On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it?

[hill2016]

Magazine publishes an article satirical/offensive/blasphemous to a religion. Member of said religion gets offended and shoots up the office of the magazine.

Whose fault would you say it is:
- the magazine for publishing the article, even though it was protected free speech
- the gunman
- the religion

The point about protecting speech is that especially when it is hateful or offensive to you that it needs protection most (other than a few limited exceptions e.g. incitement to violence).

Hopefully we can have a rational, fact-based analysis/discussion. Emotions tend to color one's perception of the matter at hand.

[guillaumeb]

1. Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons meant to be inciting?

Or only offensive?

[riderinthestorm]

4. Third option: satirical

They were satirical in a way that was best understood relevant to French culture. They equally lampooned all religions, politicians, political parties etc

[guillaumeb]

8. But they did NOT lampoon the tricouleur,

or "La Marseillaise", or the Holocaust, or a number of other topics that are off limits in France. The French comic Dieudonne has frequently spoken about the limits of free speech in France.

My choice would be incitement clothed in "acceptable" free speech.

[riderinthestorm]

10. I confess I wasn't a subscriber to Charlie Hebdo so I haven't seen everything

Have you?

The CH cartoons frequently labelled the most incendiary were shown and discussed here on DU and in the coverage at the time of the massacre, and all of them have French cultural subtexts that cast them as satirical.

Furthermore, I firmly disagree that cartoons of say Muhammed (or CH) are incendiary or incitement. I reject that premise completely.

You're blaming the victim.

[guillaumeb]

20. I have seen many of the cartoons.

And as a French speaking Quebecker who CAN read and understand the subtext, I can say that the cartoons are definitely anti-religious. That cultural subtext, called in French laicite, is one that I recognize because it is also present in Quebec. Laicite can be approximately translated as meaning the opposite of religious. Anti-religion and anti-clerical ideas have their roots in the Revolution and were a reaction to the Catholic Church's domination of French life.

In Quebec, laicite, along with cultural identity, was among the things that motivated our "quiet revolution" of the 1960s.
In Quebec also the Catholic Church played a very dominant role in daily life.

But that aside, there are legal limits to what the French call free speech. Those things that I mentioned are all considered unlawful speech and are all prosecutable offenses.

I blame the shooters for the deaths, and the victims for helping perpetuate an atmosphere of hatred. Does that excuse the deaths? Of course not.

[riderinthestorm]

25. Ugh. Victim blaming. You couldn't be more wrong

I understand laicite very well and in the French context I saw no cartoons that perpetuated an "atmosphere of hatred". 12 years of French hasn't quite made me a native speaker but I'm perfectly comfortable in the language.

Look, Ive done that topic to death at the time here. I don't have time to re-hash here again.

Feel free to have the last word.

[guillaumeb]

26. There was a cartoon that depicted a number of black, pregnant, veiled females.

The words read "touchez-pas a nos allocs. ("Allocs" is slang for allocation familiale, or welfare in English)
The English equivalent is "do not touch our welfare".

That is racism, sexism, and deliberately fosters hatred. Brave satire by privileged white males at the expense of the poor and powerless. How noble and courageous on the part of Charbonnier and others.

And as I said, I blame the shooters for the deaths.

[Yorktown]

53. French humor obviously does not translate in Quebecquois..

"touchez-pas a nos allocs." was typical Charlie Hebdo gallows humor.

To see it as 'racism, sexism, and deliberately foster(ing) hatred' is the equivalent of calling Mad Magazine disrespectful for mocking a standing President.

(even if that President was as dumb as GW)

[guillaumeb]

60. vive les cons! Et les racistes aussi!

The satire was composed by predominantly white, male people and aimed at poor non-white females who are already at the bottom of the social order. Please explain how that is not racism and misogyny.

[Yorktown]

64. You are like the XiXth century anthropologist shocked because the natives are naked.

You apply the genteel reading grid of a liberal PC anglo on rough and tumble latin commedia del'arte slapstick.

It just doesn't translate, doesn't apply. You are culture-centric.

[guillaumeb]

66. My French ancestors immigrated to Quebec in 1605.

Good to know at this stage of my life that I simply do not understand "French" culture. I was educated in both languages, and have read the classics in both languages. I understand both cultures, but I also understand the dynamic of a white male attacking non-white females. I also understand what racism sounds like.

As to your phrase "liberal PC anglo", which presumably is meant as a descriptive of me, I am an Anglophone but certainly not an anglo. If by anglo you mean English.

[Yorktown]

68. I described a quebecquois as having anglo PCness because of the country culture obviously

And 1600 is a bit far to be in touch with French culture as opposed to that of Quebec.

Fyi, the Charlie Hebdo humor doesn't translate well in Geneva, a French speaking city just hundreds of meters from the border with France.

[guillaumeb]

70. Is this humor?

When you wrote:
"And 1600 is a bit far to be in touch with French culture as opposed to that of Quebec."

I listen to French language music, read French language papers, correspond with people from home, and think in both languages. I am reasonably aware of what is happening in France. But your statements all avoid the unavoidable racism inherent in much of Charlie Hebdo, as well as the irony of a satire magazine focusing on the poor and powerless. Brave satirists to attack the powerless!

And are you so in touch with French culture that you have some special insight into the keen satire demonstrated by a satirist who mocks pregnant women as welfare queens, or depicts Jews and Arabs with images more fitting for the Völkischer Beobachter? An interesting situation that I hope you will explain.

[Yorktown]

73. No, not humor, better knowledge.

If you are in regular contact with French people, I suggest you perform the following test: ask a dozen of them if, in French culture, the allocs/boko haram girls drawing is gallows humor or not.
Then in Q2, ask them if that particular drawing is worthy of the Völkischer Beobachter?
I think they will really laugh at the suggestion.

[guillaumeb]

75. I have asked most of my regular correspondents about the cartoon.

So far, and my sample is admittedly small, all agree that that cartoon is racist and crude.

My Völkischer Beobachter comment was not directed at the welfare queen cover. It was aimed at the many cartoons I the magazine that regularly that depicted huge lipped greedy Jews and huge lipped violent Arabs.

[Yorktown]

83. Well, three possibilities

1- your sample is rather unrepresentative of the larger French public
2- you put the question in a way eliciting a certain type of answers.
3- both

You seem oblivious to the fact the Charlie Hebdo readership is very progressive. Don't you think it would be odd such a readership presumably more sensitive to racism issues than, say, Front National members kept flocking back to Charlie Hebdo if its drawings were racist?

Have you ever lived in France?

[guillaumeb]

84. You missed the fourth possibility,

that many of the cartoons are racist.

I have never lived in France. Are you aware of the long history of French racism and colonial terror?

[Yorktown]

85. Oh, OK, past history is proof of current opinions? Such a fine basis for reasoning.

Right then:
- the French (and Brits*) are racists: colonialism (and the Dutch. Portuguese. Spaniards)
- Americans are genocidal maniacs (American Indians)
- Arabs are merciless invaders (7th-14th centuries) and slave traders (up to 1800+)

Bravo, you proved the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are racist.

[CBGLuthier]

58. You actually admit to blaming victims? Where do you stand on short skirts and women who go to bars?

Uggh.

[guillaumeb]

61. You have actually read what I posted? I think not,

or you would not have said this.

[Yorktown]

52. Your post #20 contradicts and answers this one

Incitement? Since when is mocking an ideology incitement of anything?

Charlie Hebdo and Hara Kiri were steadfastly anticlerical form the 70's on.

And Islam wasn't on their radar then. The mockery was of the Roman Catholic Church.

Was it called incitement to anything then? Why does mockery of Islam become incitement?

[guillaumeb]

63. Mocking the Institutional Church is one thing.

When privileged white males attack poor people of color by repeating the same racist stereotypes that are promoted by the FN and Jean Marie Le Pen that is another.

"Touchez-pas a nos allocs" is not directed at any religion. It is racism and stereotype.

[TipTok]

77. Doesn't matter...

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Only religious persons can be blasphemous. And most of them are, constantly.

nt

[hifiguy]

3. The person who commits the violent act -

and publishing ANYTHING is not a violent act - bears 100% of the responsibility.

Why is this even a question?

[840high]

57. ...^ that

[Rex]

5. Do cartoons kill people?

[Warpy]

6. It's the fault of swaggering assholes with guns, there are no exceptions

Next question?

Free speech had nothing to do with this. Legitimizing hate and lies on national media is a problem, but no one forces a rabbity little man to pick up a gun to feel powerful and nobody forces him to point it at unarmed people whose crime was that they went to work that day. If he didn't hear that bullshit out of the pulpit and on Pox News, the voices in his otherwise empty head would tell him all about it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. I may not agree with what you have say.

But will defend to the death your right to say it.

People can take umbrage to what they see as offensive speech, but never have the right to use violence to silence it.

[Hepburn]

19. Inciting is the issue...

...and the relevant issue, IMO, as to liability. You are so correct that the issue is not free speech!

[katsy]

9. Not sure how to approach this, but

Hebdo was the victim as is PP in this case.

Both victims have every right to legally operate their business.

No duty is owed by the victims IMO other than they operate legally.

In both cases, the gunmen are to blame. IF that is far as the story goes. Both cases are crimes.

But that is NOT the whole story. Religious fanatics fuel the hatred and pit religious beliefs against society's laws protecting civil rights.

It gets murky. But if religious zealousness fuels already compromised mental states of people to take matters into their own hands and kill the threats to their beliefs... Then IMO maybe it's not that anyone is infringing upon religious freedom of free speech so much as it is religious bigots inciting hate crimes.

[Rex]

11. Again, do cartoons kill people?

[hill2016]

12. no.

I think it that you believe that the fault lies solely with the gunman and not with any protected speech?

[Rex]

17. What about

So no on cartoons...what about religion and guns? Do they kill people?

[hill2016]

23. I believe

that only people kill people.

That's why I like Clinton's reply during the second debates

I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists. I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists but its not particularly helpful to make the case…that we’ve got to reach out to Muslim countries, have them be part of our coalition, if they hear people running for president who basically short cut it to say we are somehow against Islam. That was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, ‘We are not at war with Islam or Muslims.’ We are at war with violent extremism, we are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression, and yes we are at war with those people but I don’t want us to paint with too broad a brush.

What about you?

[Rex]

32. So do you defend people that make death threats?

Are death threats protected speech?

[hill2016]

35. no and no.

why do you ask?

but it has to be something specific and credible to arise to a threat.

[Rex]

37. My point is, it is rhetoric that kills people.

Postering rhetoric by leaders that endorse death and violence. The actual trigger man is just an extension of their arm imo.

[hill2016]

43. In this case

I disagree with you.

[Rex]

45. At least you didn't get all snarky with me like the last poster.

Thanks for being civil.

[Yorktown]

54. Yes. The fault of a shooting lies only with the shooter

Planned Parenthood and Charlie Hebdo were going about peacefully.

Disagree with PP or CH? Write to your Congressman, create a pressure group, whatever,

don't get a gun. Or we all start getting guns.

[Hepburn]

13. Where is the state action which gives rise to the issue of free speech?

[hill2016]

15. some people

seem to think that people expressing their right to free speech (which are not within the limited exceptions) should be held legally accountable for the actions of others

[Hepburn]

16. That's not the issue.

Again: Where is the state action which gives rise to the issue of free speech.

You are aware of the essential element necessary to create such an issue, right? Please try again.

[hill2016]

18. here's the state action

"legally accountable"

[Hepburn]

21. OMG...

...that is NOT the state action that gives rise to the issue of free speech. Hint: Your hypothetical in the OP is missing this. That is why I asked you to specify the state action which gives rise to the issue.

[hill2016]

22. ok

why don't you just state your point, instead of us going round in circles?

[Hepburn]

24. I did.

Again: Where is the state action -- at issue your hypothetical in the OP -- which gives rise to the issue of Free Speech?

You are aware, I assume, that in order to have the issue of constitutionally protected free speech, there is a required element that there must be an unreasonable state action which in some manner wrongfully prohibits the exercise thereof. Where is the state action element in your hypothetical? This is Con Law 101.

[hifiguy]

27. Perfectly explained.

Makes you wonder how obtuse some people can be.

[Hepburn]

29. Thank you...

...it amazes me that some think that ALL speech is subject to protection under the U.S. Constitution, Amendment One! Makes my head spin!

[hill2016]

33. as I said

there are some very limited exceptions but other than that, all speech IS protected by the US Constitution.

[Hepburn]

39. Only if there is state action.

Do you get it yet????

[hill2016]

31. do you agree with this sentiment

Hey, Carly Fiorina, go fuck yourself.

The blood of the innocent is now on YOUR mother fucking hands!

You publicized that lying bullshit video...see what this kind of pandering to the RW base brings?

Fuck you and all those who seek to deny a woman's right to medical decisions with baseless lies.

RANT OFF.

given your view that

The person who commits the violent act -

and publishing ANYTHING is not a violent act - bears 100% of the responsibility.

Why is this even a question?

[hifiguy]

34. Fiorina is an asshat.

But she can spew her asshattery and lies under the Constitution. And she should be roundly condemned and mocked for her ignorahce, lies and general assholishness.

That's beyond question.

[hill2016]

36. I agree with what you say

but you also agree that the gunman is 100% responsible?

[Hepburn]

41. Glad to see you got it!

[hill2016]

44. he says

that the gunmen are 100% responsible.

This directly contradicts what you say about Carly Fiorina having blood on her hands

[hill2016]

30. the question in the hypothetical is:

if someone is expressing their constitutionally-protected free speech, are they accountable for the actions of others?

If I'm doing something that is fully legally, and I responsible for what other people do?

The state action here is: I'm doing something that is 100% in compliance with what the State allows (or is not permitted to abridge).

[Hepburn]

38. For the last time:

WHERE IS THE STATE ACTION WHICH GIVE RISE TO THE ISSUE OF FREE SPEECH??????

The issue is NOT legal responsibility being the required element of "state action" in order to find an issue falling under the First Amendment free exercise of speech clause. Legal responsibility is an issue of negligence which issue would be and should be subject to review by a trier of fact. "Negligence" is a recognized tort in all states of the U.S. In order to have an issue of Free Speech...one MUST have unreasonable state action which infringes upon the free exercise thereof. It is NOT an unreasonable state action to have the trier of fact after a full trial by ones peers on the issue of liability to find someone culpable for inciting which causes injury. Where do you think the phrase "You cannot (falsely) yell fire in a crowded theater" came from???

Again...where in your OP is the UNREASONABLE (required element #1), STATE ACTION (required element #2) which INFRINGES (required element #3) on the FREE EXERCISE (required element #4) thereof?

I cannot be more clear -- but please be informed: A trial by one's peers for inciting which causes injury is NOT an unreasonable infringement on the exercise of your free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If you do NOT have the elements, you do not have a Free Speech issue.

[hill2016]

42. well

1. Negligence - you need to have a duty of care for there to be an action based on negligence
2. Incitement has to be imminent.

My hypothetical already assumes that the speech is protected and this is not in dispute (i.e. it doesn't fall under any of the exceptions), which is what I think you're trying to get at.

Given that the speech is protected, am I responsible for what other people do after they hear my speech?

[Hepburn]

51. There are 4 elements to negligence, incitement is not one of them.

You assume that the speech is protected. It may or may not be. That is the starting issue in an analysis of Con Law issues re First Amendment Free Speech issues: Is it speech? If so, is it protected?

If you are inciting, yes, you most likely are responsible for the consequences. But that depends on the facts of the case and that has to do with civil law, possibly criminal law, and it has nothing to do with protected speech -- to wit, what you seen to think encompasses all issues of public speaking. Not all speech is protected.

If you do not agree with my analysis, here is the challenge to you: Get on a US airline and just say the word, "highjack." Even as a joke that is not protected speech. Please try this experiment if you doubt me.

Note in the hypothetical of saying "highjack" on a U.S. airline -- the call of the question is to explain whey this would happen under the elements you have list. Care to explain that sequence of events under your analysis of negligence and incitement to imminent action?

[Hepburn]

40. Fully legally?

What exactly do you mean by that term?

Things are either legal or not legal.

Edit for typo

[hill2016]

46. ha ha ha...

heard of the phrase black letter law?

[Hepburn]

50. Have you heard of the phrase...

..."high school civics class?"

I taught HS government and history before I went to law school. If you have any further questions regarding the required element of state action when discussing the First Amendment free speech issues, feel free to call on someone else. I have done all possible to explain the elements to you, but I do believe that you have not grasped the concept. So let me put is this way: In order to trigger Free speech issues, there has to be action by a governmental entity of some ilk which infringes. Your OP deals with a magazine publisher. Unless that magazine company is an arm of the federal government, there is no constitutional issue of free speech. IT'S ONLY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT UNREASONALBY STEPS ON A CITIZENS TOES DO CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARISE. If you recall your HS civics class the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US Const, was added specifically to protect citizens against the government. Your OP deals with private enterprise...not state action.

BTW: Black letter law is a phrase that was first used in used in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case Naglee v. Ingersoll, 7 Pa. 185 (1847). It stands for a legal principle which is rarely disputed. Nowhere does the phrase "fully legal" appear in the aforementioned Penn case.

Now...I have done all I can do to explain this to you. If you still do not get it, there is nothing more I can say. I would suggest, however, that you might look into some courses regarding the U.S. Constitution in order that you understand what in fact triggers constitutional issues.

Regards...and best of luck...

[hobbit709]

14. The actual perpetrators of the violence.

[ucrdem]

76. Indeed.

Seems obvious but there's always a lot we don't know and never will unless somebody makes it their business to get to the bottom of it.

[GoneOffShore]

28. The gunmen.

And the culture/religion that nurtured their insanity.

The point about protecting speech is that especially when it is hateful or offensive to you that it needs protection most (other than a few limited exceptions e.g. incitement to violence).

[Bluenorthwest]

47. The gunmen are responsible, fully. The same would be true if cartoonists sought out

and gunned down those clerics who teach hate toward LGBT and artists. This is not a specious point I'm making. Religion says and does very provocative things all the time, the same laws that protect the cartoonists protect the clerics. Taking offense is not reserved for the religious. The clerics speak their minds, the cartoonists express their own thoughts. Anyone who commits violence is wholly responsible for that violence.

[msongs]

48. the correct response to a magazine cartoon u dont like is laughter and ridicule IMO nt

[Waldorf]

49. The gunman.

[NobodyHere]

55. I find this thread enlightening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026616534

[davidn3600]

56. Freedom of speech means people have a right to mock religion

Artists have a right to draw Mohammad as a dog. That is protected speech in the United States of America.

If a Muslim extremist decides to shoot up the art gallery because of it, he is the criminal and the terrorist.....not the artist.

[Democat]

59. Much of DU doesn't care as long as you mock Christians only

If you mock other religions you're a racist.

[Ex Lurker]

67. Yep NT

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I mock anyone who believes in a giant invisble sky-man who is obsessed with your private parts

....what does that make me?

[Shandris]

62. The gunman. All responsibility ultimately falls on the actor, full stop.

That does not mean others should not/could not share in the responsibility, just that the gunman is the primary.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. The fault of the killers. No one else's.

[Marrah_G]

69. The gunman and his religion

[Throd]

71. The gunmen.

[hobbit709]

72. when you let your religion override the law, whose fault is it?

[KamaAina]

74. The gunman.

Next!

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Some people here really don't understand the 1st Amendment. These threads prove it.

No, saying something that makes people mad isn't illegal. Even if you know it is going to make them mad.

Yes, let's outlaw blasphemy. GREAT fucking idea.




.........this isn't addressed to you, OP. A General response to the "but incitement fire in a crowded theater there have to be limits on speech butbutbut" brigade.

[Action_Patrol]

80. Fault for shooting people? Gunman. Nobody else.

[loyalsister]

81. Five backwoods homophobes having beers

enjoy rehashing the latest Rush Limbaugh gay bashing. Suppose they decide to kill a gay youth after building rage by feeding off of each other. Only one actually kills someone after the fact. Is that individual the only one who carries any responsibility? Would you claim the actual murder did not begin with the hate speech?

A person does not have to be criminally liable to be partly responsible.

[Warpy]

82. The murderers, of course. There is no human right to go through life unoffended. NT

[ileus]

86. the guns fault...

blaming people is mean

[ileus]

87. I did happen here...kinda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack