The media that are not reproducing the cartoons now are media that were never going to reproduce them anyway. The media that are reproducing them now, as far as I know, were also not planning to reproduce them, before the attack. Charlie Hebdo’s own circulation is getting a massive, if presumably brief, bump.
There is no question that the attack is resulting in a colossal, many-times-over increase in the cartoons’ exposure–and of course the generation of some new ones.
It has also generated an international tide of feeling for the ideal of free expression, beyond the specific content of this one little magazine. So I’m not seeing the suppressive effect.
Well, as Hentor already pointed out, this discussion is about whether this was an attack on free speech, so you’re in agreeement with almost everyone here on that.
But I will also say that, as I just finished pointing out, it’s not “peripheral” at all. To radical Islamists, their religion defines their whole culture and society. Everything about the West is anathema to them, and everyone who criticizes Islam is an enemy and a threat.
What the various US and coalition interventions in the Middle East have done – especially the tragically misguided second Iraq war – is greatly increase the number of radical Islamists. But these events didn’t create them – they were always there, and they would have reacted with violence to any perceived “insult” against Islam no matter what. It’s not the Iraq war that causes these savages to stone and cut off the hands of their own people for various perceived offenses.
That may well be true, and I hope it is. What I had in mind when I said that is that I’ve seen at least some media engage in what seemed like lengthy sanctimonious rationalizations for why they were not going to publish the cartoon. I would think it would be a no-brainer to just go, “hey, look, this is what these idiots killed people over!”. There’s no doubt that there’s been some chilling effect, even if the overall effect has been the opposite. And it’s not necessarily cowardice on the part of some media, it seems to be a misguided effort to avoid what they see as “needlessly stirring up trouble”.
The main point being that of course the whole issue here is all about speech, and the freedom thereof.
Please clarify something. Are you saying that increasing the number of radical Islamists is not the same as creating them? Do you think these new recruits were somehow born to be radicals and would become so regardless of external events?
Of course not. All sorts of political ideologies have political cartoonists.
You can easily find cartoons in the U.S. pro-abortion, anti-abortion; pro-gun-control, anti-gun-control; on and on.
Should we go and blow up the offices of a newspaper in the U.S. because their cartoons appear to be justifying “cracking down” on our abortion rights or our rights to gun ownership?
How do you get from, “They’re saying awful things about us” to “We get to kill them?”
Yes, I was responding to the responses created by the original comment that the attackers of Charlie Hebdo, or perhaps just Muslims in general, were radicalized by America’s pointless war of aggression against Iraq. My point was that responding to the attack itself with violence was justified … Americans were using violence. If we Americans had dropped pamphlets instead of bombs, whole 'nother story. And of course, Charlie Hebdo did not use violence, and was French not American, so attacking them was totally unjustified.
I admit I could have been more thorough in my initial response.
It’s not the same as creating the ideology of radical Islam, which has existed for a very long time and has as its declared goal the destruction or Islamification of western society. “Increasing” the membership in a movement is not the same as “creating” the movement. I agree with you and many others that it was long predicted that the second Iraq war would have this counterproductive effect with no countervailing benefits, but the point I’m making is that the threat was always there. 9/11 is proof enough.
Bullshit. Clueless bullshit. Some young African descent Islamic men get shown a cartoon of Muhammad being mocked, they are outraged. Feel as though they have been mocked. That is the equivalent of Holocaust denial? Get fucking real.
Just to be clear… You are saying that you think Charlie Hebdo created the cartoons in order to gin up support for cracking down on Muslim immigrants/immigration?
I am saying that many of CH’s covers and cartoons could easily be interpreted as belittling and villainizing Islam and many young, dumb and full of stumthing kids could take it as a personal attack Much like some young Americans might take personal offense to a nation wide magazine cover featuring Uncle Sam getting sexed up by a cartoon Putin. Maybe some old people too.
I am saying it would be pretty easy to convince an angry man that CH’s motives were anti immigrant. I don’t know the minds of the authors.
OK, that’s really something different from what you appeared to be saying before. But I’m still unclear what point you’re trying to make. The attack on the cartoonists was an attack on free speech, by definition. How could it not be, even if the attackers may have had multiple motives?
Yeah, but you didn’t say the felt as if they were mocked. You said they may have thought the cartoonists were advocating cracking down on Muslim immigrants. Those are two different things, and the latter is out there in CT territory, even if it might rise to the level of Holocaust denial.
One is a tactic of the other. If you are making Muslims look bad, you make it easier to crack down on certain neighborhoods. Not really an unbelievable stretch. So you’re right that it doesn’t rise to Holocaust denial. That’s an idiotic comparison.