Weekly print run of 3,000,000 for CHARLIE--usual run is 60,000

[Surya Gayatri]

CHARLIE VIT TOUJOURS !

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30786211

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

"Three million copies of Wednesday's edition (of CHARLIE HEBDO) are being printed. Normally only 60,000 are available each week.

Mr Malka told France Info radio: "We will not give in. The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme."

Survivors of the massacre have been working on the magazine from the offices of another French title, Liberation."

The original plan was for a run of 1 million this week. I guess 4 million French citizens in the streets made them reconsider.

So much for "avenging" the Prophet! (pbuh)

[NYC_SKP]

1. Good. Global Leaders had their photo op and left. But the conversation needs to continue.

Because they aren't likely to pursue it.

And by "it" I mean the question of what really motivated the attacks.

It wasn't the blaspheming, it wasn't the cartoons.

There's a far greater crime afoot, the crime of imperialism and exploitation, the one that CNN isn't covering.

A Hat Tip to our dear friend Nadin, who wrote:

...We at Reporting San Diego expect calls for censorship. Silence is consent. We are also aware that the people responsible for these horrific acts are a very small minority, or a minority. Western Governments, which includes the United States, have to figure out why young people feel so alienated from their society that they are willing to pick up arms.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/01/11/why-the-attack-on-free-speech/

And:

As a news producer, but also a news consumer I found it striking that Jim Bitterman gave a report to CNN-I that was pretty much what we knew at that moment. Yet, he went live to Atlanta a few seconds later and the reporting had quite a bit more speculation in it.

It was obvious they know their audiences. American audiences get a dumbed down product that is going to speculate even when the facts are not in. The international audience will not allow for that. One has to wonder if the penchant for conspiratorial thinking is partly fueled by CNN, and other media in the United States?

Of course the moment that was surreal was when they were self-critical. We are giving the terrorists what they want, coverage, and wall to wall-in fact. We might not want to do this, but we will be right back. It was a moment of did you even listen to what you just said?

Of course, when Senator Lindsey Graham told CNN that President Barack Obama was to blame, I had a moment of not having to set my watch. It was expected, and not challenged. The statement, on its face, is ridiculous, but at no time did anybody say, this is out of line.

Finally we have seen US Papers rethink their cartoon policy. Also many now refuse to run Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It seems the terrorists have won.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/01/12/a-commentary-on-us-coverage-of-charlie-hebdo/

NGU, DU.

[Desert805]

2. were these claims proven false?

[img][/img]

[Fred Sanders]

3. Do you have a point, because there is none there?

Get it off your chest, there is no censorship here at DU.

[Desert805]

5. Funny.

Heh. There isn't a government decree against certain types of posts, that is true, but they sure seem to go away anyway.

c'est la vie



The important thing to remember is that religion played ZERO PART in these attacks. Zero!

[Fred Sanders]

6. If you repeat the same thing enough times it becomes true and people will believe you.

[Desert805]

7. Religion played no part in this attack...

Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack... Religion played no part in this attack...


Just doing my part!

[NYC_SKP]

23. It played the part of being the public excuse for the attack.

And everybody is falling for it!

[Desert805]

24. Not you and I, my friend!

We're of the few thinkers.

[NYC_SKP]

26. We should get together for drinks some time.

Shoot some pool, discuss geopolitics and quarks.

[Desert805]

28. We'd probably have a good time.

And would agree on lots and lots, I'm sure. There's just some things that are too... out there... for me to embrace.


Like an evil corporation wielding French troops against French citizens in Paris, and falsely blaming non-violent Muslim extremists. The most popular form of Muslim extremism there is!


Cheers!

[cali]

106. you have no more idea what was in the heads of the attackers than anyone else

and you are certainly no more qualified to guess at their motives. In any case, whatever the crimes of western imperialism, the murderous little fucks who commit these crimes are responsible. No one forced them to murder people in cold blood.

[fadedrose]

62. You mean that religion played no part in this attack?

[Desert805]

64. Surely.

I read it right here on DU!

(apologies for calling you Shirley)

[fadedrose]

69. My apologies for not knowing

what the hell you are talking about. When did you do that?

Shirley is a nice name, so I don't mind. I like it better than Archie.

[Desert805]

70. "Surely" = "Shirley"

Sorry, dumb joke from a dumb movie

[fadedrose]

82. My first thought was that you meant "Surely"

but I figured you would have thought I had a tendency to imagine things....

Love,
Surely

[KMOD]

76. There are religious elements to the attack

The attack itself was not solely based on religion.

[Desert805]

8. Are you seriously asking folks to consider it was a "False Flag"

operation conducted by French Special Forces?

[NYC_SKP]

9. No, I think people are too gullible and will swallow the media promoted story.

Only a few of us critical thinkers are looking more deeply at these events, in the context of history and current events.

It's almost certain that it had a corporate mastermind.

[Desert805]

11. An evil "corporation" executed the Paris attacks

and had their French Special Forces pawns execute French citizens while shouting "God is great" in Arabic to blame Islamic Extremists?

Holy cow!



THIS IS GOING TO BE BIG NEWS!!1

[NYC_SKP]

12. In a shiny new Citroen, no less. Very "Mission Impossible", don't you think?

[Desert805]

15. Well, that proves it.

Lord knows there's no Citroen's in France, and if there are, there's no way any are black. Something is surely up, and you are close to exposing the truth!

I'll bookmark this thread to stay up to date on the latest revelations about the corporation and their French troops. As soon as the name is disclosed, I'll help spread the word.



I can't believe this corporation tried to pin it on Muslim Extremists. Duh-- there is no such thing!!! I bet it was Fiat...

[NYC_SKP]

17. And, it was BLACK! Now a Fiat 500 would have suggested Mafioso.

Donchaknow!

[Desert805]

18. So you find the idea of a False Flag as ridiculous as I do then?

That's a relief! I couldn't imagine otherwise...

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. The actual truth is difficult for some to swallow.

So they humiliate themselves and squander the last bits of their dignity and credibility trying to wrap their minds around what actually happened.

You are witnessing this now, so be a little kind.

[Desert805]

16. Oh, I am...

[NYC_SKP]

20. That's true. It's lies and propaganda that are easy to swallow. People literally bath in it.

It takes a bit more patience and research, a regard for history and for humankind, to begin to understand what's really happening.

It's rarely what CNN is telling you it is.

Or what's popular on DU, for that matter.

So, tell me, what's up with the negativity and insults, like this:

humiliate themselves and squander the last bits of their dignity and credibility

Is this what you're capable of, is this how you conduct yourself professionally and personally? Have I insulted you in similar fashion?

You have such a pleasant user name and avatar.

[Desert805]

29. It's too bad you deleted your link.

Not that I blame you. I'd sure have been tempted to try to erase that record.

But you could have just said, "my bad-- the story smells like bullshit upon further review."

[NYC_SKP]

30. If you edit, the link is still there to be seen.

Trust me, juries can be nasty.

Oberliner did me a service by checking it more thoroughly.

[Desert805]

31. Yeah, I see your point.

Cheers.

[840high]

54. You are a critical thinker?

[cali]

107. do elaborate. I want to hear from you great self-touting critical thinkers

[Warren Stupidity]

114. Saved for future reference after the inevitable self delete.

No, I think people are too gullible and will swallow the media promoted story.

Only a few of us critical thinkers are looking more deeply at these events, in the context of history and current events.

It's almost certain that it had a corporate mastermind

Stunning. You've gone from victim blaming to trutherism. What's next?

[Desert805]

115. The link he provided did very much

offer that the French were behind a false flag attack using active/ex special forces troops. I wasn't exaggerating.

Totally batshit theory.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. As far as I can tell this poster is determined to stake out one outrageous position

after another for the duration of the attention being directed to this tragic event.

[Desert805]

117. totally. eom

[oberliner]

21. That is one f-cked up website you are linking to there

Some of their other recent articles:

Nazi Jewish Settlers Poison 13 Sheep

David Duke Strikes Back

They have an entire subheading label of "Zio-Nazi"

[NYC_SKP]

22. I will self delete. I hadn't seen anything like that when I first checked. nt

[Desert805]

25. Suddenly, the French Special Forces didn't execute French citizens...

because your link is wackadoodle?

Sounds like you need a new link is all! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!!1

[NYC_SKP]

27. No. You will learn that juries will hide a reply for having a sketchy source.

I still have the source, the source is still out there.

[oberliner]

37. Don't you think that source is worth hiding?

You self-deleted, I thought, because you realized that site was not a good one.

[NYC_SKP]

39. I take your word for it. I'm guessing you're right, and I thank you.

I don't actually have it anymore. Just having fun with the X-files vibe that conspiracy type theories evoke.

It came up from a Google search of whatever they yelled and I didn't see anything sketchy from the first look.

But I have had replies hidden that had legitimate information but jurors thought that Fox news or whatever it was was offensive.

Not worth the risk and, as I said, if you thought it was trashy it probably was.

[oberliner]

40. Fair enough

I don't personally agree with your perceived take on this situation, but I certainly respect your right to hold and espouse your perspective. You definitely raise some interesting points to consider.

That being said, I found that site to be really awful. I'm sure you can find the link again and rummage around there and make your own determination. I'd be curious to know if you agreed.

[Desert805]

41. Maybe you should start an OP?

"I think an evil corporation directed French Special Forces to attack French citizens in Paris, but my source is too sketchy to link too."

Maybe we could crowd source the truth with the giant head start you've provided!

[cali]

108. critical thinking in action, I see.

Seriously, SKP., part of critical thinking is checking ones sources- and not an insignificant part either.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Not surprising.

nt

[840high]

53. No, they were not proven false.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Thanks for dropping by, see you next time, ta ta for now.

[Agschmid]

19. Yup.

[politicman]

32. heres a question for all those that refer to themselves Je suis Charlie...

To all those that celebrate and call themselves Charlie Hebdo under the banner of 'freedom of speech', I need to ask the following questions:

Is there any limit to what one should be allowed to say or write or publish?

If a white guy stood in the middle of the street and yelled the 'N' word at the top of his lungs, would you all stand in solidarity and support the white guy and his 'N' word as your way of supporting free speech?


Why can you not rally and support actual free speech without having to stand in solidarity and support of a disgustingly racist magazine like Charlie Hebdo?

[Desert805]

33. "disgustingly racist magazine like Charlie Hebdo"

You're so far off from the facts, that the rest of your question is rendered ridiculous.

Next.

[msongs]

34. so if you don't like it, it's can't be said? better to let the guy shout all he wants because

it shows who he is and he can be ridiculed and laughed at

[Desert805]

35. Ignorance is bliss

after all.

[politicman]

44. you didnt answer my question.

You didn't answer my questions.

Is there any limit to what can be said, written or published under the banner of free speech?

Is free speech a free for all, or are there limits on what can be said, written or published?


If in a crowded area, am I allowed to yell 'fire' under the banner of free speech, considering its only a word and words in and by themselves don't hurt anyone because people can just ignore me?

[Desert805]

45. I do not think there should be limits on political cartoons, no. Not ever.

And even if there were, in no case would I advocate for the death penalty. And if I did advocate for the death penalty for a cartoon, I wouldn't send an armed group of religious nutters into the middle of Paris to gun down anyone in sight, guilty cartoonist in the bunch or not.

Did you get your answer?

[politicman]

50. whats the difference between a political cartton and a KKK flyer making fuin of a black lynching?

No one is asking you to advocate the death penalty for a cartoon.

What I am asking is why can't you stand in solidarity with and support the concept of free speech instead of standing with and supporting Charlie Hebdo?
One can differentiate their support for free speech without having to support a magazine whose whole goal is to offend people.


For instance, I am certain that you would not stand in solidarity with and support the KKK if they were attacked for distributing flyers making fun of black people who have been lynched, am I right?

I am sure that you still would argue that the KKK people should not receive the death penalty simply for those flyers, that part you would be consistent on.
I am sure that you would still advocate the right of the KKK to distribute those flyers under the banner of free speech, again that part you would still be consistent on.

But I am extremely certain that you would not go around calling yourself the KKK as a way to do the above, would you?

[Desert805]

51. Charlie Hebdo is not the KKK

Simple as that.

[politicman]

67. thats the best response you could come up with?

I never said Charlie Hebdo was the KKK, I asked if you would automatically start glorifying the KKK if they were targeted because they offended someone?

I'm asking about the reaction you would have if it were the KKK that were the victims of the terrorists instead of Charlie Hebdo?

[Desert805]

68. No, this is, but you've ignored it:

59. This is the zillionth post



where you insist Charlie Hebdo is a "racist magazine."

It is a FAR LEFT French political satire magazine. That is an indisputable FACT.

I don't know too many FAR LEFT racist assholes and homophobes, do you? The folk who are ANTI-Charlie Hebdo should give you some clue. These links go to threads right here on DU, that surely you must have read?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014983618 <---Homophobes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014987183 <--- Racists and Bigots


Have you ever actually checked into Charlie Hebdo at all? ALso found on DU:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you#

[politicman]

86. really??

Oh, so making fun or and denigrating things that are very important to entire groups of people is a far left trait.

Because I see no difference between republicans making fun of the poor and Charlie Hebdo making fun of people's religion.

Picking on and making fun of something you don't like is not a leftist trait, it is a Republican trait. Unfortunately many atheists on here want to make fun of religions simply because they don't like religions, the same way the Republicans pick on and make fun of the poor because they don't like them.

If

[Desert805]

88. No, it's a trait of some humorists. Some humorists on the left even. *gasp!*

I like to make fun of racists. Should I feel bad for picking on those poor folks? Their feelings!

[Duckhunter935]

55. allowing free speech does not mean you agree with it

disgusting and vile as it might be, open free speech needs to be allowed as long as it does not threaten or advocate violence.

[politicman]

71. of course, so why suddenly is everyone glorifying Charlie Hebdo?

Again, what is so hard to understand about what I am saying.

I am not saying that violence should ever be used as a response to free speech, I am totally against such a thing.

I am asking why people choose to associate themselves with and glorify a magazine whose whole purpose is to offend groups of people just because that magazine was unfortunate enough to be the victim of terrorists.

On can still support free speech and not glorify a magazine whose whole purpose is to offend groups of people?

[Duckhunter935]

72. "glorify a magazine whose whole purpose is to offend groups of people"

and you would be wrong on that small fact

[politicman]

87. then tell me the purpose then please.

Well then please enlighten me as to the purpose of publishing cartoons that make fun of Islam, or Chrstianity or Judism or any other religion?


What's the point in publishing those kind of cartons other than to end up with a whole lot of pissed of people?


If I published a cartoon depicting Jew with a long nose, would you not think I was doing it to offend Jewish people?

[Warpy]

102. Obviously to get people to THINK

but I suppose that's a lost cause for conservatives and the type of person who goes around looking for things to be offended over.

But that's rather the point.

Most people look at the most viciously racist stuff coming out of the Aryan/White Power lunatics and reject it. Likewise, most sensible people simply rejected the over the top things Charlie did. It's only the conservatives and ridiculously thin skinned people out there who cry for censorship, pretending they are protected by the force of constitutional law from ever being offended.

If you published such a cartoon, I'd consider you and your publisher to be puerile and I would avoid your products as not worthy of specific notice. I would never consider either censorship or murder.

That's where the line is.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Charlie Hebdo is not racist, they are not homophobic. You spread falsehoods, but even that should

be permitted, so that others can call out the falsehoods and establish facts.

[politicman]

46. is there a limit?

Is there a limit to what can be said, written or published under free speech?

For instance, threatening someone is illegal, but in reality all it is, is a bunch of words. Should these words be illegal or should threatening words be allowed under freedom of speech?

[Desert805]

49. You're asking questions that aren't related to the event

Do you think people should be killed for political cartoons? Should the guy that drew the bone in Obama's nose be murdered at his place of work?

Because that's what happened here.

What is the point of your questions? Are you trying to excuse murder, or not? It's truly unclear to me, and I'm honestly asking.

[politicman]

65. no id ont think anyone should die for cartoons or anything that offends anyone

Firstly, no I don't think anyone should be killed for cartoons or freedom of speech.

Secondly, I'm not excusing any murder, I am simply asking why cant all of you new Charlie Hebdo supporters stand in solidarity and stand up for the notion of free speech without associating yourselves and glorifying a magazine whose only purpose was to offend people?

As I said before, one can differentiate between supporting the right of free speech and supporting a magazine whose aim is only to offend people.

No one deserves to die for offending people, but that doesn't mean that just because they do then suddenly we glorify them as a way to show as support of free speech.

If the KKK was attacked, would you automatically start saying 'Je suis KKK"?

[Desert805]

66. I believe their intention was to entertain people.

If their intention was to offend, it didn't work with me. Or their LEFT WING readers, heh.

Sometime, people get offended. That is not a bad thing.

[KMOD]

63. Wow.

I answered your first question here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026077917#post58

Threatening someone is not illegal because it's a bunch of words, it's illegal because it's a threat, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[politicman]

84. if threatening words are illegal then that shows that we already have restrictions on what we are

allowed to say and publish.
If someone threatens you, in effect all they are doing is using words unless they follow through in those words with physical action.
Yet threats are illegal, why?


After all, apparently to many on here, words and pictures in and of themselves are free speech, and you apparently support the right to be able to say and draw/publish anything under the concept of free speech.

So again I ask, why are certain words that form a sentence that is threatening illegal? What's the difference between being able to use words and pictures for anything you want to, but not for a threatening sentence?


Because we already have limits on free speech, we already have restrictions on what can be said or published.


Try yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre and then try to defend yourself in court by claiming you have a right to say whatever you like and that if people don't like it then they should just ignore it.

[KMOD]

85. If you say "I'm gonna kill you"

it is taken very seriously and investigated. Do you really believe people should be able to say things like that with no consequences?

I already told you, we are limited in our free speech. Again, you have no right to have whatever you want published, unless you can do it on your own. And yes, if you were publishing threats, you would be investigated.

Threats are a crime, speech is not. You can call someone names, ridicule them, laugh at them, and the government will not lock you up. If you threaten their life, that's another issue. That's a crime.

[politicman]

92. ...

And I'm asking you to tell me the difference between using words or pictures to threaten someone and using words or pictures to ridicule and call someone names.

After all, if words and pictures are considered free speech them why are some words and some pictures deemed to be a crime?

Apparently, according to many on here, just because someone says something or publishes something then too bad, we should just ignore it if we don't like it.
Conversely, if someone publishes or says something threatening, why not just use the same principle of ignore if you don't like it. why does the government considers it a crime.


And lastly, I will put my house on the fact that a majority of the people on here glorifying Charlie Hebdo under the banner of free speech have at some point filed an alert against another poster on here who insults them or denigrates them or insults and denigrates a group of people.

Hypocrisy much

[KMOD]

93. can you point me to something that was published,

that was threatening, and ignored?

[Desert805]

94. Do you want to mail me your house keys

or should I come pick them up?


I'm sure Admin can verify you just gave away your home.

[uppityperson]

119. this is a privately owned forum with posting rules which everyone posting agreed to

Free speech does not apply on forums like this, and we all agreed to abide by their rules. Are you seriously saying wanting freedom to publish without fear of being murdered and posting on a forum with rules is contradictory?

[lame54]

42. would you arrest that guy in the middle of the street?

[Desert805]

43. Or murder him and everyone around him?

[Desert805]

56. I answered your questions

now please reply to my question #2.

[uppityperson]

120. replying to yourself asking yourself to reply to yourself?

[Desert805]

121. so I hit the wrong reply button- will I be sued?

AND YOU CALLED ME CRAZY EYES!!1 I MUST ALERT ON THIS INSULT!!!!!

[uppityperson]

122. don't you get tired of making baseless assumptions and jumping to of conclusions?

[Desert805]

123. Pont out a few and I'll let you know.

Give me my top 3 baseless assumptions and wrongful conclusions & I'll let you know if I feel like I need a nap afterwards.

[uppityperson]

124. you aren't worth the time, will give only 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6080903

[Desert805]

125. Sounds like you took my flipant reply

to your petty snipe a little too seriously.

Lighten up, Francis.

[uppityperson]

128. ok, that is now 2 examples with an insult thrown in. My name isn't Francis.

[Desert805]

129. Send me a PM when I hit 3!

And thanks for doing all the heavy counting. It's hard work and someone has to do it.



But seriously. What are we talking about? You poked at me with your "witty" comment & googley eyes, which I thought was you trying to be funny, so I tried to be funny back, but now you're starting to sound a little butthurt. So yes-- lighten up, "uppityperson."

There doesn't need to be a fight brewing around every corner.

[uppityperson]

130. uh. huh. Insults are only fun and games until you get called on them?

"But mom, I was only joking" excuse ended in grade school.

[Desert805]

131. You threw the first insult

but freak out when one is thrown back? Are they even insults? They're lame jokes.


You have a ver thin skin, and don't like having tables turned on you. I however, find it amusing and funny when folks jab at me. I replied to the wrong post! YOU GOT ME!!1 Believe me, I chuckled.

I certainly wasn't making any excuses for my posts. I stand by them.


Will you lighten up yet, or do you want to do this (not even sure what this is) all day? I've got a lot of work to do & will be at the computer for hours, my new friend!

[uppityperson]

132. THAT excuse ends in kindergarten and I not your friend. eom

[Desert805]

133. There was no excuse. There was no apology.

Don't get it twisted. You have no moral authority here, however much you wish it to be so.



Neither do I-- "this" isn't that big a deal. AND YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE MY FRIENDS FOR ME!!1

[politicman]

47. no i wouldnt. but.....

No I wouldn't but I certainly would stand in solidarity and associate myself with a white guy yelling the word 'N' in the middle of the street just because he gets hurt from someone that got provoked by his words.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't stand for and support the concept of freedom of speech (although I think there should be some limits on freedom of speech), I just asking hy you would all choose to stand with and associate yourselves with a racist magazine like Charlie Hebdo when I am certain none of you would do the same if it was the KKK in their place?

[Desert805]

48. Two things:

1) repeating over and over that Charlie Hebdo is a "racist magazine," not only doesn't make it so, but it makes you sound... unaware... of certain basic facts of this story.

2) if a group of people wanted to beat the man to death in the street for shouting the n-word, would you protest?

[politicman]

57. two answers...

1) Yes I would protest against a group of people wanting to beat a man for shouting the 'n' word, but I certainly would not stand in solidarity and glorify the man shouting the 'n' word?

2) Well I see satirizing (which is basically just another way of making fun of something) religions as the equivalent of being racist, especially since there is no purpose to publish any offensive cartoons other than to make fun and put down and offend someone else.

I know I certainly wouldn't support an organisation like the KKK if they wanted to distribute flyers making fun of black lynching's.

[Desert805]

61. Dude.

Religion isn't race. You're way off the mark, man.

[politicman]

80. same principle.

I know that religion isn't race, but its the same principle.

Making fun of a group of people serves only one purpose, to make them hurt those people.

Similarly, making fun of religions that entire groups of people follow srves only one purpose, to insult them and hurt them.

[Desert805]

81. So what?

*Actually, I said I was done wasting my time with this exchange, and I should have stuck to it. Sorry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. No, making fun of a religion can also oppose bad attitudes of that religion

such as misogyny, or intolerance for other religions.

[Desert805]

59. This is the zillionth post

where you insist Charlie Hebdo is a "racist magazine."

It is a FAR LEFT French political satire magazine. That is an indisputable FACT.

I don't know too many FAR LEFT racist assholes and homophobes, do you? The folk who are ANTI-Charlie Hebdo should give you some clue. These links go to threads right here on DU, that surely you must have read?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014983618 <---Homophobes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014987183 <--- Racists and Bigots


Have you ever actually checked into Charlie Hebdo at all? ALso found on DU:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you#

[politicman]

73. I disagree with your assessment.

Again, I view any words or cartoons designed simply to make fun of groups of people as the same as being racist.

You can try and couch what Charlie Hebdo does in the words 'political satire, but the truth is that it is anything but political satire.

What purpose does it serve to offend groups of people by making fun of religions and other things people hold dear?

They may have every right in the world to publish cartoons that make fun of whatever they want to make fun of, but that doesn't change the fact that publishing those cartoons serves only one purpose and one purpose only, to make fun of and offend groups of people that belong to the thing they are satirizing.

[Desert805]

74. You can't "disagree" with a fact, anymore

than you can call a religion a race.

I think your intentions are becoming quite clear (spread disinformation), and I don't have the time nor the desire to argue with a brick wall.

[Duckhunter935]

52. I support his right to say it

and I would confront that with louder speech from many more voices to show what a lonely idiot he truly is.

I do not have to agree with him, more speech is better not censorship like you want.

[politicman]

75. Would you support his right to say it, or would you support the guy saying it?

But would you glorify him if he ended up being hurt by a black passerby who wanted to shut him up?

Would you support only the right for the white guy to yell the 'n' word even if you disagree with it, or would you support the white guy who is yelling the 'n' word?

[KMOD]

58. Answer to your question

Yes, there are limits. You can write or say anything you wish. You have no right to have it published.

What the heck is with all the posters who want to stand in the middle of the street shouting the N word. Go right ahead, but don't be surprised if you receive backlash for it.

Unless the government throws you in jail for what you say, you are not losing your freedom of speech. But you have no right, none, to have anything you want, published absolutely anywhere, unless you do it on your own.

[840high]

60. I support all free speech.

[politicman]

77. What about if someone threatened to kill you and your family by using threatening words?

Would that be considered free speech as long as they didn't follow through on the threats, or do you think threats should be illegal?

[Desert805]

78. *sigh*

[img][/img]

[politicman]

89. arrgghh

And that there is the problem with people on this site, you can not think outside the box and see there is a very small degree of difference between what words free speech allows and what it doesn't.

Apparently many on here want to argue that using words and pictures to offend people is considered free speech, yet arranging words and pictures into a threatening sentence/picture is something completely different and rightly shouldn't fall under free speech.

If we already have limits on what we can say and publish (we cannot use words/pictures to threaten people, we cannot scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre, etc), then this whole 'free speech' argument falls to pieces because apparently everyone is ok with not giving the right for people to use free speech to threaten anyone.

[Desert805]

90. so much wrong...

You certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater. There is no law against it, and there is no law against being offensive.

What are you on about? People were murdered over cartoons & you're outrage is directed at the victims? Why? What is you so-important-point that you can not let this go, yet can't quite bring it all together either? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[politicman]

95. my point is this.

My point is that instead of glorifying a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo because you want stand up for free speech, just simply stand up for free speech without making out that Charlie Hebdo did a really good thing.

The people most at fault here are the terrorists that killed the victims, we can condemn the attackers and stand up for free speech without glorifying Charlie Hebdo.

We can do it the same way that we would do it if someone massacred the KKK, we would not stand in solidarity with the KKK and make out like they were actually a good group because they ended up being killed for exercising their free speech, we would differentiate between our support for free speech and make sure not to associate ourselves with the actions of the KKK.

[Desert805]

96. Charlie Hebdo is awesome.

The KKK sucks.


I stand fully on the side of free speech and political expression, no matter what, and I especially support artists and satirists. The KKK can sponsor all the highway clean-ups it wants, but I'm not fucking joining.

I surely will buy the new issue of Charlie Hebdo at the first opportunity, so as to register my support. Hell, I'll buy two-- one in your name!

[Desert805]

98. I would NEVER alert on this...

It's too precious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. You think there's a problem with differentiating between threats of violence, and offensive words?

It's not just 'many on here'. It's the laws of the United States, and many other countries, that agree they are very different.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. This post is disgustingly racist and the police should do something about it.

[backscatter712]

135. A million other DUers have already refuted the claim that Charlie Hebdo was racist.

In fact they're satirizing racists and right-wing douchebaggery.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good troll, right?

[Warpy]

79. It will probably sell out, giving the magazine an infusion of cash it will need

while it searches for lefty cartoonists and writers.

Their main enemy was Le Pen, not Muslims. I hope they manage to survive this.

[Surya Gayatri]

99. Looks like they've been given a new lease on life,

at least in the medium term.

They'd been slowly sliding toward bankruptcy these last months.

The surviving staffers said Charb had spent all of his last month on earth going from pillar to post begging for money.

P.S. Only just woke up (it's now going 9 a.m. here in Paris) to discover that my OP has been "taken hostage" by the polemicists. Arrrgggghhh!

[Desert805]

101. It is difficult to have a true debate

When we can't even agree on the most basic facts. I'm sure it comes across as purposefully polemic, but I think we're just that far apart.


Sorry to appear to hijack your thread. I was in Paris last a year ago, and my family has a long history in France. It's a fantastic city, where I've met wonderful people from all kinds of backgrounds. Can't wait to get back.

[Surya Gayatri]

105. Fell in love with Paris decades ago and then made it my home...

The French can be frustratingly blasé and cynical, trying to out-yell each other from their "intello" high horses. (avoid French debates, especially on TV, unless you want to get a quick headache...LOL!)

But, when their beloved "valeurs républicaines" are under threat, they always "rassembler" to do the right thing. I'm proud to be one of them.
Vive ma France bien aimée !


P.S. Meant to say that I agree with you categorically about CHARLIE not being racist, islamophobic, phallocrat, or in any of the other epithetical categories people have been trying to stick them in.

[Warpy]

103. Funny how so many people are pro censorship

but only of stuff that offends them, of course.

[Surya Gayatri]

104. <<<Word!>>>

Voltaire (down whose Boulevard we marched on Sunday) said it for posterity:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

« Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire. »

[Marrah_G]

118. Such a heartbreaking way for that money to be found

[KMOD]

83. I know it's not allowed here,

but I think it would be really cool to lock Desert805 and politicman in there own thread. Let them duke it out there, winner takes all.

[Desert805]

91. If "all" = a 6 pack of IPA's

I could be talked into wasting some time earning it.

[Surya Gayatri]

100. <<<This>>>!

[cali]

109. It's pretty clear that Desert already won with a clear knockout. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

113. politicman, while claiming to be against denigrating speech in some basic way, was locked out of

the thread for posting really nasty denigrating, insulting and intentionally provocative personal attacks against Desert805, who remained calm and reasoned in the face of such atavism.

[wavesofeuphoria]

126. +1

[bravenak]

127. Yes!!!nt

[OKNancy]

134. I posted in the Good Reads section of DU this article

It really helped me understand..

http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends