This message was self-deleted by its author

[NYC_SKP]

This message was self-deleted by its author (NYC_SKP) on Wed Jan 7, 2015, 01:11 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Mass]

1. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Charlie Hebdo was not anti-Islamic. He had a serious anti-religious bias (against all religions).

And Charb would have defended the rights of the bigots to speak (and then attack them). Your post is offensive to those people's memory because it is so off.

[NaturalHigh]

2. It's easy to defend expressions that you like.

Truly defending free speech means defending things that you find offensive. As offensive as I find a lot of Charlie Hebdo's crap, I will defend its right to be published.

[NYC_SKP]

8. I'm with the ACLU on that principle, but to me the KKK are not nobel heroes, for example.

The ACLU has supported their right to assemble and have rallies, and I support that right.

But if a KKK assembly was met with resistance, I would be hesitant to call the participants victims the way some of the media are portraying the publishers of Hebro's materials.

Maybe I hold publishers to a higher standard, or I might not properly understand what they are trying to do in publishing cartoons that are clearly hurtful and offensive to people.

It's just not my style and I think they should be held to the same standard and we hold others who publish, say, homophobic and racist cartoons.

[Mass]

15. You do not have to like it, but it is not anti-Islamic.

They are a satirical paper who attacked every religions and every institutions. They are a satirical paper who is trying to point to hypocrisy everywhere, in religion and society.

Qualifying them of being anti Islam is just wrong and show a huge misunderstanding.

Sometimes, it is too much for me even if I love some of their cartoonists (including those who died today).

[NaturalHigh]

16. The KKK have been known to lynch people and burn down homes.

That's quite a difference from people publishing cartoons, as tasteless and offensive as those cartoons are. I'm fine with holding these people to the same standard as those who publish homophobic and racist cartoons. I don't think those people should be killed either, but they still have every right to express their points-of-view.

For the record, I don't consider these cartoon editors to be heroes, and I don't find their work compelling. Step on their speech, though, and you make it a lot easier for someone to step on yours.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. victim blaming bullshit.

You must be so proud.

[MosheFeingold]

4. I don't see a lot of

Christians, Jews, or Buddhists killing people over cartoons.

Look, I am all for freedom of religion, but there is a violent problem within Islam, akin to the times back when there were problems with Christianity (and Judaism before that). Christianity and Judaism have (with some notable exceptions) largely grown out of the killing-non-believers stage. Islam has not.

[NYC_SKP]

12. I think you're right, but these cartoons aren't going to help that IMO.

eom

[trotsky]

5. Let's see, how can I put this...

EVEN IF IT WAS HATE SPEECH THEY DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE MURDERED. For you to continue insinuating that 'well, that's what they should have realized might happen' is in itself bigoted against Islam, indicating that you think killing people is part of the religion and people should be aware of those consequences if they insult its followers.

Damn man, you're in deep and you just can't stop digging.

DU really needs to bring back the Unrec button.

[Cleita]

6. For the same reason Rush Limbaugh can claim free speech

for his hateful, racist radio program. But I couldn't condemn either for what they doodle on paper or blather over the air waves because it is free speech. Killing people who have drawn or said hateful things about others is not an answer. I'm sure there is a way to shut up both without taking away their free speech. Not buying their product is a start.

[LostOne4Ever]

6. Because it is free speech

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]People are DEAD and you are here attacking them and you wonder why you are getting a bad reaction?

Tasteless? Divisive?

Ill show you tasteless and divisive:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176073

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That is tasteless and divisive.

I WANT TO BUY AN UNREC BUTTON[/font]

[NYC_SKP]

13. Homophobic and Racist and Sexist cartoons would also be "Free Speech".

And equally tasteless and shameful.

I attack bigotry wherever I see it.

I'm sorry that innocent people had to be killed as a consequence of this free speech that seemed really to serve no constructive purpose.

[kelly1mm]

9. Defending the rights of other to say/print offensive things, DOES NOT MEAN YOU AGREE with those

offensive things. Free speech concerns the GOVERNMENT censoring/punishing speech. Not DU. Not You. Not me. The GOVERNMENT. I defend the right of others to print offensive things without GOVERNMENT interference because, depending on the listener, I may say something offensive at some point. If 'offence' was what allowed the GOVERNMENT to step in and censor, it is true that FR may be shut down. But so would DU.

The best antidote for offensive speech is counter-speech.

This has been pointed out to you many times in the past hour and is not a hard concept to grasp.

[backscatter712]

10. Wow...

[jeff47]

11. Free speech is any speech. Including hate speech.

By no means am I defending the Terrorist Murderers

Nah, you're just pissing on the bodies.

[chillfactor]

14. You are for free speech....

or against it...obviously you are against it.............

[cbayer]

17. Here is a link to a very good story on the magazine and it's comics.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers

I am going to disagree with you here. I think this is free speech and is entirely politically motivated. I think their targets were extremists and not islam or any other religion in general.

I do not think this meets the criteria for hate speech.

The magazine was a staunch supporter of keeping the French government secular and the comics reflect that sentiment and are often in direct response to some threat to that.

I don't see them as anti-Islamic, but they clearly provoked some Islamic extremists.

They knew what the risk was and they stood by their principles.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Thanks. I'm going to self delete now.

I still maintain that I'm seeing Western ethnocentrism in the handling of this matter.

I just hate bigotry, and I hate to see collateral damage, like dead cops.