.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

It's all over the news.
Not going to publish any articles on here but anyone on this train I am sure is aware of what that child has now become.
A laughing stock.
Fuck you Charlie.

Wait is this related to the child who drowned and washed ashore ?

Some say it is a satirical jab at Europe's indifference to the plight of the refugees. I find that hard to believe given their history, however the alternative explanation is stunning.

Regardless of intent... the cartoon is of exceptional poor taste and indefensible.

Oh no no no no, absolute freedom of the press and free speech no matter how it affects people or a particular group. EVERYTHING is on table for these guys . Remember?

mickeyrat said:

Oh no no no no, absolute freedom of the press and free speech no matter how it affects people or a particular group. EVERYTHING is on table for these guys . Remember?

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure people were saying absolute freedom of the press as much as they were saying don't shoot people that offend you with classless cartoons.

A dead child is not comic or joke material under any circumstances and their recent depiction offends nearly everyone... but we don't kill them for producing it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Oh no no no no, absolute freedom of the press and free speech no matter how it affects people or a particular group. EVERYTHING is on table for these guys . Remember?

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure people were saying absolute freedom of the press as much as they were saying don't shoot people that offend you with classless cartoons.

A dead child is not comic or joke material under any circumstances and their recent depiction offends nearly everyone... but we don't kill them for producing it.

that was my takeaway back then. They were free to draw whatever they wished. My stance was it was offensive then and just because you CAN do/say something doesnt mean you should. That didnt seem to fly very well here with most.

So either they can say whatever the fuck they want or they cant.

The other argument is , the actaul picture was used in how many ways to do what? Oh yeah, highlight and shame europe into better action.

Guess what, its the same thing. VERY biting commentary on Europe and US too for that matter.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Oh no no no no, absolute freedom of the press and free speech no matter how it affects people or a particular group. EVERYTHING is on table for these guys . Remember?

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure people were saying absolute freedom of the press as much as they were saying don't shoot people that offend you with classless cartoons.

A dead child is not comic or joke material under any circumstances and their recent depiction offends nearly everyone... but we don't kill them for producing it.

that was my takeaway back then. They were free to draw whatever they wished. My stance was it was offensive then and just because you CAN do/say something doesnt mean you should. That didnt seem to fly very well here with most.

So either they can say whatever the fuck they want or they cant.

The other argument is , the actaul picture was used in how many ways to do what? Oh yeah, highlight and shame europe into better action.

Guess what, its the same thing. VERY biting commentary on Europe and US too for that matter.

So does your stance remain the same? And are you saying the cartoon has achieved its purpose?

my belief is that they shouldnt have done it then(nor been killed regardless) or now. There IS a line where just because you can doesnt mean you should.

Most here came to the defense of their absolute right to mock islam and whatever else they saw fit to target.

I find it offensive when the death of children is paraded around and used for political or whatever purpose.

But here on the train it was cool and right of them to go after islam and other religions. but now when they use a depiction of a widely disseminated image coupled with a scathing commentary on eurpoean respons, its suddenly wrong?

Were you as outraged at how often and widely the REAL picture was used?

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Oh no no no no, absolute freedom of the press and free speech no matter how it affects people or a particular group. EVERYTHING is on table for these guys . Remember?

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure people were saying absolute freedom of the press as much as they were saying don't shoot people that offend you with classless cartoons.

A dead child is not comic or joke material under any circumstances and their recent depiction offends nearly everyone... but we don't kill them for producing it.

that was my takeaway back then. They were free to draw whatever they wished. My stance was it was offensive then and just because you CAN do/say something doesnt mean you should. That didnt seem to fly very well here with most.

So either they can say whatever the fuck they want or they cant.

The other argument is , the actaul picture was used in how many ways to do what? Oh yeah, highlight and shame europe into better action.

Guess what, its the same thing. VERY biting commentary on Europe and US too for that matter.

So does your stance remain the same? And are you saying the cartoon has achieved its purpose?

my belief is that they shouldnt have done it then(nor been killed regardless) or now. There IS a line where just because you can doesnt mean you should.

Most here came to the defense of their absolute right to mock islam and whatever else they saw fit to target.

I find it offensive when the death of children is paraded around and used for political or whatever purpose.

But here on the train it was cool and right of them to go after islam and other religions. but now when they use a depiction of a widely disseminated image coupled with a scathing commentary on eurpoean respons, its suddenly wrong?

Were you as outraged at how often and widely the REAL picture was used?

I felt the real image was powerful and had the potential to spark changes in attitude and policy.

It's kind of like the video the wildlife defence organization released of the grizzly getting killed. People read of 800 grizzlies killed per year in BC, but I'm not so sure they stop to think exactly what that means until they see a bear in its worst moment.

They definitely cross lines. I find their depictions classless. I found this one particularly classless.

I agree with cal,We cannot have censorship no matter how distasteful.This is the by product of that freedom.
If offended people should not patronize the paper.Pretty Simple,or hit back with an op Ed piece.

I think this is mostly a biased writer/cartoonist who was part of the violence of the day of the shooting and probably is trying to push his predujices thru his work.Tasteless as it may be.

PJ_Soul said:

Bentleyspop said:

Charlie Hebdo Comes Under Fire for Publishing Controversial Refugee Cartoon | TIME
http://time.com/4035344/charlie-hebdo-kurdi-cartoon/

I support freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I have absolutely NO interest in criticizing this, and it really pisses me off that anyone else does.
PJfan, didn't you learn anything at all when Charlie Hebdo was murdered??

You wouldn't criticize it as being distasteful?

can't wait to see all the american celebrity I Am Charlie t shirts in the used bin.