# The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not an attack of freedom of speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707 "2015-01-13T12:58:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/61 "2015-01-13T18:31:02Z")
Well, maybe we should talk about gun control and break out the second amendment stuff too then. After, American centric board and all. ---
**Author:** ![Scandic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Scandic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scandic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/62 "2015-01-13T18:43:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just guessing, probably from a Scandinavian country, but no European country I’m aware of allows citizens to kill each other over speech. If certain speech is illegal, then that is an issue for the legal authorities, and no one is going to be executed for it. Yes I am from Scandinavia and so says my profile. Is it not visible to other than me? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/63 "2015-01-13T18:46:37Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > Yes I am from Scandinavia and so says my profile. Is it not visible to other than me? We’d have to click on your name and then select “user profile”. So yeah, visible, but not without a little effort. If you’re a paid member, it shows right under join date in your post. ---
**Author:** ![Scandic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Scandic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scandic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/64 "2015-01-13T18:58:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think that the OP might not grasp the concept of metaphor. One might argue that Charlie Hebdo was waging a metaphorical war on Islam (one might also argue against that point, of course, especially given that CH seems to mock everyone equally, but bear with me here). But a metaphorical war isn’t the same thing as a literal war. A literal war is where you’re actually shooting at people, like what the terrorists did. If CH had been waging literal war against Islam, then it would be reasonable for Muslims to wage literal war right back at them. But responding to a merely metaphorical war with literal warfare is ludicrous. Perhaps I used a unsuitable word. A vicious campaign against Islam is perhaps more suitable description. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/65 "2015-01-13T19:01:47Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > Perhaps I used a unsuitable word. A vicious campaign against Islam is perhaps more suitable description. It’s debatable whether it’s “vicious” or not, but let’s assume it is-- a vicious verbal campaign, to be clear. Can you explain how that justifies a violent response? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/66 "2015-01-13T19:11:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s debatable whether it’s “vicious” or not, but let’s assume it is-- a vicious verbal campaign, to be clear. Can you explain how that justifies a violent response? Did he ever say it justified a violent response? Because I’m not seeing that. ---
**Author:** ![Scandic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Scandic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scandic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/67 "2015-01-13T19:16:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Pre-invasion Iraq was in no way an Islamic state. There were Christians at the highest levels of government, and more freedom for women than most places there. The invasion was stupid and unjustified, but it was in no way an attack on Islam. Many could see it that way, especially after the rhetoric by Bush that included words like _crusade_ and _evil_. However, US can’t escape the mess they created in Iraq. A mass that led to many things, among those the radicalization of many muslims around the world. US also have some responsibility for the phony president (Malaki) that ruled Iraq after Saddam and the sectarian politic he led, especially after US troops left in 2011. Malaki marginalized the sunnis and made Isil a mass movement. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/68 "2015-01-13T19:30:53Z")
ISIL really blossomed in Syria which is harder to directly lay blame on America. The U.S. had them mostly neutered in Iraq before the pullout. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/69 "2015-01-13T19:37:27Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > Many could see it that way, especially after the rhetoric by Bush that included words like _crusade_ and _evil_. > > However, US can’t escape the mess they created in Iraq. A mass that led to many things, among those the radicalization of many muslims around the world. US also have some responsibility for the phony president (Malaki) that ruled Iraq after Saddam and the sectarian politic he led, especially after US troops left in 2011. Malaki marginalized the sunnis and made Isil a mass movement. You seem to be more interested in ranting about the US invasion of Iraq than in defending your own thesis. Should we ask a mod to move this to the Pit\*, or are you going to address the gaping holes that posters have been pointing out concerning your OP? \*FYI, the BBQ Pit (the Pit) is the forum for rants. GD, this forum, is for debates. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/70 "2015-01-13T19:41:28Z")
The OP is conveniently omitting the facts about how Islamic extremists vow to kill even their own if they: Don’t believe as told. Attempt to educate girls. Commit adultery. Are homosexual. Actually the list is seemingly endless. They believe there’s hundreds (thousands?) of reasons for capitol punishment among these radicals. They are at war with nearly everyone…not just CH. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/71 "2015-01-13T20:04:23Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > The OP is conveniently omitting the facts about how Islamic extremists vow to kill even their own if they: Don’t believe as told. > Attempt to educate girls. > Commit adultery. > Are homosexual. > Actually the list is seemingly endless. They believe there’s hundreds (thousands?) of reasons for capitol punishment among these radicals. They are at war with nearly everyone…not just CH. As muddles as the OP is, your response is not really on point. Yes, all those things are true, but so what? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/72 "2015-01-13T20:45:11Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > USA and several European countries are (and have been) military involved in several Muslim nations the last decade. Maybe this will be seen upon as an ideologically part of these wars. I’m thinking especially on USA’s and UK’s insane attack on Iraq in 2003. I’m not clear why you’re thinking about the invasion of Iraq in connection with the Charlie Hebdo attack, given that France did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/73 "2015-01-13T20:51:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I know. Was just pointing out that it’s kind of silly when we are talking about the children of African immigrants attacking a magazine in France to bring up a U.S. judge’s opinion about the Constitution. Except that’s not what that quote is about. Holmes isn’t talking about the Constitution, he’s talking about the principle of freedom of thought, which is a principle pretty much every Western democracy values. And Holmes is someone who is justly famous for his ideas about the role of freedom of thought in liberal democracies. While he was usually discussing the topic in the context of the US constitution, the principles underlying his ideas about the importance of freedom of thought (and by extension, speech) are universal - and the original quote is dead-on topic for this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/74 "2015-01-13T21:17:32Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > I see that a lot of you disagree, but it might be that these happenings aren’t a wide attack on freedom of speech, as many claim, but a rather limited attack The fact that the barbarians had limited resources and thus could not wage war as broadly as they desired is not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/75 "2015-01-13T21:36:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not clear why you’re thinking about the invasion of Iraq in connection with the Charlie Hebdo attack, given that France did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. [Really? This has been mentioned in the news quite a bit:](http://www.ibtimes.com/kouachi-brothers-radical-islam-began-long-charlie-hebdo-attack-1779080) > [@](#): > > After the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq, Cherif linked up with radical preacher Farid Benyettou and joined a ring of French Islamists who recruited fighters to send to Iraq. Kouachi’s association with the group was public knowledge, as evidenced by his appearance on French television in a 2004 documentary on French Muslims who were angered by Western intervention in the Middle East. By most accounts, Kouachi didn’t fit the mold of the average jihadi. The documentary portrayed him as a fan of rap music and attractive women, USA Today reports. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/76 "2015-01-13T21:54:04Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > Many could see it that way, especially after the rhetoric by Bush that included words like _crusade_ and _evil_. Are you conflating Islam and evil? Are you unaware of the stuff that Saddam did that is evil in pretty much anyone’s book? Bush was tone deaf, sure, but much as I despise the guy he is innocent of hatred of Islam. > [@](#): > > However, US can’t escape the mess they created in Iraq. A mass that led to many things, among those the radicalization of many muslims around the world. US also have some responsibility for the phony president (Malaki) that ruled Iraq after Saddam and the sectarian politic he led, especially after US troops left in 2011. Malaki marginalized the sunnis and made Isil a mass movement. One of the many reasons the invasion was stupid was that Saddam was stomping on Islamists without our assistance. Be that as it may, Iraq has nothing to do with the issue. 9/11 predated the invasion, for example. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/77 "2015-01-13T22:22:08Z")
> [@](#): > > As muddles as the OP is, your response is not really on point. Yes, all those things are true, but so what? The OP implies the killing at CH was rational. I’m pointing out that not only was it irrational, so many on the “must die” list of extremists are there for barbaric, irrational reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Scandic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Scandic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scandic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/78 "2015-01-13T22:33:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you conflating Islam and evil? Are you unaware of the stuff that Saddam did that is evil in pretty much anyone’s book? Bush was tone deaf, sure, but much as I despise the guy he is innocent of hatred of Islam. > One of the many reasons the invasion was stupid was that Saddam was stomping on Islamists without our assistance. Be that as it may, Iraq has nothing to do with the issue. 9/11 predated the invasion, for example. You fail to see, or won’t see this. The invasion led to the radicalization of many Muslims all over the world. After radicalized they have off course a lot of anger against USA, but also against elements they now see as an enemy of Islam. One of them would be press that’s very hostile towards Islam, even if it lays in a country that didn’t participated in the attack of Iraq. USA, UK, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Poland was part of the coalition that invaded Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/79 "2015-01-13T22:40:32Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > You fail to see, or won’t see this. The invasion led to the radicalization of many Muslims all over the world. After radicalized they have off course a lot of anger against USA, but also against elements they now see as an enemy of Islam. One of them would be press that’s very hostile towards Islam, even if it lays in a country that didn’t participated in the attack of Iraq. > > USA, UK, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Poland was part of the coalition that invaded Iraq. Whether this was true or not, it doesn’t change the fact that shooting people because of what they drew or wrote is an attack on free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707/80 "2015-01-13T22:48:39Z")
> [@Scandic](#): > > I see that a lot of you disagree, but it might be that these happenings aren’t a wide attack on freedom of speech, as many claim, but a rather limited attack on a small vulgar magazine that made it their goal to humiliate Muslims. Um… No? Charlie Hebdo did not “make it their goal to humiliate Muslims”. Their goal was to humiliate _everyone_. Every sacred cow, every “untouchable” institution, _everything_. They weren’t anti-muslim, they were anti-institution. However, when they published issues criticizing the pope, I think the most extreme reactions from Christians came in the form of “I don’t like that and I will say so publicly”. When they printed Mohammed, they got killed. > [@](#): > > USA and several European countries are (and have been) military involved in several Muslim nations the last decade. Maybe this will be seen upon as an ideologically part of these wars. I’m thinking especially on USA’s and UK’s insane attack on Iraq in 2003. The first cartoon controversy came in 2006, at a time when a bloody war was raging in Iraq, and not to mention the Abu Ghraib torture. The cartoon controversy in 2006 must be seen in this context. I think that Jyllands-posten was in fact aware of this, and that they did it in the same vulgar tradition as Charlie (both newspapers have a pro-Israel stance). It’s easy enough to say “oh, this is just part of the war” (and wrong, as others have pointed out), but that’s not what’s going on here. These people aren’t lashing out because of the war. They’re lashing out because _they don’t want it to be legal to create images of the prophet_. That’s their higher goal in killing these people - “stop drawing our prophet”. The _entire purpose_ of this is to curtail free speech, to tell people “you can’t say that, you can’t draw that”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-was-not-an-attack-of-freedom-of-speech/709707.md?page=5)