# Charlie Hebdo cofounder blames slain editor for provoking attack **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 15, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937 "2015-01-15T22:16:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/21 "2015-01-16T00:13:45Z")
I don’t think Henri Roussel is suggesting Charlie or any publication has to tip toe around issues. Journalism can be aggressive without deliberately trying to offend. Its a fuzzy line that editors observe every day. Keeping that balance between aggressive and still fair journalism is difficult. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > So, Jesus in a bikini = not racist, but Mohamed in a bikini = racist. > > I just want to make sure I understand this definition of racism that you made up just now. Pictures of Jesus don’t upset Christians. You know that. They are in every church. Muslims forbid any any pictures of Mohammad. Insulting photos of Jesus would piss people off but nothing like it does Muslims to see any drawings of Mohammad . ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/22 "2015-01-16T00:18:45Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I don’t think Henri Roussel is suggesting Charlie or any publication has to tip toe around issues. Journalism can be aggressive without deliberately trying to offend. Its a fuzzy line that editors observe every day. Keeping that balance between aggressive and still fair journalism is difficult. > Pictures of Jesus don’t upset Christians. You know that. They are in every church. Muslims forbid any any pictures of Mohammad. > > Insulting photos of Jesus would piss people off but nothing like it does Muslims. What does any of that have to do with racism? ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/23 "2015-01-16T00:27:15Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I don’t think Henri Roussel is suggesting Charlie or any publication has to tip toe around issues. Journalism can be aggressive without deliberately trying to offend. Its a fuzzy line that editors observe every day. Keeping that balance between aggressive and still fair journalism is difficult. > Pictures of Jesus don’t upset Christians. You know that. They are in every church. Muslims forbid any any pictures of Mohammad. > > Insulting photos of Jesus would piss people off but nothing like it does Muslims to see any drawings of Mohammad . And any depiction of a human being, and even animals. At what point do we say I’m sorry but your beliefs are yours, and we’re not going to sculpt reality to your liking? I’ve got gigabytes of pics of my family, sheer blasphemy! ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/24 "2015-01-16T00:30:39Z")
Fine if it makes you happy the cartoons aren’t racist. You won the thread. Now, can we please get back on topic? A cofounder and writer for Charlie is saying the previous editor went too far. That they shouldn’t have just ignored the bombings. Thats a valid point he’s making. People have to learn from mistakes so they aren’t repeated. Charlie needs to adjust course. Get back on the right side of the ethical line. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/25 "2015-01-16T00:36:14Z")
Yes, let’s get back to the victim blaming. What a great thread you’ve started! ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/26 "2015-01-16T00:43:09Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Fine if it makes you happy the cartoons aren’t racist. You won the thread. > > Now, can we please get back on topic? A cofounder and writer for Charlie is saying the previous editor went too far. That they shouldn’t have just ignored the bombings. > > Thats a valid point he’s making. People have to learn from mistakes so they aren’t repeated. Charlie needs to adjust course. Get back on the right side of the ethical line. People on both sides of the “ethical line” shouldn’t be killed. Nazis marched in a Jewish suburb of Chicago and no one killed them, for example. The Klan still has marches, no one kills them. I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of Charlie Hebdo (from the little I’ve seen it’s not my cup of tea) but it isn’t as bad as the Klan or the Nazis, I can say that without a doubt. So, no, neither I, you, or terrorists get to be be the judge of what’s offensive and/or off limits. (to the extent they want to kill people) They are perfectly free to boycott, protest, object in a variety of ways. So, I disagree that “Charlie needs to adjust course.” ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/27 "2015-01-16T00:52:23Z")
Celebrating non-offensive free speech is real easy. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/28 "2015-01-16T01:05:32Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Fine if it makes you happy the cartoons aren’t racist. You won the thread. > > Now, can we please get back on topic? A cofounder and writer for Charlie is saying the previous editor went too far. That they shouldn’t have just ignored the bombings. > > Thats a valid point he’s making. People have to learn from mistakes so they aren’t repeated. Charlie needs to adjust course. Get back on the right side of the ethical line. But where do you draw the line when dealing with religious fundies? You can’t print a drawing of an animal? Anyone somewhere is offended by something, I guess I’m asking you where is the line? I agree with you many of the covers are trying to intentionally be offensive, I’m not even sure I support intentionally being offensive but do believe it should be legal 100%. But at what point do you say I don’t care what offends you? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/29 "2015-01-16T01:49:56Z")
Exercising your right to free speech when it is in the form of mocking violent screwheads takes nads. Mocking non-violent people is easy. One question, though. What is gained by mocking the violent screw-heads? ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/30 "2015-01-16T02:44:58Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > you must of -1 > [@aceplace57](#): > > attacking more than a billion muslim people is racist. They are a group just like asians, blacks, catholics or any other group. -1 ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/31 "2015-01-16T03:05:39Z")
> [@grude](#): > > But where do you draw the line when dealing with religious fundies? You can’t print a drawing of an animal? Anyone somewhere is offended by something, I guess I’m asking you where is the line? > > I agree with you many of the covers are trying to intentionally be offensive, I’m not even sure I support intentionally being offensive but do believe it should be legal 100%. > > But at what point do you say I don’t care what offends you? I’m not sure either. Every paper’s owners and editors have to define how they cover news and what they feel is tasteful and acceptable. For example, I really like the memorial cover Charlie did this week. [The prophet crying.](https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/707192-une-charlie-png-jpg.png) I think its an amazing drawing that symbolizes the grief felt all over the world. I’d like to think a lot of Muslims understands the intent of the drawing. Their grief at what happened is symbolized too. Of course the hard line fundamentalists aren’t happy. They never will be. It’s a real quagmire. What to publish. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/32 "2015-01-16T03:27:32Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > It’s a real quagmire. What to publish. Now it’s gone beyond cartoons and other drawings to words. The Oxford University Press has written guidelines that its authors should not include the words “pig” or “pork” in books for children, so that no one is offended. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html) ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/33 "2015-01-16T04:25:55Z")
The entire purpose of our 1st Amendment is to protect the “speech” that “goes too far.” Why would we need to protect someone who’s saying “have a nice day”? Nobody would think of stopping that speech, but to protect offensive speech is the entire point. If we are prevented from expressing an opinion that offends anyone, what’s left to protect? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/34 "2015-01-16T04:39:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Now it’s gone beyond cartoons and other drawings to words. > > The Oxford University Press has written guidelines that its authors should not include the words “pig” or “pork” in books for children, so that no one is offended. > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html) And sausage. They should go on and ban conch, beaver, bunny… ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/35 "2015-01-16T08:42:34Z")
It’s perfectly within your right to go up to the craziest motherfucker in the bar and call his girlfriend ugly. I wouldn’t recommend it though. ---
**Author:** ![JoseB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/joseb/32/1530_2.png) [@JoseB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoseB)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/36 "2015-01-16T09:16:57Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Now it’s gone beyond cartoons and other drawings to words. > > The Oxford University Press has written guidelines that its authors should not include the words “pig” or “pork” in books for children, so that no one is offended. > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html) Point of order – Those guidelines have been in place for many years already, and apply only to educational materials, mostly for the teaching of English as a foreign language. They were put in place because a single set of books is going to be used all over the world, and unfortunately, in that case, it will be necessary to adapt to the strictest set of rules (that is, the ones put in place by the Saudi Arabian government and other Gulf countries, which are a big chunk of the market for those books). I do not like this a bit, but I can understand OUP’s position there. The alternative would be to print different versions of their textbooks for different markets, and that might well be prohibitively expensive. Piece written by an OUP official: > **[No, we haven’t banned books on pigs – but sensitivity is key in global...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/books-pigs-global-publishing-oxford-university-press-children)** > > Jane Harley: At Oxford University Press we have to balance children’s cultural and learning needs, while retaining some healthy common sense I have to say that she should have come clean and said, clearly, that the reasons for this are not educational, but purely monetary. That is the bottom line after all. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/37 "2015-01-16T12:02:23Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I think Henri Roussell’s point is valid. As cofounder of Charlie he understands the right to publish satire. He’s written it much of his life. He’s reminding everyone that there’s always a line that shouldn’t be crossed. > > Reading between the lines. Do you get the impression Henri Roussell had this discussion with editor Stéphane Charbonnier? He probably warned Charbonnier to be more responsible after the bombing. It was clear even then that innocent lives were being put in danger. CH did nothing that put innocent lives in danger. It is evidence of how successful the Islamists have been in shifting the debate on free speech that you conclude CH brought the massacre on itself. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/38 "2015-01-16T13:17:00Z")
I know I’m repeating myself, but > [@](#): > > CH did nothing that put innocent lives in danger. It is evidence of how successful the Islamists have been in shifting the debate on free speech that you conclude CH brought the massacre on itself. is an example of expecting the real world to conform to your ideal world. In the real world, you must recognize that there are people whose answer to mockery is violence. It may be morally wrong, or even insane, by your lights…but there they are and that’s what they do. Mocking such people carries risk of injury or death. It has always been this way. Look how many of the great satirists of the past published under false names for exactly that reason. As I noted earlier, mocking non-violent people is easy (and safe). Mocking violent screw-heads? Not so much. I’d still like to know, what does mocking the violent screw-heads accomplish such that it is worth risking their (morally wrong/insane) retaliations? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/39 "2015-01-16T13:32:28Z")
Just because a violent act (be it murder, rape, or anything else) is _unjustified_, that does not mean that it must also be _unanticipated_. The CH staffers getting murdered is tragic and outrageous but it is _not_ terribly surprising. And saying as much is not victim blaming. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937/40 "2015-01-16T13:32:49Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > In the real world, you must recognize that there are people whose answer to mockery is violence. It may be morally wrong, or even insane, by your lights…but there they are and that’s what they do. Mocking such people carries risk of injury or death. It has always been this way. Look how many of the great satirists of the past published under false names for exactly that reason. As I noted earlier, mocking non-violent people is easy (and safe). Mocking violent screw-heads? Not so much. I’d still like to know, what does mocking the violent screw-heads accomplish such that it is worth risking their (morally wrong/insane) retaliations? Appeasement and moral cowardice. The ridicule of someone’s beliefs is necessary if said beliefs are ridiculous and impact negatively on others. The tighter the restriction and the greater the threat, the more the ridicule is needed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-cofounder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack/709937.md?page=3)