I’m not sure. While violence is never the proper response for verbal abuse, I could imaging the attack on the insulter was more because that through the insult, the insulter had indicated himself to be an enemy of the person being insulted, not so much an attempt to prevent the insulter from expressing his opinions to others, in fact they could just as well be alone. To put it in stark terms, if a guard yells calls “friend or foe?” at a check point and shoots anyone who answers “foe” that is not an attack on free speech.
Why don’t you give us your definition of “free speech”, then tell us why Charlie doesn’t qualify?
If the other guy is an enemy, as in they are fighting a war, then there is no issue of free speech between them. Soldiers fighting each other are not protected by free speech. If the guy is an “enemy” in the sense of “very unfriendly”, then the attack was on free speech.
Well, that’s a very good example of unprotected speech. Not all speech is protected, but “your mother is fat” is protected when the two blokes are citizens of the same country.
This guy is twittering from beyond the grave?
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.
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
NEWSFLASH: The entire world is not bound by the American Constitution!
I see your point but I don’t think it’s applicable in this situation.
If somebody calls me a motherfucker and I punch him, I’m not attacking his right to use the word motherfucker in general nor am I attacking the right for other people to call somebody a motherfucker.
But the group that attacked Charlie Hebdo was doing something more than just punching one person in the nose. They were making a organized and premeditated attack on a magazine that was publishing things the group didn’t like. This was an attack directed not just against one magazine but against all media.
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.
And speaking of insulting, there is anti-Semitic literature published all through the Arab world, much nastier than any cartoons. Do we get to blow the heads off the people responsible? I tend to want to let people say what they want but only limit what they do.
But his argument wasn’t that it was proper to kill someone over it. No one is saying it was proper to kill over it.
I’m pretty sure Duckster wasn’t saying the American Constitution enacts a legal right in France. His quote was making a point about the importance of protecting the principle of free speech.
Charlie Hebdo’s publishers had and have the right of free speech. The terrorists had no right to kill them.
They did, however, have the right to protest Charlie Hebdo’s publishings. They had the right to boycott their advertisers. The right of free speech does not include the right to get paid for it.
The ACLU?
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.
As I see it, focusing on “free speech” is missing the mark. People don’t become killers because someone insulted them. I don’t know how many times in the past week I’ve heard folks talk about “disillusioned” people getting radicalized. But I do know how often I’ve heard the question raised WHY those people are disillusioned: not once.
That was an attack on a culture that ostracizes and disadvantages immigrants from its former colonies, creating ghettos and socioeconomic problems not unlike those of blacks in the US. (Go ahead and exercise your free speech by publishing a caricature of an ape-y Martin Luther King Jr. in a tree with a banana). A magazine screaming in the faces of over a billion people, “My values trump your values; and fuck you if you disagree”, basically just settles the question WHERE to attack that culture.
No, that does not give anyone a right to kill. But if you want your values valued, you may want to try and make them valuable for everyone.
I’ve heard that talked about a fair bit myself but I am not looking at the American news coverage.
Correct. And since this is a US-centric board, the OP has chosen to air their comment within that context. Other countries have other laws, but the OP should realize the concept of free speech in the USA is different than other countries. The quote I offered illustrates where some of the US-based free speech may originate, and why many US-based Dopers would offer views consistent with this view.
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.
And we have a winner!! 