Freedom of speech includes the freedom by small magazines to humiliate Muslims. If they are offended, they have the freedom to humiliate small magazines in return. Retaliating with violence is an attack on freedom of speech. Violence against one entity that humiliates Muslims is an attempt to silence all entities that might humiliate Muslims.
This. It’s not a form of attack any more than farting on a picture of the head of state is treason.
You keep using the word “vulgar” as if that explains something that we are missing.
Listen, if you think someone is printing something vulgar and you want them to stop doing that, so you kill some of the people involved, that is not only a physical attack but it’s also an attack on the free speech rights of not only those people, but also that magazine and EVERYONE else as well.
You seem to be implying that there was some justification for the act in the vulgarity of the content of the speech. The message there is that people should avoid being vulgar if they don’t want to die. I say fuck that shit. Fuck it in the ass with a giant dildo.
Silencing people for what they say is an assault on free speech.
Upon reading the title, I was prepared to enter this thread and agree with the OP, but I can see I misjudged it. It’s my understanding that CH was just a convenient target and the attack was motivated more by a desire to avenge the air strikes on ISIL as opposed to genuine outrage over cartoons. Of course, it needn’t be just one or the other, but it appears ISL is doing a bang-up job of recruiting and radicalizing youth around the world. These guys were probably radicalized before ISIL took it’s current form, but I’m not really seeing some great schism between aQ and ISIL-- rather a continuum of the same Islamist agenda.
I’m not seeing that; I take them at their word, that they were motivated by outrage to an insult against their prophet, which in their mind justifies violence.
"Hey you, your momma is so fat . . . "
smack
“Look at this guy, attacking free speech!!!”
I mean, that gets a little silly, doesn’t it?
They where radicalized after USA invaded Iraq.
And?
Understanding why somebody commits an atrocity is no excuse for that atrocity. Nor does understanding their reasons justify a terror attack on a publication.
And you still haven’t really shown how CH was engaging in a “vulgar war”, unless you are stretching “war” to mean “mom, he was looking funny at me!” in which case, people declare war on each other billions of times a day.
But the principle is the same. Silly or not, “yo mamma…” doesn’t justify violence any more than “yo prophet…”. Sticks and stones.
A “war” of words is free speech. It’s when one side escalates to violence that it becomes an attack on free speech. The OP is saying that some level of speech justifies violence, which is the antithesis of what “free speech” is supposed to mean.
Perhaps the OP can flesh out his idea of what “Free Speech” means, and where the trip point is to justify violence. So far, he has done nothing more than make an assertion. Being new to GD, perhaps he’s unfamiliar with how an actual debate works.
“Anyone who says that the prophet is a poopy head will be killed.”
Is that an attempt to curtail what people may say or not?
Whose fault is their radicalization?
You tell me
Let me guess: We are, because two wrongs make a right.
As George Clooney put it well a few weeks back, when we fight for free speech, we’re rarely defending a Thomas Jefferson or a Martin Luther King. Most of the time, the speech that needs defending is going to be vulgar, offensive stuff.
Nobody has to defend the right of WW2 vets to parade through a suburban street. It’s Neo-Nazi who need to have that right defended.
Respectable magazine like The New Republic don’t need tto be protected from deranged bombers. Trashy magazines like Charlie Hebdo do.
If freedom of speech only protects popular people and popular journals, what good is it?
You know who else defended Neo-Nazis?
I think the difference between these two situations and what happened in Paris was that it was clear that the intention was to make an example of Hebdo so that no others would follow his lead. If you call me fat and I punch you in the face, that is a heat of the moment altercation that is just between you and me. But if after you call me fat, I come back the next day, beat you up and declare that anyone else who calls me fat is going to get the same thing, then that would be an attack, albeit minor, on free speech.
No, both are an attack on free speech. One was an attack "in the heat of the moment’ and one was not. That does not change the nature of the attack wrt free speech.
Themselves. They chose violence. Many Muslims do not.
To be fair, I wonder if Scandic is from continental Europe. It seems to me that a lot of continental Europeans have a different view of free speech than the US. In that denying the Holocaust or engaging in racist public pronouncements are not considered freedom of speech at all and can and should be prosecuted. As an American, it doesn’t make much sense to me, but then again, folks from Germany, France, etc. tell me that the American tendency to allow “free speech” to groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist makes no sense to them.