Sorry to hear that, madmonk28. I hope everything is okay. We still live in Indonesia so I’m in a less severe version of the same situation - my husband has a meeting (not set up by him, of course) at the US Embassy today. Geez, who schedules meetings AT THE EMBASSY in the middle of all this? I don’t know if it has made the news or not, but there have been rock and Molotov-cocktail throwing protesters outside the Embassy here. The French are closing their schools and tightening security.
As to the free speech issue … with rights come responsibility. I don’t think the state should sanction Charlie Hebdo, but I as an individual roundly condemn their actions. Free speech should be used to contribute to intelligent debate, not to incite violence that may not only take the lives of innocent people but will simply engender hatred on all sides.
I suppose the Willie Horton and Swift Boat episodes represented free speech too, but not free speech at its finest, that’s for sure.
CairoCarol, if we aren’t careful, we will begin to have those who will try to choose for us *precisely *what is"intelligent debate" and what isn’t. And who is intelligent enough to have those debates. And what of those deemed not intelligent enough? Their speech will be free also…just less free. You see what I mean? We can’t start picking and choosing what parts of free speech we think is ok. This whole idea of inciting to violence shouldn’t be so hard. If someone says, “Hey! Let’s go out and kill! Are you with me??? Yeaaaahhh! We don’t have to take this!!!” that is a clear example of ‘inciting to violence’.
If someone says, “I will draw a picture of a “holy man” in a bad light. People who shouldn’t murder over this probably will”. To me, that is not an example of inciting violence. It seems like such a clear difference to me.
And I understand your point…you aren’t saying the Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t have the right to do it, but you condemn their actions. I just disagree. I think they not only have the right to do it, but sometimes, someone somewhere has a duty to do it.
This is intentionally throwing gas on the fire and people may die as a result which makes it incredibly irresponsible.
People can crow about free speech all they like. I myself love free speech and am a huge fan and agree completely that it needs to be protected and there is no better time to protect it than when someone is saying something you find offensive. That’s when it counts (because someone saying something you like and agree with will not get you fussed…saying “kittens are cute” is not a test of free speech rights).
That said you can support a person’s right to free speech and still find their speech to be the height of irresponsibility.
If you have a friend whose mother died, and you are at the funeral, is saying, “Well, she was a bitch anyway so good riddance!” appropriate? Sure you have every right to say it but that does not mean you chose the right time or forum to say it in. No amount of, “But it was my RIGHT to say that!” will save you from the censure you will receive from friends and family.
This is somewhat similar.
Yes, they absolutely have the right to say what they said. But they are well aware they are being inflammatory in an already charged situation. Literally pouring gas on a fire.
I support their right to free speech but what if their free speech gets someone else, someone totally unrelated to this, killed? Just shrug and say that is the price of freedom? I do not think so.
As for the Muslims going off their rocker over all this they certainly need to get a grip. They are behaving appallingly and are only reinforcing the worst images the world has of them as an unruly mob incapable of being adult or human enough to express themselves in any other way than violence. That said I doubt we will ever manage to bring them around to a more moderate reaction by rubbing their noses in it.
In the end this exercise of “free speech” makes everyone a loser and the world a worse place. The people putting this out still have a right to do what they did in my mind but they need to then accept the results of their actions which is people dying and the world being a worse place for their actions.
But people distinguish between types of free speech all the time. Not just inciting violence, but libel, hate speech, etc etc. And even in non-legal matters, I don’t see this slippery slope when it comes to defining ‘intelligent debate.’ It seems obvious to me that a crude cartoon such as this is not intelligent debate. It is as much intelligent debate as letting out a giant fart at a dinner party is witty banter.
Lastly, while I greatly admire your passion for free speech, but do you really think freedom of speech in the western world is in so much danger that we should feel duty-bound to grossly insult people?
Yeah, sometimes we better allow someone to grossly insult someone, or I do honestly believe we will be in trouble.
As for Wack-a-mole’s analogy,
Wack-a-mole, I think your analogy fails, and I’ll tell you why…
If I say, “She was a bitch anyway” at a funeral…and everyone in the room rebukes me…they would be correct. Because they have every right to find my words offensive at their funeral. I shouldn’t be in that funeral if I don’t like the woman. I shouldn’t go into their private gathering in order to give my opinion on her. If they rebuke me harshly, they have every right and I wouldn’t blame them.
But lets say for instance that I decided to just write a book about the bitch that died. I write it and I say, “You know that bitch Ms. Jones? She was a right bitch.” At that point, I have every right to write that book, and if you rebuke me for that, you just disagree with me…you don’t actually have the moral highground that you would if I had come into your private, agreed upon gathering.
So if the writers of the Charlie Hebdo go to a mosque and pass out their offensive writings, your analogy will work better.
ETA: And Autolycus, you have a point, there are all kinds of distinctions of free speech. And I hate the ‘slippery slope’ argument, so I shouldn’t have made it. I cringe though when I hear someone imply that ‘intelligent debate’ is more worthy of respect than other kinds of speech. Because you know…who gets to decide.
Due respect Miller, but I disagree. If the flag-burning, grenade-propelling extremists are not to be considered representative of their culture, then neither are we responsible for the complete idiots (like Nakoula Whatshisfuck and Pastor Gaystache) or the provocative satirists (like the Charlie Hebdo staff) in ours, regardless of what millions of ignorant people may believe.
If a Muslim I knew personally asked me my opinion, I’d tell him the video (based on the trailer, anyway) was a laughable piece of shit and I could understand why he’d be offended. I was offended on an aesthetic level, as I mentioned here. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon, inasmuch as I can make out and translate the blurry captions, is a satirical comment on reaction to the film. Funny? Not especially, and yes it’s a deliberate attempt to stir shit by a publication with a long history of shit-stirring. Does that mean that the rest of us need to bow and scrape, rend our garments and apologize for the terrible, terrible insult perpetrated on the whole of Islam by Our Guys? Fuck that shit.
Let’s leave reverence to the reverent. At most, we collectively owe a shoulder-shrug and an “eh, what are you gonna do.” I’m fine with that much.
You are twisting my words in a bizarre fashion. Saying I believe that rights come with responsibility doesn’t make me the fascist you imply that it does. I propose NO restrictions on free speech anywhere, whatsoever. People should be free to make dumb and extraordinarily offensive comments … even the ones that get innocent people killed, contribute nothing but hatred, and further the world’s inability to live together peacefully.
People are free to use their rights to further evil agendas. I’m sorry that they do so, and I’m sorry that you admire evil people. But if you think they are just fulfilling a “duty,” fine.
CairoCarol, nothing makes me sicker to my stomach than someone twisting words. So I honestly apologize that I have twisted your words. I didn’t meant to do that. My mistake.
So the people drawing the cartoon have a responsibility to contribute to intelligent debate, but the people throwing rocks and molotovs because of a cartoon don’t have a responsibility not to be violent dicks?
I agree that freedom of speech does come with responsibility, but shirking that responsibility doesn’t mean it’s kosher for me to burn your house down because I disagreed with your posts here.
And double for that. Just in this case I think it’s not particularly hard to decide.
Well-written and funny as usual, but I partially disagree. I think a shoulder-shrug is all they deserve, but if we all got what we deserved and only what we deserved, this would be a cold world indeed. While certainly kow-towing and boot-licking is not in order either, a simple apology is classy and called for in this instance.
Imagine Uncle Sam goes to a party and brings his Cousin Dipshit along with him. The party was going nice, but some prankster spiked the punch. Caused a big stir. The host had just gotten things settled down when Cousin Dipshit takes a big steaming dump in the very same punch bowl! While Uncle Sam personally would never even dream of doing something so shitty, would it not be appropriate for him to go over to the host and apologize? As in, “I’m so sorry for my nephew. He is a Dipshit.” I think it would be rude for him not to!
Maybe my time in Japan has changed how I view nationality and cultural ties, but I believe that even though we are certainly not represented as a whole by Hebro or that amateur movie douchenozzle, in so far as we are members of the same nation and/or cultural sphere, it is not out of line to go so far as to say, “Sorry. Sorry for that guy. He’s not what we stand for.”
…You know, on reflection, I think the statement “Leave reverence to the reverent” deeply bothers me, more than it’s simple application to this Islamic brewhaha. It is the difference between “Do unto others as they would do unto you,” and “Fucka me? Fucka you asshole!” Pardon if this sounds like soap-boxing, but I’d say the latter is the world we usually live in, and the former is the one we’d like to live in. Does that make sense?
But anyway, getting back to the main issue, while I understand the frustration brought upon by these violent, frothing extremists, if this incident causes us to stop being classy, then it’s a sad day for us as Americans, or civilized people for that matter.
I see your point and it is well taken but I think the analogy still works on one level.
My point is the context in which you say something.
You have free speech and can say what you like, when you like. That does not obviate the need to act appropriately in a given situation. If you are around your buddies at a bar you can swear like a sailor. If you are in a kindergarten class you should probably refrain from swearing. You need to consider the context you find yourself in when deciding what to say.
These people are publishing highly inflammatory articles in a climate where there is a real chance people will die as a result. Thing is, THEY are not the ones suffering the consequences of their speech. Others are.
I am all for saying what you want but not when others have to pay the ultimate price for your words.
Yeah! She said you almost said she was a nazi! She said you admired evil people!! Are you going to take that sitting down?! While raising some good points elsewhere, if graded for reading comprehension on your last post, CairoCarol would have scored between a blind mole-rat and a dyslexic brownie. C’mon, put up your dukes sister!
Oh I know how you would feel about it, were I to do something like that. I really had our conservative brethren in mind. I’m not used to the full throated defense of free speech rights coming so broadly from them. I hate to be cynical, but I admit that part of me worries that this is a function more of some effort to press an issue they think might hurt Obama, or the automatic oppositon to all things Muslim, rather than vigorous support of civil rights.
Let’s just take a hypothetical example. Suppose someone in the mid-east set fire to an American flag (I know, I know, it’s too far fetched) do you think that Americans would storm the embassy of the country that happened in and kill a couple of people before being forced back at gun point? Of course we will never know, because no one in the mid-east would ever do something like that because they have too much respect for the values of other people. If only the west was as respectful of other’s sensitivities as middle easterners are.
If someone twists another’s words, on purpose and with malice, it is usually quite evident to the audience. So it really isn’t something I bother arguing about…if I have been *perceived *to have twisted one’s words, or if I do so by mistake, I can simply offer a genuine apology, because I sure didn’t mean to do such a cheating, slimy thing.
But if you guys insist… CairoCarol’s mother is so fat that when she sits around the house, she really sits arrrounnndddd the house!