isn't, then you don't have free speech anymore.
Oui, c'est ca, la verite et la realite, malheuresment. Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth. Also premiums on life insurance policies for political satarists just went way up!I think for an exercise we could look at the actions of 12 dentistry students here at Dalhousie, and decide we should either defend or empathize with them.
The point being, it's so much easier to defend hatred when you agree with it on some level.
I'm not saying that ANY of you are...but I've been hearing, and reading too much that leans that way.
Lol....Oui, c'est ca, la verite et la realite, malheuresment. Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth. Also premiums on life insurance policies for political satarists just went way up!
I agree 100% I have enjoyed political satire but there is a saying "the freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"That was this group, this time. However, as Aardvark154 said, they went after everyone equally. Religious or political. They purposely set out to be asses and cause offensive shit for their own personal amusement and enjoyed the giggles for years. The more people they offended, the happier they were. That is an asshole to me. Equally opportunity assholes, but assholes none the less.
Aardvark154 said offenders, but freedom of speech and all that jazz, I say assholes.
I agree 100% I have enjoyed political satire but there is a saying "the freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
It appears to me that their goal was not to make a political point but simply to offend as many people as possible.
Considering there are many places where people take offense at women walking down the street alone or having jobs, my worry isn't whether people get offended but rather whether that offense is a violation of their rights.I guess the person being offended would decide what offends them....
Don't worry, people who want justifications will always find one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuseFree speech also means we disclose what happened at Abu Ghraib so the terrorists can use that to justify killing us.
I am against all religious based satire. To me it's both insensitive and distasteful. To others it's downright offensive. But we still have to defend their rights to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't promote hatred or violence. That's why democracy works.A little balance.
I surely don't condone the massacre of 12 innocent people, but showing solidarity with these cartoonists, and defending their right to be offensive seems a little...much ?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
Agreed !I am against all religious based satire. To me it's both insensitive and distasteful. To others it's downright offensive. But we still have to defend their rights to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't promote hatred or violence. That's why democracy works.
I'm not so sure about that.Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth.
The terror attack was a clear attack against freedom of expression and it was meant to strike fear into anyone who dare oppose the Muslim extremist agenda. If you are focused more on the target than the message, you are adding a quiet vote of support to the message of the terrorist by justifying his cause. I remember a passage from my school years that still sticks:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Je Suis Charlie (AKA: Not Afraid)
They should be. People should be allowed to point out where religious edicts (or political figures) run counter to the rest of our societal values. And they are free to feel offended if that is what is needed for them to reflect on how their religion and their daily lives interact.Are the kind of Charlie cartoons showing nuns masturbating or
the pope wearing condom really nothing more than religious based
satire to the Catholics?....
All religions are like this, Catholics lost their minds when some moron put a cross in a jar of pee... FFSWhat doesn't offend Muslims?
They need to grow up.
Donc, Je suis Charlie aussi.
You don't have to throw anything in peoples faces. You would offend extremists just by bieng what you are. A liberated women. That would be all the justification they need to shoot up a school or a coffee shop or what ever target they choose.I fully support their right to freedom of speech, and I would never take away from what happened. It was wrong, but I am not Charlie. Just because I have the right to be an offensive bitch, doesn't mean I will use it to throw it in people's faces. I am against trolling on the internet and therefore in all forms of it. Charlie was a trolling offensive print media that I simply can not get behind. I will defend their right to be assholes, but I will not agree with their choice to be.