General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Let's see how intellectually honest the defenders of Charlie Hebdo are. [View all]
A hypothetical (although certainly possible)
A racist, right wing rag called "Nate Forrest" is in existence. Named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the KKK.
Nate Forrest is notorious for racist cartoons on its cover. Imagine the worst you can imagine.... Nate Forrest has it. Portraying African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and whoever else in the worst possible light, all on the cover, week after week.
After some time, someone decides to take action. Not justified of course (no one is defending mass slaughter), but takes action and perpetrates an unspeakable crime at the editorial offices of Nate Forrest.
The next week, Nate Forrest releases another issue, doubling down on their vulgarity. Based on sympathy from the events of the previous week, the newspaper has a record run, and sells out all over the world.
Does Nate Forrest have the right to publish? Absolutely? But how many of those DU'ers who are snarling "damn right, i'd put those cartoons on the front page of every paper in the world" would be saying the same thing in this instance?
Charlie Hebdo has a right to do what they are doing. And they are wrong. And I won't defend them.