“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
― Stephen Fry
so true. I saw "God" on facebook recently wrote "being offended does not make you right".
I Will Grieve. I Will Laugh. But I Am Not Charlie.
by
Josh Healey
Thousands of people begin filling iconic Republique Square in Paris in a rally of defiance and sorrow, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2015. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
I am a satirical writer. On my good days, I find comedy in the contradictions of daily life, using humor to illuminate larger points about race, class, and the undeniable musical genius of Justin Bieber.
So when I heard about last week’s tragic murders at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, my first reaction was: Oh God, don't let this be real.
Don't let this disgusting, heartbreaking thing be real. And please don't let this inevitable tragic backlash to Charlie Hebdo be real either.
Which led to my second reaction: Wait. Who the hell is Charlie Hebdo?
As I saw many of my Facebook friends (and even more of my Facebook enemies) taking up the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, I wondered, Do we really know who we’re claiming solidarity with? Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? Or is this a situation not of righteous heroes and evil enemies, but bad jokes and even worse policies?
Murder is murder. That line is clear. The attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were murder. We should all grieve the twelve people whose lives were stolen, as well as the four people who were taken hostage and killed at the kosher market. We should also stand against the Islamophobic reaction from Western governments and media, from old douchebags like Rupert Murdoch to young douchebags like Don Lemon.
The definition of murder is clear (to everyone outside of NYPD internal affairs, that is), but other terms are more malleable to political calculations. According to mainstream media, the mass killers in France are “Islamic terrorists,” while the American generals who order drone strikes on children in Pakistan are “heroes of war.” Printing anti-Muslim cartoons is “freedom of speech,” while Holocaust jokes are “unacceptable” to a civilized society.
To which I say, as a Jew: it just depends on the Holocaust joke.
And that gets to the heart of what makes Charlie Hebdo such a problematic hero. Since the attacks, the American media has taken to calling the French publication a “satirical” magazine. To Americans, satire is something that is fun and harmless that you watch at night on Comedy Central. Here’s the thing, though: Charlie Hebdo isn’t the French version of Jon Stewart. It is closer to the bastard lovechild of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes.
In a country (France) and an era (post-9/11) where Muslims face rampant discrimination and often violent exclusion, Charlie Hebdo's cheap shots at Islam added fuel to the racist fire. I understand the desire to make fun of organized religion in all its absurdities, but it's possible to do that without graphic cartoons of Muhammad being sodomized. That's not brilliant satire, that's pornographic hate speech. And I don't know about you, but I prefer my porn without violent hatred.
Of course, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve to be killed for their drawings. Not in a million years. But that doesn't mean that what they drew or published was worth defending in its own right. I love free speech as much as anyone, but I can separate the right of people to have free speech with my support for their actual speech. When the ACLU supported the right of neo-Nazis to march through the suburban shtetl of Skokie, IL, they didn't go around saying #IAmHitler.
Let's be fair: Charlie Hebdo isn't the graphic novel version of Mein Kampf. In fact, as much as some of my progressive friends don't want to admit it, it often leans politically more to the left than the right. The magazine ridicules fundamentalism in all forms, from the Pope to ultra-orthodox Jews. It was against the bombing of Gaza. This doesn't mean they're not bigots, it just means they're liberal bigots. (Something that we never have a problem with here in America. Right, Hollywood?)
While Charlie Hebdo mercilessly mocks others, it practices its own religion, a kind of "ultra-secularism" that I sometimes believe in myself. But as we’ve seen with Bill Maher, the problem with ultra-secularism, especially the so-called colorblind version, is that it believes that all targets are equally worthy of derision. And as Saladin Ahmed pointed out, "In a brutally unequal world, satire that mocks everyone equally ends up serving the powerful." (Note the countless presidents and dictators all rushing to march for free speech in Paris, then going home to suppress their own dissidents.)
From Lenny Bruce to Aaron McGruder, the number one rule of political comedy is to punch up. Make fun of the corporate billionaire who owns a golf course on each Hawaiian island -- not the chubby guy who has to work as a caddie just to pay the rent. That doesn’t mean that certain topics are off limits. It means that while in search of that big laugh, we should expose social divisions with the goal of empathy and solidarity -- not further division.
As the late great Molly Ivins said, “Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.”
Charlie Hebdo is cruel, vulgar, and what in their eyes would be the harshest criticism possible, just not funny. And as my uncle Jerry once told me: if it’s racist and it’s not funny, then it’s just racist.
So I will grieve. I will condemn the violence. I will push against the backlash. And I will fight and write and laugh in the hope that we can create a political world, an artistic world that is both principled and nuanced. And it precisely because of these principles and nuance that at the same time that I stand against the violence and the backlash, I also make it clear:
I am not #Charlie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Josh Healey is an award-winning writer, performer, and creative activist. He is currently the Culture Shift Director for Movement Generation, producing innovative shows, comedic videos, and creative interventions from the frontlines of the climate justice movement in the Bay Area and beyond.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I Will Grieve. I Will Laugh. But I Am Not Charlie.
by
Josh Healey
Thousands of people begin filling iconic Republique Square in Paris in a rally of defiance and sorrow, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2015. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
I am a satirical writer. On my good days, I find comedy in the contradictions of daily life, using humor to illuminate larger points about race, class, and the undeniable musical genius of Justin Bieber.
So when I heard about last week’s tragic murders at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, my first reaction was: Oh God, don't let this be real.
Don't let this disgusting, heartbreaking thing be real. And please don't let this inevitable tragic backlash to Charlie Hebdo be real either.
Which led to my second reaction: Wait. Who the hell is Charlie Hebdo?
As I saw many of my Facebook friends (and even more of my Facebook enemies) taking up the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, I wondered, Do we really know who we’re claiming solidarity with? Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? Or is this a situation not of righteous heroes and evil enemies, but bad jokes and even worse policies?
Murder is murder. That line is clear. The attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were murder. We should all grieve the twelve people whose lives were stolen, as well as the four people who were taken hostage and killed at the kosher market. We should also stand against the Islamophobic reaction from Western governments and media, from old douchebags like Rupert Murdoch to young douchebags like Don Lemon.
The definition of murder is clear (to everyone outside of NYPD internal affairs, that is), but other terms are more malleable to political calculations. According to mainstream media, the mass killers in France are “Islamic terrorists,” while the American generals who order drone strikes on children in Pakistan are “heroes of war.” Printing anti-Muslim cartoons is “freedom of speech,” while Holocaust jokes are “unacceptable” to a civilized society.
To which I say, as a Jew: it just depends on the Holocaust joke.
And that gets to the heart of what makes Charlie Hebdo such a problematic hero. Since the attacks, the American media has taken to calling the French publication a “satirical” magazine. To Americans, satire is something that is fun and harmless that you watch at night on Comedy Central. Here’s the thing, though: Charlie Hebdo isn’t the French version of Jon Stewart. It is closer to the bastard lovechild of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes.
In a country (France) and an era (post-9/11) where Muslims face rampant discrimination and often violent exclusion, Charlie Hebdo's cheap shots at Islam added fuel to the racist fire. I understand the desire to make fun of organized religion in all its absurdities, but it's possible to do that without graphic cartoons of Muhammad being sodomized. That's not brilliant satire, that's pornographic hate speech. And I don't know about you, but I prefer my porn without violent hatred.
Of course, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve to be killed for their drawings. Not in a million years. But that doesn't mean that what they drew or published was worth defending in its own right. I love free speech as much as anyone, but I can separate the right of people to have free speech with my support for their actual speech. When the ACLU supported the right of neo-Nazis to march through the suburban shtetl of Skokie, IL, they didn't go around saying #IAmHitler.
Let's be fair: Charlie Hebdo isn't the graphic novel version of Mein Kampf. In fact, as much as some of my progressive friends don't want to admit it, it often leans politically more to the left than the right. The magazine ridicules fundamentalism in all forms, from the Pope to ultra-orthodox Jews. It was against the bombing of Gaza. This doesn't mean they're not bigots, it just means they're liberal bigots. (Something that we never have a problem with here in America. Right, Hollywood?)
While Charlie Hebdo mercilessly mocks others, it practices its own religion, a kind of "ultra-secularism" that I sometimes believe in myself. But as we’ve seen with Bill Maher, the problem with ultra-secularism, especially the so-called colorblind version, is that it believes that all targets are equally worthy of derision. And as Saladin Ahmed pointed out, "In a brutally unequal world, satire that mocks everyone equally ends up serving the powerful." (Note the countless presidents and dictators all rushing to march for free speech in Paris, then going home to suppress their own dissidents.)
From Lenny Bruce to Aaron McGruder, the number one rule of political comedy is to punch up. Make fun of the corporate billionaire who owns a golf course on each Hawaiian island -- not the chubby guy who has to work as a caddie just to pay the rent. That doesn’t mean that certain topics are off limits. It means that while in search of that big laugh, we should expose social divisions with the goal of empathy and solidarity -- not further division.
As the late great Molly Ivins said, “Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.”
Charlie Hebdo is cruel, vulgar, and what in their eyes would be the harshest criticism possible, just not funny. And as my uncle Jerry once told me: if it’s racist and it’s not funny, then it’s just racist.
So I will grieve. I will condemn the violence. I will push against the backlash. And I will fight and write and laugh in the hope that we can create a political world, an artistic world that is both principled and nuanced. And it precisely because of these principles and nuance that at the same time that I stand against the violence and the backlash, I also make it clear:
I am not #Charlie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Josh Healey is an award-winning writer, performer, and creative activist. He is currently the Culture Shift Director for Movement Generation, producing innovative shows, comedic videos, and creative interventions from the frontlines of the climate justice movement in the Bay Area and beyond.
In response to this I give you
Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended
I understand that many are offended by Charlie Hebdo, and that its brand of "satire" may cross the line from comedy to insult. If this were a widely available publication here in the U.S. I doubt I would be reading it.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
I understand that many are offended by Charlie Hebdo, and that its brand of "satire" may cross the line from comedy to insult. If this were a widely available publication here in the U.S. I doubt I would be reading it.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
Some good points but I believe the author also made it clear that he did not think the Charlie Hebdo staff deserved what happened to them, nor did his feelings about the content of the articles change how he viewed the crimes. There's no need to view this as a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us".
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I understand that many are offended by Charlie Hebdo, and that its brand of "satire" may cross the line from comedy to insult. If this were a widely available publication here in the U.S. I doubt I would be reading it.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
Some good points but I believe the author also made it clear that he did not think the Charlie Hebdo staff deserved what happened to them, nor did his feelings about the content of the articles change how he viewed the crimes. There's no need to view this as a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I find the cartoons in poor taste as well, but going to such lengths to explain the motives of the killers- despite the qualifiers- has the effect of defending the actions to some degree.
I understand that many are offended by Charlie Hebdo, and that its brand of "satire" may cross the line from comedy to insult. If this were a widely available publication here in the U.S. I doubt I would be reading it.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
Some good points but I believe the author also made it clear that he did not think the Charlie Hebdo staff deserved what happened to them, nor did his feelings about the content of the articles change how he viewed the crimes. There's no need to view this as a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I find the cartoons in poor taste as well, but going to such lengths to explain the motives of the killers- despite the qualifiers- has the effect of defending the actions to some degree.
Or perhaps it's just a more nuanced view of a very complex global situation.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.
I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.
Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.
But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”
Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens (left). Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery (above, right), and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.
But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated – not just on free speech grounds but for their content. In a column entitled “The Blasphemy We Need,” The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat argued that “the right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order” and “that kind of blasphemy [that provokes violence] is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good.” New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait actually proclaimed that “one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice.” Vox’s Matt Yglesias had a much more nuanced view but nonetheless concluded that “to blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one, while the observation that the world would do well without such provocations becomes a form of appeasement.”
To comport with this new principle for how one shows solidarity with free speech rights and a vibrant free press, we’re publishing some blasphemous and otherwise offensive cartoons about religion and their adherents:
And here are some not-remotely-blasphemous-or-bigoted yet very pointed and relevant cartoons by the brilliantly provocative Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff (reprinted with permission):
continued...
Is it time for me to be celebrated for my brave and noble defense of free speech rights? Have I struck a potent blow for political liberty and demonstrated solidarity with free journalism by publishing blasphemous cartoons? If, as Salman Rushdie said, it’s vital that all religions be subjected to “fearless disrespect,” have I done my part to uphold western values?
When I first began to see these demands to publish these anti-Muslim cartoons, the cynic in me thought perhaps this was really just about sanctioning some types of offensive speech against some religions and their adherents, while shielding more favored groups. In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies.
So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons - not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.
Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.”
One should acknowledge a valid point contained within the Douthat/Chait/Yglesias argument: when media outlets refrain from publishing material out of fear (rather than a desire to avoid publishing gratuitously offensive material), as several of the west’s leading outlets admitted doing with these cartoons, that is genuinely troubling, an actual threat to a free press. But there are all kinds of pernicious taboos in the west that result in self-censorship or compelled suppression of political ideas, from prosecution and imprisonment to career destruction: why is violence by Muslims the most menacing one? (I’m not here talking about the question of whether media outlets should publish the cartoons because they’re newsworthy; my focus is on the demand they be published positively, with approval, as “solidarity”).
When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publish such depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.
With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.
To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech - fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?
Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.
The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.
That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles – including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.
This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.
I understand that many are offended by Charlie Hebdo, and that its brand of "satire" may cross the line from comedy to insult. If this were a widely available publication here in the U.S. I doubt I would be reading it.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
Some good points but I believe the author also made it clear that he did not think the Charlie Hebdo staff deserved what happened to them, nor did his feelings about the content of the articles change how he viewed the crimes. There's no need to view this as a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us".
Agreed, and that is not how I view it. I just think that there is an increasing whiff of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..." when it comes to potential justification for these killings in some circles.
why is it even turning into a case the defends the rights of cold blooded killers ?......and it's always the same group....OOOO did I just post that out loud, that wassn't politically correct was it.
why is it even turning into a case the defends the rights of cold blooded killers ?......and it's always the same group....OOOO did I just post that out loud, that wassn't politically correct was it.
Godfather.
Is it the only group that kills around the world or is it the only group the west does report about, because it fits perfectly in their political agenda?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I guess my stance as one who swore an oath to protect the constitution is that with these rights comes responsibility. And just because I CAN do/say anything doesn't mean I should.
What is the point trying to be made? Comes across as a bully to me. But in no way should have resulted in death. Having said that, these two/three exercised their speech. Soooo
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I guess my stance as one who swore an oath to protect the constitution is that with these rights comes responsibility. And just because I CAN do/say anything doesn't mean I should.
What is the point trying to be made? Comes across as a bully to me. But in no way should have resulted in death. Having said that, these two/three exercised their speech. Soooo
This sounds a little like victim blaming. Similar to "she was wearing a short skirt sooooo..."
And I don't understand the association you make that speech was being exercised by murder. Maybe I am misunderstanding that point.
I guess my stance as one who swore an oath to protect the constitution is that with these rights comes responsibility. And just because I CAN do/say anything doesn't mean I should.
What is the point trying to be made? Comes across as a bully to me. But in no way should have resulted in death. Having said that, these two/three exercised their speech. Soooo
This sounds a little like victim blaming. Similar to "she was wearing a short skirt sooooo..."
And I don't understand the association you make that speech was being exercised by murder. Maybe I am misunderstanding that point.
I was unclear on that as well but I don't think that was Mickeyrat's point. I think he was referring to the articles posted above as examples of free speech, not the killings in Paris.
not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
its all just a distraction by supporters to ease the attention towards the the shit bag group of people that did this...stop the media circus and wipe these fools out ! and that douch bag that claimmed repobsibilty for the attack should be ........well never mind. rant rant rant rant
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
I know. that wasn't my point at all. my point was, would everyone "be" charlie if the attacks were by a different group of extremists? or perpetuated on a different group?
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so true. I saw "God" on facebook recently wrote "being offended does not make you right".
www.headstonesband.com
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/13/i-will-grieve-i-will-laugh-i-am-not-charlie
I Will Grieve. I Will Laugh. But I Am Not Charlie.
by
Josh Healey
Thousands of people begin filling iconic Republique Square in Paris in a rally of defiance and sorrow, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2015. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
I am a satirical writer. On my good days, I find comedy in the contradictions of daily life, using humor to illuminate larger points about race, class, and the undeniable musical genius of Justin Bieber.
So when I heard about last week’s tragic murders at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, my first reaction was: Oh God, don't let this be real.
Don't let this disgusting, heartbreaking thing be real. And please don't let this inevitable tragic backlash to Charlie Hebdo be real either.
Which led to my second reaction: Wait. Who the hell is Charlie Hebdo?
As I saw many of my Facebook friends (and even more of my Facebook enemies) taking up the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, I wondered, Do we really know who we’re claiming solidarity with? Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? Or is this a situation not of righteous heroes and evil enemies, but bad jokes and even worse policies?
Murder is murder. That line is clear. The attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were murder. We should all grieve the twelve people whose lives were stolen, as well as the four people who were taken hostage and killed at the kosher market. We should also stand against the Islamophobic reaction from Western governments and media, from old douchebags like Rupert Murdoch to young douchebags like Don Lemon.
The definition of murder is clear (to everyone outside of NYPD internal affairs, that is), but other terms are more malleable to political calculations. According to mainstream media, the mass killers in France are “Islamic terrorists,” while the American generals who order drone strikes on children in Pakistan are “heroes of war.” Printing anti-Muslim cartoons is “freedom of speech,” while Holocaust jokes are “unacceptable” to a civilized society.
To which I say, as a Jew: it just depends on the Holocaust joke.
And that gets to the heart of what makes Charlie Hebdo such a problematic hero. Since the attacks, the American media has taken to calling the French publication a “satirical” magazine. To Americans, satire is something that is fun and harmless that you watch at night on Comedy Central. Here’s the thing, though: Charlie Hebdo isn’t the French version of Jon Stewart. It is closer to the bastard lovechild of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes.
In a country (France) and an era (post-9/11) where Muslims face rampant discrimination and often violent exclusion, Charlie Hebdo's cheap shots at Islam added fuel to the racist fire. I understand the desire to make fun of organized religion in all its absurdities, but it's possible to do that without graphic cartoons of Muhammad being sodomized. That's not brilliant satire, that's pornographic hate speech. And I don't know about you, but I prefer my porn without violent hatred.
Of course, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve to be killed for their drawings. Not in a million years. But that doesn't mean that what they drew or published was worth defending in its own right. I love free speech as much as anyone, but I can separate the right of people to have free speech with my support for their actual speech. When the ACLU supported the right of neo-Nazis to march through the suburban shtetl of Skokie, IL, they didn't go around saying #IAmHitler.
Let's be fair: Charlie Hebdo isn't the graphic novel version of Mein Kampf. In fact, as much as some of my progressive friends don't want to admit it, it often leans politically more to the left than the right. The magazine ridicules fundamentalism in all forms, from the Pope to ultra-orthodox Jews. It was against the bombing of Gaza. This doesn't mean they're not bigots, it just means they're liberal bigots. (Something that we never have a problem with here in America. Right, Hollywood?)
While Charlie Hebdo mercilessly mocks others, it practices its own religion, a kind of "ultra-secularism" that I sometimes believe in myself. But as we’ve seen with Bill Maher, the problem with ultra-secularism, especially the so-called colorblind version, is that it believes that all targets are equally worthy of derision. And as Saladin Ahmed pointed out, "In a brutally unequal world, satire that mocks everyone equally ends up serving the powerful." (Note the countless presidents and dictators all rushing to march for free speech in Paris, then going home to suppress their own dissidents.)
From Lenny Bruce to Aaron McGruder, the number one rule of political comedy is to punch up. Make fun of the corporate billionaire who owns a golf course on each Hawaiian island -- not the chubby guy who has to work as a caddie just to pay the rent. That doesn’t mean that certain topics are off limits. It means that while in search of that big laugh, we should expose social divisions with the goal of empathy and solidarity -- not further division.
As the late great Molly Ivins said, “Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.”
Charlie Hebdo is cruel, vulgar, and what in their eyes would be the harshest criticism possible, just not funny. And as my uncle Jerry once told me: if it’s racist and it’s not funny, then it’s just racist.
So I will grieve. I will condemn the violence. I will push against the backlash. And I will fight and write and laugh in the hope that we can create a political world, an artistic world that is both principled and nuanced. And it precisely because of these principles and nuance that at the same time that I stand against the violence and the backlash, I also make it clear:
I am not #Charlie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Josh Healey is an award-winning writer, performer, and creative activist. He is currently the Culture Shift Director for Movement Generation, producing innovative shows, comedic videos, and creative interventions from the frontlines of the climate justice movement in the Bay Area and beyond.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
In response to this I give you
Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html
It's too long to copy and paste here.
However, if the author's description of Hebdo as "the bastard love child of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes" is accurate, I would argue there should be a place for that love child in the world.
We don't have to like it or even respect it, and we are free to look down upon it. Limbaugh and Maher are great points of reference because so many of us often do look down upon them with disgust. They both often deserve it.
What they don't deserve, and what the staff at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve, is what happened in Paris. We should be able to stand in support of those who were so brutally murdered, and of the family and friends they left behind, without parsing each and every issue to determine whether we are 100% comfortable with the content. And if we do, finding that we aren't shouldn't change how we view these crimes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Some good points but I believe the author also made it clear that he did not think the Charlie Hebdo staff deserved what happened to them, nor did his feelings about the content of the articles change how he viewed the crimes. There's no need to view this as a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I find the cartoons in poor taste as well, but going to such lengths to explain the motives of the killers- despite the qualifiers- has the effect of defending the actions to some degree.
Or perhaps it's just a more nuanced view of a very complex global situation.
By Glenn Greenwald
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.
I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.
Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.
But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”
Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens (left). Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery (above, right), and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.
But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated – not just on free speech grounds but for their content. In a column entitled “The Blasphemy We Need,” The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat argued that “the right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order” and “that kind of blasphemy [that provokes violence] is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good.” New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait actually proclaimed that “one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice.” Vox’s Matt Yglesias had a much more nuanced view but nonetheless concluded that “to blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one, while the observation that the world would do well without such provocations becomes a form of appeasement.”
To comport with this new principle for how one shows solidarity with free speech rights and a vibrant free press, we’re publishing some blasphemous and otherwise offensive cartoons about religion and their adherents:
And here are some not-remotely-blasphemous-or-bigoted yet very pointed and relevant cartoons by the brilliantly provocative Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff (reprinted with permission):
continued...
Is it time for me to be celebrated for my brave and noble defense of free speech rights? Have I struck a potent blow for political liberty and demonstrated solidarity with free journalism by publishing blasphemous cartoons? If, as Salman Rushdie said, it’s vital that all religions be subjected to “fearless disrespect,” have I done my part to uphold western values?
When I first began to see these demands to publish these anti-Muslim cartoons, the cynic in me thought perhaps this was really just about sanctioning some types of offensive speech against some religions and their adherents, while shielding more favored groups. In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies.
So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons - not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.
Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.”
One should acknowledge a valid point contained within the Douthat/Chait/Yglesias argument: when media outlets refrain from publishing material out of fear (rather than a desire to avoid publishing gratuitously offensive material), as several of the west’s leading outlets admitted doing with these cartoons, that is genuinely troubling, an actual threat to a free press. But there are all kinds of pernicious taboos in the west that result in self-censorship or compelled suppression of political ideas, from prosecution and imprisonment to career destruction: why is violence by Muslims the most menacing one? (I’m not here talking about the question of whether media outlets should publish the cartoons because they’re newsworthy; my focus is on the demand they be published positively, with approval, as “solidarity”).
When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publish such depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.
With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.
To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech - fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?
Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.
The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.
That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles – including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.
This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.
Agreed, and that is not how I view it. I just think that there is an increasing whiff of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..." when it comes to potential justification for these killings in some circles.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Godfather.
Is it the only group that kills around the world or is it the only group the west does report about, because it fits perfectly in their political agenda?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
What is the point trying to be made? Comes across as a bully to me. But in no way should have resulted in death. Having said that, these two/three exercised their speech. Soooo
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This sounds a little like victim blaming. Similar to "she was wearing a short skirt sooooo..."
And I don't understand the association you make that speech was being exercised by murder. Maybe I am misunderstanding that point.
I was unclear on that as well but I don't think that was Mickeyrat's point. I think he was referring to the articles posted above as examples of free speech, not the killings in Paris.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
Don't like it? Don't read it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Godfather.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I know. that wasn't my point at all. my point was, would everyone "be" charlie if the attacks were by a different group of extremists? or perpetuated on a different group?
www.headstonesband.com
Godfather.