home

Je Suis Voltaire

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There has been a bit of back and forth about the Je suis Charlie. See contra Denise Oliver Velez.

Maybe I'm simple, but to me the issue is really simple - je suis Voltaire - I'm not agreeing with what you say, I'm defending your right to say it without getting killed.

More

Denise asks:

How to denounce murder, defend free-speech and a free press and how to "not be Charlie," (Je ne suis pas Charlie) even while expressing my disgust with much of their imagery. This isn't a particularly new question, except for the Charlie part. How do we protect freedom of speech, even speech that targets you and yours and is by any stretch of the progressive imagination "hate speech?"

Is this a hard question? Is Voltaire's formulation not workable? I don't understand why it is not.

Regular readers know I'm proudly wear the pejorative "PC" on my sleeve. I oppose ferociously - some would say to the point of absurdity - racist, sexist and bigoted speech.

But I will defend (not literally to the death of course) the right of folks to use such speech. And they should respect my right to vigorously oppose such speech.

But neither the government, nor private citizens using violence, can be allowed to censor such speech. Speech is opposed with more speech and action. Including boycotts.

If Al Qaida had called for a boycott of Charlie Hebdo, if they had picketed Charlie Hebdo, if they had denounced Charlie Hebdo, I would have defended their right to do all these things.

But that's not what they did. They killed people. That must be opposed.

But it can't just be a right to offend Muslims. France is hypocritical in this regard. Consider this story:

Days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the ensuing violent hostage situations, Dieudonné is back in the news. On Monday, the Paris prosecutor’s office announced that it will investigate a (since-deleted) Facebook post in which Dieudonné wrote a short missive about the solidarity march in Paris, ending it with the words “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” "Charlie Coulibaly" appears to be a mash-up referring to Charlie Hedbo, the satirical magazine targeted last week, and Amedy Coulibaly, the shooter who killed a policewoman last Thursday and died during a stand-off in a kosher supermarket in which four Jewish hostages were killed.

That's offensive no question. But prosecution? While pontificating about free speech? This is insane. The Atlantic writer argues complexity:

Turns out, they bring up an entirely new set of issues. In identifying with both some of the victims and one of the shooters in last week's attacks, Dieudonné's statement, according to the prosecutor's office, was being investigated on the grounds that it was “defending terrorism” rather than committing hate speech.

Is "defending terrorism" not speech? This is bollocks. Like Charlie Ebdo, I stand for defending the rights of Dieudonne to free speech.

Je suis Voltaire.

< Tuesday Open Thread | ISIS Shows Off Its Next Generation of Killers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A little tardy (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    but finally, a post.

    Hope to be able to do one a day in the short term.

    We'll see.

    Agree, great to see you back (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    And a really good post.

    Parent
    Great post (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    nice to read you.

    Parent
    So very glad (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    to see you back, Armando. I have also been thinking of Voltaire in recent days.

    Busy months behind me (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    more to come but not so bad right now.

    Parent
    Welcome back (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    The problem is that this incident is being used (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    to further, not curtail, the surveillance states here and in Europe.  
    The German government has announced plans to institute expanded surveillance and storage of data measures which, only recently, were declared unconstituitional by both the highest court in Germany and the European Court of Human Rights.
    The British government is seeking to outlaw the use of any encryption on chat-apps.
    And the French are putting soldiers in the streets to guard "sensitive" places.

    At least the French government, reported today, has denied trademark protection to "Je Suis Charlie".  Some graphic artist had tried to corner that (like Pat Riley and "Threepeat") within a short time of the killings.

    But, there's a lot of hypocrisy running around and few, if any, of the governments or media involved are covering themselves in glory.  Next thing you know, we'll be seeing cars driving down the road with little flagpoles stuck to the rear windows flying the Tricolor, and we'll be told to buy some Freedom Fries and Brie so we can be cheese-eating victoy monkeys or something.

    All while the USG (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    continues to use drones and Hellfires to deal with speech it doesn't like.

    Parent
    Free Speech is not so Free anymore (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    Turley, 2012:
    The West is re-discovering the tranquility that comes with forced silence. What is fascinating is that this trend is based on principles of tolerance and pluralism -- once viewed as the values underlying free speech.

    Turley discusses the decline of free speech in France and the U.K. in this January 11 blog piece, which contains links to at least a dozen exemplars.

    "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

    I have to assume that John Adams (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    in that quote was comparing democracy unfavorably with what he would have called "a republican form of government" (as was established under the U.S. Constitution), not with a dictatorship or a monarchy.

    Parent
    Or with a theocracy, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    I should have included.

    Parent
    He wrote it (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:12:49 AM EST
    in a letter to John Taylor in 1814.

    Here's the full quote and the context:

    John Taylor of Caroline, Virginia, spurred Adams' surprising words on democracy. This republican lawyer and member of the state legislature published numerous political books from 1814 to 1823, much of them using colorful language to point out Taylor's perceived flaws of the ruling government. He also used the opportunity to critique Adams' "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States." Adams' quote is a response to the lines Taylor wrote in his 1814 book, "An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States," which stated that Adams "might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the pride, folly, and ambition of monarchy and aristocracy."

    The Full Quote

    Adams was quick to respond to Taylor's criticism with an 1814 letter. He wrote, to quote the passage entirely, "I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation."



    Parent
    Adams wrote this in an 1821 address (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:32:28 AM EST
    on foreign policy.

    She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

    "But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."

    "She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."



    Parent
    Not really the full quote (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    The quoted line comes from a very long letter, responding to Taylor's critical review of Adams's post-retirement "Treatises on the Principles of Government," including his "Defence of the Constitution of the United States." I haven't read the whole letter yet, but it does appear, as I suspected, that in pointing out the weaknesses of "democracy," Adams was not using the term as we would today, to describe the American system of government, but rather was contrasting it with the "republican" form of government that he had been instrumental in designing, more than 25 years earlier, under our Constitution. I am looking forward to reading the whole thing. Thanks for the pointer!

    Parent
    I'm fascinated by the writing and perspectives (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:47:22 AM EST
    of this nation's founders.

    They are very different from the pretty words mouthed by today's pols, particularly those penned by the 26 year old who made candidate Obama look so shiny and bright.

    I'm pretty sure the next Declaration of Independence will contain a complaint about standing armies of speechwriters.

    Parent

    upon reading more of Adams' mature writing (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    in this 1824 letter, we see he is standing behind the U.S. Constitutional design, and comparing it favorably to "democracy" in its more pure form, as typified by the French revolution. He consistently praises the benefits of encouraging and empowering a natural (non-hereditary) "aristocracy" - by which, in today's terminology, he means what we would call a "meritocracy."  Elitist, yes.  Anti-democratic, in modern terms, no, since he also clearly states and believes that everyone is born with equal natural rights, although not with equal aptitudes or talents. On that basis Adams asserts that each individual is equally entitled to rise - and that our society, by its design, benefits when each person can rise - to the highest level that those individual (inherently unequal) characteristics allow.

    Parent
    Taylor may have been... (none / 0) (#77)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    ...a republican lawyer, but he died a decade or two too early to know if he would have chosen to be a Republican.

    Parent
    BTW, BTD, on the subject of the Genius (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    The cynicism nurtured by Voltaire's Candide, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and other satires of that age has never failed me.  (and, like somebody said, it's never been enough.)

    The quote is actually from page 199 of The Friends of Voltaire, by Evelyn Hall, writing as S. G. Tallentyre, describing the attitude of Voltaire toward the suppression of Helvetius' "De I'Esprit", which had recently been publicly burned beside Voltaire's "Natural Law."

    What the book could never have done for itself, or for its author, persecution did for them both. 'On the Mind' became not the success of a season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it, and had not particularly loved Helvetius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now.

    S. G. Tallentyre was the pen name for Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a pedant like me, who never wrote anything as bitterly satirical as Candide.

    I am really glad to see you back.


    A couple (none / 0) (#24)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:51:54 PM EST
     of riffs on Voltaire from previous days

    Nous sommes Voltaire

    Why I am not Charlie

    Parent

    Thanks for these. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    I had not realized what an anti-semite Voltaire was. Not that that makes him less of a satiric genius or any less of an important influence on enlightenment political philosophy, which in turn inspired the Founders of our country.

    Parent
    He's also long been (none / 0) (#60)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:38:24 PM EST
     a favorite "legitimizing" source for modern antisemites (and to some degree, racist bigots of all stripes) Check this example:

      Judeofascism,com

     It's somewhat ironic he is mostly remembered, or reconstructed, if I may, as a paragon of tolerance and freedom.

    Parent

    Makes for an interesting interplay (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    with French culture.   They are very sensitive to antisemitism and antisemetic statements.  Holocaust denial is a crime.   They do not condemn Hebdo because that tradition of secular satire is deep and rich.   It's interesting to read all the stuff about this from people who understand nothing about the history.  You would not find many non muslim french people who think the arrests recently are contradictory or "selective" at all.  
    I would say they would paraphrase the justice who said "I know it when I see it"

    Parent
    Did you see Christopher (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    Durang's play "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You"?  No murders that I've heard of.  But likely highly offensive to true believers. In one scene the baby Jesus, a rubber doll, is the subject of a game of keep-away.

    The more offended true believers are, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    the more I like it.  If religionistas had devoted, over the millenia, as much time to the advancement of science as they have to grubbing through the sophistries collectively known as theology, this world would be in a much better place.

    If there is a god, we were given this brain for reason, not unreason.

    Parent

    This is EXACTLY the conversation we - (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    tout le monde - should be having.  We should not just be talking about free speech, but about what these world leaders are doing to advance it.  How do their countries' policies comport with their public rhetoric?  

    Are we ever going to see that discussion in the mainstream?

    I'm guessing not.  People in glass houses, and all that.

    Obama's gift to his peers was to not show up for the We-Are-The-World photo op; his absence has dominated the media - at least here - and  allowed real free speech issues to take a back seat, and kept world leaders off the hot seat for their own failures in this area.

    Quel dommage...je d'esespere.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    The Paris demonstration, itself,  was a forceful conversation on free speech and freedom of expression--soon to be needed more than ever in the likely reaction to events where governments take/are given increased license so as to "balance" safety and liberty--with a big old thumb on the scale.  

    The demonstration's "conversation" was of free speech in its most fundamental form: murder is not the antidote for offensive speech.   The world leaders, themselves of less than stellar commitment to free speech, were there not to be honored, but to honor the crowds, who seemed to get it right/write.

    From, simple home-made signs to the clever: "he drew first" cartoon.  And, maybe, those world leaders might learn something, in their own self-interests.  As one of those who feels that we should have been represented by an official of higher profile, I was somewhat chagrined to find myself in the company of the likes of Lindsey Graham, who I generally deploy as a good barometer of the absurd.  

    However, while symbolic at a minimum, it would have been valuable for a higher profile delegate to be part of that conversation.  If every one in the administration's dance card was filled, I would have liked to seen former President Jimmy Carter, a good human rights stand-in on the Champs Elysees.

    Parent

    When is the last time we saw (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    a million-plus people massing in American streets?  

    I can't think of one at the moment.

    Maybe this is why it's been so easy to chip away at the rights we have - it kind of seems like people really don't care as long as their lives seem the same as they ever were.

    Maybe we're just more afraid of authority; guess that campaign's working out quite well.

    It's enough to make a person weep.

    Parent

    I would guess the last time a million massed (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 08:49:02 PM EST
    in the streets was in early 2003, to oppose the U.S. launching of a terrible, wrongheaded war in Iraq. In multiple cities, yes, but probably a million in all, wasn't it?

    Parent
    4 comments about mass-marches (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:20:08 AM EST
    and the most well-attended march is totally unknown to you.  Hint: It happens every Jan 22 in Wash DC, with usually 500K. When you add in other cities it rounds out at about one mil total.  shhhh! it must be some kind of a secret, the media will not report about it, as evidenced here by 4 heavy media consumers knowing nothing about it.

    Parent
    Perhaps I should have been more (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:50:41 AM EST
    specific in my earlier comment, in which I asked when's the last time we saw a million-plus people massing in the streets.  Perhaps I needed to add "within days of an event," or "spontaneously" to make the point that people came together in Paris in huge numbers with little planning or organization.

    But as long as you brought it up, I don't regard the March for Life - to which you were referring - which advocates taking rights away from millions of women, to be on the same plane with a march in support of the rights of millions of living, breathing human beings.  It is also highly organized and not in the least spontaneous. And the media does report on it, every year.  

    I don't have a problem with anyone being opposed to abortion, or marching to express those views, but I do have a problem with efforts to impose those beliefs on all women of child-bearing age.

    I think Peter's right - the last time we had large spontaneous street demonstrations it was to protest the war in Iraq.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:53:06 AM EST
    it doesn't get much coverage (and, to be accurate, the crowds are usually around 250K - last year was the exception - not 500K) because the groups that make up the March for Life keep spewing nonsense like this.  Why should the media cover that?

    Parent
    not sexy enough (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 08:28:24 AM EST
    there are only 2 things that drives if and how events are covered by the journo-tainment industry, ratings and serving the interests of their  corporate paymasters. The annual march for life is too old hat, the same old baby killer signs and fetus pictures, a ratings killer. The corporate overlords could give a flying fig about social issues except as a wedge issue to divide the masses. The fight over reproductive rights has been a long self-substaining battle, no need for the overlords to stir the pot on this one. Peaceful marches for the most part do not draw viewers and the messages from those marches are contrary or neutral towards the powers that be. So most mass protests are given short shrift or at best shown in a negative light when they cannot be ignored. Then it's back to the latest missing blonde or airliner.

    Parent
    "the fight" (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 08:42:19 AM EST
    There's no upside to actually winning.  Gotta keep those donations rolling in.

    Parent
    One of these days... (none / 0) (#62)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    ...someone is going to invent the pretty young blonde airliner, and if one should ever go missing, Western Civilization will implode.

    Parent
    into (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    a black hole of course.

    Parent
    Not a "secret" (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    Just not particularly "news", since it occurs every year for the past 40 years.  The "March For Life" and the "Rolling Thunder" rallies are the only two that occur every year in DC, so they're not especially newsworthy.

    Parent
    When was the last time we had (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    an issue that was "acceptable" to enough of us?
    A couple of dozen dead school children too depressing. A teachable moment you say, excellent idea, until the NRA bullies come disrupt the classroom, free speech you know, class dismissed.

    Like it or not the Paris killings were "sexy" enough to attract "outrage" from all across the political spectrum. From the far left free speech absolutists to the hypocritical bandwagon jumpers on the right everyone had something to glom onto.

    The disaster-porn media jumped in full force of course. Terrorists, bodies, video, ratings! OMG journalists, we are Charlie, they are coming for our freedom.

    The corpses of Charlie had way more friends then they had when they were alive. Yes the world wept So did the crocodiles.

    Parent

    If anything embarrasses the U.S. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:57:11 PM EST
    Our inability to take to the streets together to defend the basics is where our embarrassment should take hold of a news cycle.

    Parent
    Three years ago, in response to the (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 08:10:41 AM EST
    economic crimes of Wall Street for which little, if any, accountability was being sought, the growing income inequality between those at the top of the income chain and everyone else, the attack on social safety-net programs, largely peaceful protests were held in cities around the country under the name Occupy Wall Street.  

    David Dayen, writing in Salon:

    The right to peaceable assembly is as much a part of the First Amendment as the right to free speech, and in fact they intersect. In 2011 the tens of thousands of Occupiers across the country had no access to a printing press or real estate in a newsweekly. So they used their collective voice, basically all they had to use, to call attention to an economic system that doesn't work for the 99 percent. In their view, the best way to maximize the reach of that opinion was through an ongoing protest, using public spaces to register dissent.

    This was not welcomed as a new addition to the public debate, or an example of boldly exercising the sacred, inalienable right to speak out. In fact it was immediately seen as a problem to be solved. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security gathered intelligence on Occupy protests from even before it began, coordinating this surveillance with local police nationwide and even the New York Stock Exchange and private businesses. City councils subsequently passed a host of new laws, presented as protections for health and safety, to criminalize assemblies and justify evictions from encampments.

    [...]

    At no time did the army of free speech warriors on the right speak up against this state-sponsored repression of peaceful assembly and protest. They did suggest that the protesters should leave the country if they opposed the economic system, and they did whip up fear by equating outlier criminal conduct with the entire movement. Traditional media and government, particularly on the right, worked hand-in-hand to discredit the protests and ensure no backlash when they were inevitably and brutally repressed.

    [...]

    I'm sure conservatives found the Occupy message uncomfortable, and they had every right to oppose it and offer rebuttals. But they've spent the last week arguing that it's wrong to extinguish that uncomfortable speech, to narrow the zones where that expression can take place. In fact they've called anyone who tries to shut down speech the moral equivalent of a terrorist. Does that also count for the nation's law enforcement apparatus knocking out those who question the effectiveness of unregulated crony capitalism and soaring inequality?

    Seems like you could cut the hypocrisy with a knife, it's so thick.  

    As The Clash put it (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    THE CLASH LYRICS

    "Know Your Rights"

    This is a public service announcement
    With guitar
    Know your rights all three of them

    Number 1
    You have the right not to be killed
    Murder is a CRIME!
    Unless it was done by a
    Policeman or aristocrat
    Know your rights

    And Number 2
    You have the right to food money
    Providing of course you
    Don't mind a little
    Investigation, humiliation
    And if you cross your fingers
    Rehabilitation

    Know your rights
    These are your rights
    Wang

    Know these rights

    Number 3
    You have the right to free
    Speech as long as you're not
    Dumb enough to actually try it.

    Know your rights
    These are your rights
    All three of 'em
    It has been suggested
    In some quarters that this is not enough!
    Well..............................

    Get off the streets
    Get off the streets
    Run
    You don't have a home to go to
    Smush

    Finally then I will read you your rights

    You have the right to remain silent
    You are warned that anything you say
    Can and will be taken down
    And used as evidence against you

    Listen to this
    Run




    Parent
    I was just listening to this album (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    last night!

    Parent
    Man I wish Joe Strummer was here....n/t (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    It seems like Denise and others with a public (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    forum feel pressured to express their defense of free speech in a particular way, by republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, thereby identifying themselves with CH more than just symbolically with the slogan. Pressuring someone to say something they don't agree with, or to publish cartoons they find offensive, is just as bad pressuring them to stop saying something.

    I agree, it really is not that complicated.

    All cartoons are offensive (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    to someone or someone else.  Every last cartoon. Period.

    However, what we see is that there are some folks that it is very important not to offend and others that are completely OK to offend.  Those news organizations that refuse to reprint the very newsworthy cartoons (they do show proximate cause) are just showing the jihadis are in the most important Do Not Offend group.

    Shameful, and worse dangerous.

    Parent

    not the most important (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    but definitely the most dangerous. Is it shameful to restrict some rights to protect your fellow humans? I would say no, we do it all the time (the old crowded theatre argument among others). Is it unfortunate in this case? Definitely, letting murderous thugs dictate the limits on our freedoms is not the way to fly. Freedom is an ideal, reality is a bitch. Of course we should fight for our ideals tooth and nail, but if your freedom is getting innocent people killed maybe you should let off the gas just a bit. A thorny problem indeed.

    Parent
    As French Muslims are feeling now (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:49:42 AM EST
    Link

    Many of France's Muslims -- like Abdelaali -- abhor the violence that struck the country last week. But they are also revolted by the notion that they should defend the paper. By putting the publication on a pedestal, they insist, the French are once again sidelining the Muslim community, feeding into a general sense of discrimination that, they argue, helped create the conditions for radicalization in the first place.

    SNIP

    Some insisted there is a double standard in freedom of speech and expression here that is bias against Islam. They cite the 2010 so-called burqa ban in France that forbade "concealment of the face" in public, and which Muslim critics say was clearly aimed at devout Islamic women. They also point to the 2008 firing of a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist -- Maurice Sinet, known as Siné -- after he declined to apologize for a column that some viewed as anti-Semitic. Such action was not taken, Muslim groups note, after their protests over the paper's Muhammad cartoons.

    And while David Brooks, is well, David Brooks, and not very popular around here, I think he makes a very good point about hypocrisy:

    The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let's face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

    Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

    Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

    Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.



    Parent
    What, even (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    This one from Pogo?

    Well, maybe so.

    "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

    Parent

    You live is a closed cartoon world (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    Ahem . . . . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 09:18:22 PM EST
    They made Snoopy live outside . . . .  

    Parent
    Snoopy lives in a house (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:49:50 AM EST
    that's big enough to hold a pool table.

    Parent
    Pet slavery is offensive to some (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:58:00 AM EST
    Snoopy isn't mentioned in that article (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:55:56 AM EST
    Velez: How do we protect freedom of speech, (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    even speech that targets you and yours and is by any stretch of the progressive imagination "hate speech?"

    I am wondering whether Velez would label the Broadway hit, "The Book of Mormon," "hate speech"?  It did target Mormons (and other religions sponsoring missionaries to foreign lands.

    I could argue it is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:53 PM EST
    CAN'T seem to accept (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    Bah!

    To paraphrase, " I do not agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    with what you have to say, but I should not have to die if I defend you. And, you should not have to die for what you have to say."   Killing people in retribution or to prevent their saying what they say is a moral abomination. Murder as the antidote for such offenses against a religious belief is highest in the hierarchy of social corruption and psychological perversion.

    The Kalashnikovs took aim not only at the French cartoonists, but also, at the free-thinking mind.  Pursuit of "la provoc" is a Parisian tradition, stemming from their revolution.  An aggressive secularism and, historically, a check on the Catholic Church, and particularly, a way of keeping the cardinals and bishops velvet slippers planted on the ground.

    But, the Muslim inhabitants of the banlieues do not see satire as poking fun at authority, but rather, as the arrogance of the powerful--demeaning the part of their identity that has not been integrated into society.  Equal opportunity mocking is not persuasive.  Irony, criticism and irreverence seen as good things in Western society are seen as being only provocative.

    The excesses of fanaticism can take people, in the name of religion, to horrible places. As Voltaire says, "nothing is more terrible than a people, having nothing to lose, fight in the united spirit of religion."    All the more important, therefore, that we honor those courageous and incisive satirists from Voltaire to Stephen Colbert.   The  Charlie Hebdo demonstration in Paris this past weekend, was to me, a productive reaction, acknowledging, in its way, that our terrorist challenge requires more than drones and boots on the ground.

       

    France, (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    it has been pointed out, is for free speech when it comes to cartoons ridiculing Mohammed, but forbids Muslim women from wearing garments that cover their faces.

    I personally cringe at the sight of women in Burqas.
    That is because I associate it with the relegation of women to a status that is beneath the status of men.

    But I can't know if any particular women has chosen that way of life, or that religion or that means of expression willingly or not.

    So I have to feel the banning of the Burqa as the State banning an expression of a religious belief - akin to the suppression of freedom of expression.

    I have seen women wearing surgical masks instead of the part of the Burqa that covers the face. As far as i know, that is not illegal. The law would have to be changed to prohibit all face coverings - for everyone. Men and women.

    It's freedom for all or freedom for nobody.

    Personally, and I do not defend my reaction - just reporting it - I wish that Charlie Hebdo had not published a rather crummy depiction of Mohammed on its first publication since the slaughter. It is their right. And I defend it and all that. But they are not likely to be the targets once again if a rather crappy cartoon inflames another madman. So I think that at this delicate time they are essentially crying "fire" in a crowded theatre.

    I think their intention was to portray Muhammad shedding a tear over the slaughter -  expressing that he would not be on the side of the the perpetrators. But the drawing is so crappy - and Mohammed is made to look so hideous, that I found it revolting - and really insensitive - to French Muslims of course, but also insensitive to people - innocent civilians - whom they may be putting in the line of fire.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that and I defend their right to do it and I am Charlie and I am Voltaire... oh boy.


    Maybe they could remind that Imam (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    what "freedom of speech" looks like for real, and, that the world doesn't come to an end when it's practiced in the most profound way I can recall.

    See: "Nazis march in Skokie," allowed in the USA, and, defended/represented by Jewish attorneys of the ACLU (among others)

    Je Suis un Théoricien de la Conspiration (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 08:24:06 PM EST
    Try this link for some super wacky conspiracy theories from Turkey and Russia about the Paris events.  It is shocking that they come from prominent people, not Internet trolls.  For those without Financial Times access, here are some examples.

    Turkish:


    Melih Gokcek, mayor of Ankara for the ruling AK party, said on Monday that "Mossad [the Israeli intelligence service] is definitely behind such incidents . . . it is boosting enmity towards Islam." Mr Gokcek linked the attacks to French moves towards recognising Palestine.

    Ali Sahin, a member of Turkey's parliament and foreign affairs spokesman for the AK party, last week set out eight reasons why he suspected the killings were staged so that "the attack will be blamed on Muslims and Islam".


    Russian:

    Komsomolskaya Pravda, one of Russia's leading tabloids, ran the headline: "Did the Americans stage the terror attack in Paris?" and posted a series of interviews on its website that presented various reasons why Washington might have organised the attack.

    In one interview, Alexander Zhilin, head of the pro-Kremlin Moscow Centre for the Study of Applied Problems, claimed the terror attack was US retribution against President François Hollande for a January 6 radio interview in which Mr Hollande urged the EU to lift sanctions against Russia.

    Washington used the attacks as "a quick fix for consolidating" US and EU geopolitical interests in Ukraine, Mr Zhilin claimed.



    I love a good conspiracy theory... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:07:10 AM EST
    ... they're almost as funny as good editorial cartoons.

    Parent
    And Now From the Cofounder of Reganomics (none / 0) (#69)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    Paul Craig Roberts was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist so it is no surprise he is also a Charlie Hebdo one.

    Parent
    Amazing (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:43:53 PM EST
    If Muslims wanted to make a point of the cartoons, why not bring a hate crime charge or lawsuit? Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming every aspect of it.

    Seriously.  It takes about 30seconds of googling to see a bunch of Hebdo cartoons featuring Jews.  Or the Pope. Or pretty much any religious figure from all three religions.  Often in the same cartoon.   How easy is it to fleece these people.  Meaning the ones who read the "Paul" website.

    Parent

    France arrests 54 in hate speech roundup (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    So the Difference is ...? (none / 0) (#51)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    Dieudonne, a comic who popularized an arm gesture that resembles a Nazi salute and who has been convicted repeatedly of racism and anti-Semitism, is no stranger to controversy. His provocative performances were banned last year but he has a core following among France's disaffected youth.

    The comic wrote an open letter to France's interior minister. "You are looking for a pretext to forbid me. You consider me like Amedy Coulibaly when I am not any different from Charlie," he wrote.



    Parent
    Is the quoted excerpt supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    reflect what you see as the difference?

    Here are some thoughts to ponder (bold is mine):

    Despite the obvious threat to free speech posed by this arrest, it is inconceivable that any mainstream western media figures would start tweeting "#JeSuisDieudonné" or would upload photographs of themselves performing his ugly Nazi-evoking arm gesture in "solidarity" with his free speech rights. That's true even if he were murdered for his ideas rather than "merely" arrested and prosecuted for them. That's because last week's celebration of the Hebdo cartoonists (well beyond mourning their horrifically unjust murders) was at least as much about approval for their anti-Muslim messages as it was about the free speech rights that were invoked in their support - at least as much.

    The vast bulk of the stirring "free speech" tributes over the last week have been little more than an attempt to protect and venerate speech that degrades disfavored groups while rendering off-limits speech that does the same to favored groups, all deceitfully masquerading as lofty principles of liberty. In response to my article containing anti-Jewish cartoons on Monday - which I posted to demonstrate the utter selectivity and inauthenticity of this newfound adoration of offensive speech - I was subjected to endless contortions justifying why anti-Muslim speech is perfectly great and noble while anti-Jewish speech is hideously offensive and evil (the most frequently invoked distinction - "Jews are a race/ethnicity while Muslims aren't" - would come as a huge surprise to the world's Asian, black, Latino and white Jews, as well as to those who identify as "Muslim" as part of their cultural identity even though they don't pray five times a day). As always: it's free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it's something different when I'm the one who is offended.

    Think about the "defending terrorism" criminal offense for which Dieudonné has been arrested. Should it really be a criminal offense - causing someone to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned - to say something along these lines: western countries like France have been bringing violence for so long to Muslims in their countries that I now believe it's justifiable to bring violence to France as a means of making them stop? If you want "terrorism defenses" like that to be criminally prosecuted (as opposed to societally shunned), how about those who justify, cheer for and glorify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, with its "Shock and Awe" slogan signifying an intent to terrorize the civilian population into submission and its monstrous tactics in Fallujah? Or how about the psychotic calls from a Fox News host, when discussing Muslims radicals, to "kill them ALL." Why is one view permissible and the other criminally barred - other than because the force of law is being used to control political discourse and one form of terrorism (violence in the Muslim world) is done by, rather than to, the west?



    Parent
    I Agree With Greenwald 100% (none / 0) (#57)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    The difference is quite simple (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    the people arrested were arrested for "defending or inciting terrorism".  Hebdo did neither.

    Parent
    The Links Also Mentioned Hate Speech (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    The Wikipedia article on hate speech in France has
    Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.

    On that account, both Charlie and Dieudonne seem to be guilty.

    Parent

    You asked what the difference was (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    With the arrests.  I told you.  A satirical cartoon does not Defend or incite terrorism.  Except for lunatics.

    I'm done here.

    Parent

    I Tried to Point Out to You (none / 0) (#55)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    that they were also arrested for hate speech, not only inciting terrorism as you incorrectly said.

    Parent
    Arrests for hate speech... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    are arrests for free speech...I find the arrest of Dieudonne appallingly hypocritical and morally wrong.

    But France and much of Europe is funny like that when it comes to issues of free speech...in this area, I'm proud to be an American. Our free speech record, though flawed, is much better than France.    

    Parent

    Different set of laws (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:57:21 PM EST
    they don't have a first amendment.  There are lots of things you can say here but not in France.  Or any where else in Europe.  IMO you can consider it morally wrong.  I might agree.  But it's not hypocritical under their legal system.  As I said, the charges against him still must be proven in court.
    They may not be.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    and all we here in America is a bunch of hired shysters fighting-tooth-and-nail to prove that money is "speech"..

    So that they can that much more easily make the need for censorship obsolete by simply marginalizing unacceptable and dangerous ideas.

    I wouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that we're "free" in any meaningful way just because you can turn on the tv and hear jokes about Joan River's vagina.

    Parent

    have here in America.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    Not hypocritical but troubling (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    Letting the authorities decide what speech is allowed and what is not is a dangerous thing. Persecuting citizens for their speech is a the bread and butter tactic for all tyrants. I am not saying that the French are tyrants, but even the perception of suppression of some speech over others can breed serious discord.

    Speaking truth to power is the ultimate use of free speech. Our first amendment insures that power cannot squelch a truth it does not like. Unfortunately that enables hate mongers of all stripes to spew their vileness. Freedom has it's price and letting haters speak freely without legal sanctions is one of them.

    I think we can cut them a little slack (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    in interpreting what "free speech" is vs how we define it.

    It was on their continent that only a half century ago millions and millions of their citizens (not only Jews) were slaughtered in the most psychotic and sadistic way possible. And, the leaders of that genocide were able to accomplish that, to a large degree, through the carefully designed use of "speech."

    We have our exceptions to "free speech," they have theirs.