I am NOT Charlie either.

[Jiffypop69]

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/

 

[Aardvark154]

As has been posted before Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity offender and not merely regarding religion.

Was it my type of magazine - No. However, they have every right to print it, and I have every right to be offended by certain content and complain about it. What I do not have is the right to murder people for printing something which I find offensive.

Therefore oui, je suis Charlie!

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

As has been posted before Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity offender and not merely regarding religion.

Was it my type of magazine - No. However, they have every right to print it, and I have every right to be offended by certain content and complain about it. What I do not have is the right to murder people for printing something which I find offensive.

Therefore oui, je suis Charlie!

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.

 

[enoughisenough]

Considering they were satirizing the exact people that ended up killing them, how were they assholes? If anything this vindicates their work even further.

 

[Insidious Von]

Political satire and criticism is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.

Athens fell from being the predominant city state of Ancient Greece after Socrates drank his hemlock. Ancient Rome became a dictatorship after Marc Anthony had the remaining political buffos executed.

They serve a purpose.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Considering they were satirizing the exact people that ended up killing them, how were they assholes? If anything this vindicates their work even further.

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.

 

[Bobzilla]

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/

And exactly who is the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive?

To me, someone who holds all religion in contempt, it is not offensive. Even if I were to consider it offensive, or even disrespectful, how does killing someone equate to generating respect for Mohammed?

 

[mandrill]

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 ?

The Canadian Version: = "I apologize for being Charlie because they were really, really rude sometimes."

 

[Insidious Von]

Exactly Bobzilla!

 

[gfelover]

A little awareness of political satire as a democratic institution would go a long way in helping you understand it.

Amen....

 

[Jiffypop69]

And exactly who is the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive?

To me, someone who holds all religion in contempt, it is not offensive. Even if I were to consider it offensive, or even disrespectful, how does killing someone equate to generating respect for Mohammed?

Just to clear here...I'm just saying "I'm not Charlie"
I understand full well the power of free speech, the article merely demonstrates how it doesn't exist the way many people think, and that what happened in Paris is neither isolated, rare, or new in any way.
Do I think these writers, cartoonists at Hebdo deserve what they got ? Hell no ! It's extremely sad, and I have so much sympathy for these people, their friends, and family. It was tragic.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

And exactly who is the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive?

To me, someone who holds all religion in contempt, it is not offensive. Even if I were to consider it offensive, or even disrespectful, how does killing someone equate to generating respect for Mohammed?

I guess the person being offended would decide what offends them. To some that is political or religious contempt or to some that would fat shaming or man hating feminist bullshit.


However, how does not agreeing with purposely being offensive equate agreeing with them being killed? I don't see where that was written here. I don't agree with them being killed, I fully agree with freedom of speech. I don't agree with making the choice to purposely be offensive. I am not Charlie.

 

[ultistar]

#jesuisCharlie

 

[Jiffypop69]

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.

 

[pussyluver]

Perhaps I simplify things too much... However to me "I am Charlie" does not mean I am a fan of all their work and/ or agree with everything they have ever said - if that were the case and I were being honest I had never heard of the publication and therefor could 'not be charlie'.

Instead I believe it is just meant as a more generic term for I believe in free speech. In this way, I am Charlie. And, at the risk of being paternalistic and telling everyone what their beliefs are. Either you believe in free speech or you don't. I don't believe there is middle ground. Once you start deciding what is allowable free speech and what isn't, then you don't have free speech anymore.

In that way, I think we are all Charlie regardless of your opinion of the publication...

 

[Jiffypop69]

Perhaps I simplify things too much... However to me "I am Charlie" does not mean I am a fan of all their work and/ or agree with everything they have ever said - if that were the case and I were being honest I had never heard of the publication and therefor could 'not be charlie'.

Instead I believe it is just meant as a more generic term for I believe in free speech. In this way, I am Charlie. And, at the risk of being paternalistic and telling everyone what their beliefs are. Either you believe in free speech or you don't. I don't believe there is middle ground. Once you start deciding what is allowable free speech and what isn't, then you don't have free speech anymore.

In that way, I think we are all Charlie regardless of your opinion of the publication...

I think the problem (as this article points out) is that "I am Charlie" means that many publications feel it necessary to print the "offensive" cartoons not for context, but for content, and that for example you would never read an article in the NYT that reads "I hate Jews, and Here are the reasons why"
Another interesting article along the same lines
http://canadalandshow.com/article/i-am-not-charlie-hebdo

 

[SkyRider]

Free speech means one has to take the bad with the good. For example, I don't like Jon Stewart always mocking and making fun of people and events. I also don't like when Christians are made the brunt of jokes.

Keep this in mind. If not for free speech, Paul Craig Roberts would have to go to Iran or Russia to bash the U.S. Is that what we want?

 

[james t kirk]

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/

What doesn't offend Muslims?

They need to grow up.

Donc, Je suis Charlie aussi.

 

[1.8t]

If freedom of speech does not include the right to offend, what is the point of it?
When did being offended become something to justify murder?

 

[Moviefan-2]

...but showing solidarity with these cartoonists, and defending their right to be offensive seems a little...much?

I understand full well the power of free speech...

Jiffypop: I feel your thinking on this matter needs a bit of work.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, that you don't want your support for free speech to be interpreted as agreeing with the cartoonists' views.

But if you're not prepared to defend their "right to be offensive," you don't really understand free speech at all.

As conservative pundit Mark Steyn once said, anyone can defend Barney the Dinosaur's right to sing Sharing is Caring. The litmus test for believers in free speech is whether you are prepared to defend speech that is offensive and, in particular, that you disagree with.

The quote that is incorrectly attributed to Voltaire is the correct position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."