One does not require a “need” to express oneself. Religion is a cancer and this is one more sad example.
There is absolutely no ambiguity here; those who freak out over this are 100% in the wrong and people who draw the cartoons have nothing to apologize for.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that everyone is obliged to listen to what is said. Media organizations, universities, etc. have a right to invite or disinvite anyone they like. That doesn’t infringe anyone’s freedom of speech.
It’s actually pretty funny to watch right-wingers whining and moaning - loudly, publicly, freely, and at great length, to millions of people, on open media - about how their freedom of speech is being infringed because some people don’t want to listen to them. 
France is a secular nation and allows freedom of speech, especially concerning religion. But one man’s freedom is another heresy. Quite frankly, when all is said and done, Charlie Hebdo cartoons show both lamentable taste and the drawing skill of an adolescent, but that is no reason to kill anybody.
However, deliberately provoking one section of society is not a good idea. And that applies not only to France.
Anything that one does in public - from the way one dresses, speaks, consumes things (such as food or music) to the way one addresses other people, works with them, etc.) - may be regarded provocative by members of fundamental movements. Terrorists attack priests and helpless people in churches. They must be hunted down and imprisoned.
I’m sure they think it’s offensive. Indeed, the fact that they are offensive is entirely the point.
They just don’t think that’s a sufficient reason not to do it. And they’re right. (They’re also being assholes, but that’s their right too.)
The irony here is that when it comes to weaponized outrage, cancel culture and complaints about free speech, the American left are pikers compared to the American right. FoxNews, OANN, InfoWars, Rush Limbaugh - their enitre business model is weaponized outrage. The same people who claim that their views are being censored merely for being criticized demand that their critics be silenced. And the American right are also the ones who demand that anyone who doesn’t agree with them should “leave the country” and call for any individual in the media even daring to question their version of events to be ‘cancelled’ immediately (I mean, the amount of whining about “The View” I’ve seen beggars belief). And that’s not getting into the paroxysms of hatred caused by someone merely wishing them “Happy holidays”. But then the American right also have a long history of projecting their sins onto the American left.
Back on topic: yes, violent extremism of any kind - left, right, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc - is bad, and I condemn it entirely. I do question why some people only seem to focus on and condemn violent extremism in selected demographics when, sadly, there are violent extremists of all ilks, but I suppose motes and beams come in all ranges of visibility. .
“provoke” is a tricky concept though isn’t it? Charlie Hebdo are equal opportuniites offenders. They do exactly the same to anyone they think deserves it. Is the catholic church also one section of society that has been “deliberately provoked”?
Islam is not targetted specifically, it is only the reaction of some mulims that is notable by its viciousness and violence. Your words seem to suggest that Islam deserves special treatment. Why?
I think satire and ridicule of the powerful are not only a “good idea” I think they are absolutely necessary in a free society and any ideology that seeks to curtail it or avoid its fair share deserves to be the target even more. By their out-of-proportion outrage they prove why the concept is so critical. Their own reponse is ridiculous, ridicule should follow.
The teacher who was beheaded wasn’t trying to use provocative satire, but to conduct a debate on free speech in his class. He showed the images to explain what he was talking about. Some people decided to “punch up” and check his cranial-attachment privilege all the same.
The people at the church weren’t showing any images of Muhammad at all. They were just participating in a non-Muslim religion, which to the people willing to kill over such things is just as bad.
There’s no point in trying to compromise with or appease the type of people who are looking for an excuse to commit murder.
We all stand with you against these scary fantasy liberals. They’re not going to hurt you. You’re going to be okay.
Agreed that Charlie Hebdo attack everybody, and they have a right to do so under free speech. My point is that their artistic quality is truly puerile.
In no way am I implying that Muslims or any other group deserve special treatment. Far from it, in fact, IMHO, there is too much consideration given on religious grounds, and I would campaign for a truly secular society. You can believe what you want, but don’t assume that everybody else believes the same as you, or wants to.
The extremists who commit these actions in the name of Islam are not mainstream, that much is obvious, but IMHO Islam has a number of blind spots when it comes to tolerance and is hypersensitive to any attacks on it. Talking of Islam as a whole is a misnomer anyway, as it is not a centralized religion. AFAIK, the exception might by the Ismaili Shi’ites and the Aga Khan, but that group is not known for extremism.
I find the exaggerated response of radical Muslims to ridicule to be ridiculous in itself, but the problem is that here you are dealing with people with a total humor failure and an extremely narrow viewpoint.They are also the kind of people who take the Islamic concept of jihad beyond its original definition, which some sources contend is more a spiritual struggle than actual literal warfare.
“There’s no point in trying to compromise with or appease the type of people who are looking for an excuse to commit murder.”
Quite so.
When I was a teenager and spent Friday nights in downtown Chapel Hill, I developed a real hatred for the ubiquitous street preachers and their constant sermons about how all us nonbelievers were going to hell. I decided to make the experience as miserable for them as I could: I would recite the Lord’s Prayer backwards while holding a black candle and walking around them in a counterclockwise circle, or I’d organize other street punks to be fake-converted by them in outre performances, and the like. It was vicious fun.
Until one night, Butch, another guy I knew, asked if he could chat with me. The street preachers were awful, Butch agreed, and they should shut up. But Butch was also a Christian, just a quiet one. And my antics were pretty bothersome to him as well. He asked me to consider not only the effects of my behavior on the street preachers, but also its effects on quiet Christians.
Maybe being an asshole to street preachers was justified; but was it justified if it meant I was also being an asshole to people who were minding their own business?
Obviously the street preachers weren’t beheading me for my sacrilege. Obviously the murderous acts against Hebdo et al aren’t anywhere near justified by Hebdo’s asshole behavior. Obviously Hebdo’s asshole behavior is legally defensible.
But I think back to Butch’s quiet conversation wtih me, and his quiet request to consider how my actions affected religious people who WEREN’T acting like assholes.
And, I think that’s what the reasonable people who are offended by these depictions need to do. Convince the rest of France that these depictions are really beyond the pale to them, and different for them than negative depictions of Christians or the Pope are. Convince people that this is like the n-word to them or Jewish Holocaust jokes, not just a send-up of their spiritual leader.
If they can do that, then if a publication like Charlie Hebdo publishes those cartoons, they will get people turned off to them, boycott them and the places that carry the cartoons. Fight speech with speech.
So far, they haven’t done that; they haven’t convinced the general population that these cartoons are uniquely awful.
As I mentioned above, it took a long time but now the Confederate Flag is starting to take on that kind of reputation here in the US, just like calling people n-, or other racist names. It takes time and patience, but it can be done.
It’s OK If A Westerner Does It.
Contrast that with, say, Western reactions to Muslim depictions of Jews… nobody yelling about Freeze Peach then.
Criticizing the Hebdo cartoons is complicated by the murderous response to them. Most folks (in my Pollyannaish world) don’t want to be associated with murderers. And murder is such an obviously OTT response toa cartoon that folks are like, “I can’t even talk about how the cartoons are racist as long as the creators are getting murdered.”
Way I figure it, it’s okay to walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s okay to say, “Fight free speech with free speech, not with murder; but yeah, that’s some asshole free speech right there, and let’s stop being assholes also.”
That’s more-or-less my take, although I’m not a free speech fan, and prefer “Fight racist speech with anti-racism legislation, not murder”
My take? Fuck Mohammed, fuck Moe’s mother, fuck jesus, Mary, the pope, buddha, Zeus, Neptune, Casper, and the cat in the hat.
Grow up, people. If you want to play Let’s Believe, that’s fine, have at it. But keep it in the game.
nm, …
The funny thing is, that’s how I thought when I was a teenager, before I grew up 
.
Which is perfectly good- it should be something with a LOT of social opprobrium attached to it, like the Confederate Flag, KKK hoods, or whatever.
But at the end of the day, it should still be legal, and violence associated with trying to curtail or censor someone’s right to free speech should be cracked down on as hard as legally possible.
Yeah, no argument here.