What right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

southindian wrote:Born: 1839
Died: 2015

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword.html

Charbonnier, whose pen name was “Charb,” was one of those killed Wednesday. In 2012, speaking to The Associated Press, he defended his magazine’s right under France’s laws safeguarding the freedom of expression to print crude, lewd caricatures of Islam’s founder.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he said. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Quranic law.”

At that time, though, the French government, as well as the White House, openly questioned not the magazine’s right to print, but its good judgment. At least 30 people had already been killed in violent protests over an amateur U.S anti-Islam video that portrayed the religion’s founder as a fraud, womanizer and child molester.

“Is it pertinent, intelligent in this context to pour oil on the fire?” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asked then. “The answer is no.”

In the wake of Wednesday’s bloodbath, such calls for editorial restraint vanished. French President Francois Hollande, speaking outside Charlie Hebdo’s office, said the gunmen had targeted journalists striving to “defend their ideas, and to defend precisely the freedom that the Republic protects.”

Hellsangel wrote:Keep insinuating that it's the magazine's own damn fault, Comrade. And keep insisting that you're not being apologetic.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Keep insinuating that it's the magazine's own damn fault, Comrade. And keep insisting that you're not being apologetic.

When you take off those glasses of hatred, you will realize that it is called discussion, being neutral.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

I agree. it's first order of business for citizens of france to bomb china for curtailing freedom of press before finding those responsible for killing a dozen frenchies.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

I agree. it's first order of business for citizens of france to bomb china for curtailing freedom of press before finding those responsible for killing a dozen frenchies.

ooh, rush me to the burn unit, the sarcasm is unbearable!
i wasn't talking about the frenchies. i was talking about neutral observers like ourselves.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

I agree. it's first order of business for citizens of france to bomb china for curtailing freedom of press before finding those responsible for killing a dozen frenchies.

ooh, rush me to the burn unit, the sarcasm is unbearable!
i wasn't talking about the frenchies. i was talking about neutral observers like ourselves.

so you're saying we should have a round of condemnation for chinese before talking about islamic killings just so we're square on the hypocrisy front? sounds like a plan we could all agree on.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Keep insinuating that it's the magazine's own damn fault, Comrade. And keep insisting that you're not being apologetic.

When you take off those glasses of hatred, you will realize that it is called discussion, being neutral.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Keep insinuating that it's the magazine's own damn fault, Comrade. And keep insisting that you're not being apologetic.

When you take off those glasses of hatred, you will realize that it is called discussion, being neutral.

I do not understand how one can be neutral when the subject matter involves pre-meditated cold blooded murder.

truthbetold wrote:It is interesting the Indian origin psuedos passionately oppose protests against vandalism when Amir khan's PK and mf Husain's paintings were attacked, but suddenly offer restraint against offending Islamic images.

Freedom of expression is cherished because it protects the freedom of few when they express views provocative to other sections of society. There are legal avenues to correct mistakes. No sane society agrees that shooting down is one of them.

This particular case it is important for the rest of the press and democratic world to come together and say this particular action is protected and will be repeated.

truthbetold wrote:It is interesting the Indian origin psuedos passionately oppose protests against vandalism when Amir khan's PK and mf Husain's paintings were attacked, but suddenly offer restraint against offending Islamic images.

Freedom of expression is cherished because it protects the freedom of few when they express views provocative to other sections of society. There are legal avenues to correct mistakes. No sane society agrees that shooting down is one of them.

This particular case it is important for the rest of the press and democratic world to come together and say this particular action is protected and will be repeated.

A brewery that drew condemnation in the US and India for its beer that carries the name and likeness of Gandhi says it has received threats and is seeking a way to end the uproar.

New England Brewery of Connecticut posted on its Facebook page yesterday that the Gandhi-Bot beer was intended "to include the things and people in the world that have inspired us." It says it's now looking for a way to "amend this situation."

The company said it's been the target of unspecified threats and "some truly hurtful assumptions" about its employees.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is interesting the Indian origin psuedos passionately oppose protests against vandalism when Amir khan's PK and mf Husain's paintings were attacked, but suddenly offer restraint against offending Islamic images.

Freedom of expression is cherished because it protects the freedom of few when they express views provocative to other sections of society. There are legal avenues to correct mistakes. No sane society agrees that shooting down is one of them.

This particular case it is important for the rest of the press and democratic world to come together and say this particular action is protected and will be repeated.

It is very interesting to see you repeat the same like a broken record without taking other factors into account. In MF Hussain's case he did apologize. The US & French govt's in the past questioned magazine's judgment. You are (as usual) mis-portraying this discussion as support of shooting down cartoonists but it is not. This discussion is about future.

What should this beer company do, discontinue that brand? would that be trampling on free expression?

A brewery that drew condemnation in the US and India for its beer that carries the name and likeness of Gandhi says it has received threats and is seeking a way to end the uproar.

New England Brewery of Connecticut posted on its Facebook page yesterday that the Gandhi-Bot beer was intended "to include the things and people in the world that have inspired us." It says it's now looking for a way to "amend this situation."

The company said it's been the target of unspecified threats and "some truly hurtful assumptions" about its employees.

http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/US-Brewery-Receives-Threats-Over-Beer-Named-GandhiBot/876394

confuzzled dude wrote:

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z1

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30714702 wrote:Unlike Charlie Hebdo, I had not set out to give offence. I am no satirist, and I do not usually enjoy hurting people's feelings. Nevertheless, I too feel that some rights are worthy of being defended - and among them is the freedom of historians to question the origin myths of religions. That was why, when I heard the news from Paris yesterday, I chose to do something I would never otherwise have done, and tweet a Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad.

The BBC, by contrast, has decided not to reproduce the cartoon for this article. Many other media organisations - though not all - have done the same. I refuse to be bound by a de facto blasphemy taboo.

While under normal circumstances I am perfectly happy not to mock beliefs that other people hold dear, these are far from normal circumstances. As I tweeted yesterday, the right to draw Muhammad without being shot is quite as precious to many of us in the West as Islam presumably is to the Charlie Hebdo killers.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...Looks like Mian Daud and the Maulanas have gone into a mourning period.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:...Looks like Mian Daud and the Maulanas have gone into a mourning period.

Seriously....looks like it.

According to a story by CNNers Brian Stelter and Tom Kludt, Zucker opened an editorial meeting this morning with the following message: “‘Journalistically, every bone says we want to use and should use’ the cartoons, Zucker said. But ‘as managers, protecting and taking care of the safety of our employees around the world is more important right now.’”

The New York Times has premised its refusal to republish the most controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons on the sensibilities of its readers: “Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.” Echoes of the “deliberately” offensive rationale ring out from top managers at the Associated Press and The Post.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z1

Wasn't or isn't this how your pieceful Ummah been achieving their "Goals" for a 1000 years ? non-muslims simply avioded - read minimize or save themelves - by 'giving" away their wives, sisters, and daughters, in the hope they would leave the rest alone - yeah rite.

A brianless sword swinger cannot and should not be given any room for trust.  The media world over should put a picture of Muhammad walking a Pig to indicate the whole world has had enough of their shyt.

My next seat passenger was a medico prof from Rotterdam and I was surprised and shocked when he raised the issue of Islamic militarism in Europe on his own.  This one is for another thread. You are a candle light when it comes to liberalism of those guys and EVEN THEY are seeing the light unlike the few desi dumb fyucks here.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z1

Wasn't or isn't this how your pieceful Ummah been achieving their "Goals" for a 1000 years ? non-muslims simply avioded - read minimize or save themelves - by 'giving" away their wives, sisters, and daughters, in the hope they would leave the rest alone - yeah rite.

A brianless sword swinger cannot and should not be given any room for trust.  The media world over should put a picture of Muhammad walking a Pig to indicate the whole world has had enough of their shyt.

My next seat passenger was a medico prof from Rotterdam and I was surprised and shocked when he raised the issue of Islamic militarism in Europe on his own.  This one is for another thread. You are a candle light when it comes to liberalism of those guys and EVEN THEY are seeing the light unlike the few desi dumb fyucks here.

I don't hear a peep about 1000s of civilians killed by boko haram or 60+ nonwhite (muslim) journalists that were killed/beheaded by ISIS in Syria but all we hear about is rise of radical Islam in Europe when in reality only a minuscule of muslim population (about .01%) in Europe are muslim-chaddis. Why don't you bleeding hearts show any concern for these poor people.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z1

Wasn't or isn't this how your pieceful Ummah been achieving their "Goals" for a 1000 years ? non-muslims simply avioded - read minimize or save themelves - by 'giving" away their wives, sisters, and daughters, in the hope they would leave the rest alone - yeah rite.

A brianless sword swinger cannot and should not be given any room for trust.  The media world over should put a picture of Muhammad walking a Pig to indicate the whole world has had enough of their shyt.

My next seat passenger was a medico prof from Rotterdam and I was surprised and shocked when he raised the issue of Islamic militarism in Europe on his own.  This one is for another thread. You are a candle light when it comes to liberalism of those guys and EVEN THEY are seeing the light unlike the few desi dumb fyucks here.

I don't hear a peep about 1000s of civilians killed by boko haram or 60+ nonwhite (muslim) journalists that were killed/beheaded by ISIS in Syria but all we hear about is rise of radical Islam in Europe when in reality only a minuscule of muslim population (about .01%) in Europe are muslim-chaddis. Why don't you bleeding hearts show any concern for these poor people.

the vast majority of the people who are victims of islamic terrorism are innocent muslims. the wingnuts in the US should understand this well. a rough analogy is their constant harping about the fact that the vast majority of victims of gun crime by black people are black people.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The free expression vs. violent reaction debate was particularly pointed for Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a British publication. In a series of tweets after the Paris killings, Pollard argued for not publishing.

“Easy to attack papers for not showing cartoons,” he tweeted. “But here’s my editor’s dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them . . . what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizations-wrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z1

Wasn't or isn't this how your pieceful Ummah been achieving their "Goals" for a 1000 years ? non-muslims simply avioded - read minimize or save themelves - by 'giving" away their wives, sisters, and daughters, in the hope they would leave the rest alone - yeah rite.

A brianless sword swinger cannot and should not be given any room for trust.  The media world over should put a picture of Muhammad walking a Pig to indicate the whole world has had enough of their shyt.

My next seat passenger was a medico prof from Rotterdam and I was surprised and shocked when he raised the issue of Islamic militarism in Europe on his own.  This one is for another thread. You are a candle light when it comes to liberalism of those guys and EVEN THEY are seeing the light unlike the few desi dumb fyucks here.

I don't hear a peep about 1000s of civilians killed by boko haram or 60+ nonwhite (muslim) journalists that were killed/beheaded by ISIS in Syria but all we hear about is rise of radical Islam in Europe when in reality only a minuscule of muslim population (about .01%) in Europe are muslim-chaddis. Why don't you bleeding hearts show any concern for these poor people.

the vast majority of the people who are victims of islamic terrorism are innocent muslims. the wingnuts in the US should understand this well. a rough analogy is their constant harping about the fact that the vast majority of victims of gun crime by black people are black people.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Dude:

iSlamis repeatedly killing muslims is primarily an Islamic problem. If the muslims themselves dont find a way to "take care of them" accepting it as a necessary  collateral for doing the Mohammadan goal of killing all non-believers, it is none of anyone's business - especially that of non-muslims.

Let them die so others can live.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Dude:

iSlamis repeatedly killing muslims is primarily an Islamic problem. If the muslims themselves dont find a way to "take care of them" accepting it as a necessary  collateral for doing the Mohammadan goal of killing all non-believers, it is none of anyone's business - especially that of non-muslims.

Let them die so others can live.

Maoists are repeatedly killing civilians for decades, what is India & Indians doing about it? Does your heart bleed for them like it does for your white masters?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Dude:

iSlamis repeatedly killing muslims is primarily an Islamic problem. If the muslims themselves dont find a way to "take care of them" accepting it as a necessary  collateral for doing the Mohammadan goal of killing all non-believers, it is none of anyone's business - especially that of non-muslims.

Let them die so others can live.

Maoists are repeatedly killing civilians for decades, what is India & Indians doing about it? Does your heart bleed for them like it does for your white masters?

Some kind of a chip on your shoulder, Comrade?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have no problem with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that the islamic terrorists deserve our scorn, and that they need to be caught and punished to the highest extent allowed by law. but when these same freedoms are curtailed by state actors, say china, somehow the world response seems more muted. realpolitik (paging kris) seems to take over. shouldn't we, citizens and residents of western democracies apply consistent standards?

I agree. it's first order of business for citizens of france to bomb china for curtailing freedom of press before finding those responsible for killing a dozen frenchies.

ooh, rush me to the burn unit, the sarcasm is unbearable!
i wasn't talking about the frenchies. i was talking about neutral observers like ourselves.

so you're saying we should have a round of condemnation for chinese before talking about islamic killings just so we're square on the hypocrisy front? sounds like a plan we could all agree on.

No. After this round of frenzied, limpwristed breastbeating, just remember to expend at least a fraction of the effort the next time China or Saudi Arabia throw some blogger into the dungeons. Or closer home, when vandals trash a multiplex for showing PK.

truthbetold wrote:CD

There are many innocent victims of factionalism in rayalaseema. I do not see you ever mentioning them or shedding a tear.  

It is irrational to bring  this topic into this discussion. But it makes a point. 

looks like china and saudi are substitutes for modi and america now. What nonsensical arguments.  There are lot of things that are wrong in the world. Why do we have to drag every unrelated issue into a discussion on islamic terrorism?

truthbetold wrote:CD

There are many innocent victims of factionalism in rayalaseema. I do not see you ever mentioning them or shedding a tear.  

It is irrational to bring  this topic into this discussion. But it makes a point. 

looks like china and saudi are substitutes for modi and america now. What nonsensical arguments.  There are lot of things that are wrong in the world. Why do we have to drag every unrelated issue into a discussion on islamic terrorism?

Whatever the actual size, France's Islamic minority has become a subject of concern and sometimes fear-mongering. One online poll conducted by Ipsos Mosi last year found that the average person in France thought that Muslims made up 31 percent of the population in the country, rather than 7.5 percent. As political scientist Steve Saideman puts it on his blog: "It is important to understand the real numbers, as fears of swamping generate or exacerbate xenophobia, and in pretty much every case, the populations of Muslims are so small that they are politically powerless."

And when it comes to levels of extremism within France's Islamic community, attitudes are again hard to ascertain. One recent poll suggested that 1 in 6 French citizens supported the Islamic State militant organization. When examined closely, its findings seemed incoherent and possibly flawed. (Incidentally, the earliest indications suggest that the Charlie Hebdo attack was carried out by al-Qaeda followers, who now see themselves as rivals to the Islamic State).

A more reassuring poll from 2006 found that 73 percent of French Muslims were "somewhat" or "extremely" concerned about the threat of Islamist extremism. In 2011, Gallup found that 56 percent of French Muslims felt Western societies "respected" Muslim societies. Given the variety of different backgrounds French Muslims come from, attempting to singularly define their positions may ultimately a difficult, even impossible task.

 
Insult a Jew and he'll probably give you a better come-back that insults you worse. Insult a Christian, and he'll just quote you a Bible passage forcing you to run. Insult a Buddhist and he'll ignore you and go meditate. Insult a Muslim and he'll kill you, kill your family, kill your dog, your cat, your goldfish, and your plants. SOMEBODY knows that they can't defend the crap they cling to, so they must resort to violence.

Hellsangel wrote:Read this somewhere on the internet:

 
Insult a Jew and he'll probably give you a better come-back that insults you worse. Insult a Christian, and he'll just quote you a Bible passage forcing you to run. Insult a Buddhist and he'll ignore you and go meditate. Insult a Muslim and he'll kill you, kill your family, kill your dog, your cat, your goldfish, and your plants. SOMEBODY knows that they can't defend the crap they cling to, so they must resort to violence.



"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so," wrote the Twitter user Dyab Abou Jahjah.