I’m afraid that another result of this event will be yet another resurgence of racist hatred in the United States. When I read about this crime on AOL, I took a look at the comments, and my heart really sank. The vast majority of them were really hateful anti-Islamic screeds–with about 10% of them also blaming Obama and/or gun control advocates, somehow.
There was a thoughtful piece in the New Yorker (or maybe on its website) pointing out that you can’t divorce these acts from Islam–that this is a problem of Islam, specifically. I agree with that. But I hope we can maintain our own ideals while responding to attacks like this.
“…because they aren’t just offensive to extremists (who, understandably, shouldn’t be considered when someone asks the question “is this offensive?”) but also to Muslims generally, many of whom would never dream of committing murder.”
Too darn bad. There is no right not to be offended. Plenty of ideas are “offensive” in the marketplace. “Piss Christ” is offensive. The Simpsons are offensive. Howard Stern is offensive. The Westboro Baptist Church is offensive. The best disinfectant is sunlight, as they say.
We must be very careful in how strongly we advocate censorship, even though from time to time I have been aghast and/or offended at someone’s words. There have been times where I have wished someone would temper their speech or rethink stating a position, but we must never advocate revenge for exercising one’s rights to freedom of expression. Freedom of the press is a very VERY important principle that must be preserved. We have seen many horrible examples of what befalls populations whose press is censored or muzzled.
It’s not reasonable for a group to be bent out of shape for a cultural norm that is applied to the mainstream. The Christian god & prophets get lampooned too. How many jokes have heard about St. Peter standing at the pearly gate?
The point is that Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons that offend religious people-- they’re well beyond what many people would find acceptable. They publish cartoons that offend Catholics, they publish cartoons that offend Jews, they publish cartoons that offend Muslims. Let’s say that CNN (or whoever) has decided that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are outside their editorial standards, not just the cartoons that skewer Muslims but other cartoons as well. They’re tasteless and offensive, according to CNN (or whoever). And now Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists are killed for these cartoons. Should CNN (or whoever) now publish cartoons that were previously outside their standards?
Magazines have the right to be offensive and not to be killed for being offensive. Nobody here denies that. But should CNN now put up the offensive cartoons, because now they are news? I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, I don’t want journalists to be intimidated by terrorists. On the other hand, if the journalists have already decided that these offensive cartoons were not up to standard, they’re still not up to standard. That is, it’s not censorship to continue to refuse to publish something you already decided you weren’t going to publish.
True, but it seems to me that some news outlets are perfectly happy to publish work that is offensive to Christians or Jews, but seem to stay well away from publishing anything offensive to Islam. That is not okay imo.
The answer is actually rather simple - you move there if you think it is your duty to change Roman behavior to yours, even if it is by any means necessary.
I did say that radicals shouldn’t be counted when someone asks the question “is this offensive?”
There will never be anything that’s not offensive to somebody, but there are still clear cases where something is obviously offensive and would ideally be avoided out of decency and empathy. It’s impossible to not offend anyone, and there are gray cases as well but that’s no reason to throw out the entire concept. Thinking that one has the right to say/present blatantly offensive things isn’t mutually exclusive from thinking that one ideally should refrain from doing so.
I find the phrase “Western values” misleading. It implies that there are certain values that are exclusive to and/or were founded by the West. Immigrants do have to accept the laws of the country that they are living in, as do citizens, but they may also live according to the culture(s) that they please and be free to criticize. Just as citizens can. Although I’m not sure how the assimilation of immigrants relates to the current discussion.
Civilized doesn’t imply Western, and Western doesn’t imply civilized.
Absolutely. But if somebody massacred them because of their offensive message, would you post that message on your Facebook page? I certainly wouldn’t.
I think part of the problem here is that Muslims are offended by any depiction of Mohammed at all. So some of these offensive cartoons are not offensive in the way we in the West typically think of offensive. I see cartoons all the time–in the funny pages of the newspaper–depicting the Judeo-Christian God doing and saying humorous things. This is not inherently offensive to most Christians (depending on what God is saying and doing, of course). The same would be true of cartoons depicting Jesus. But if, for example, you drew a cartoon of Mohammed, maybe just having him say “Who am I to judge?”, that would be considered offensive. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it is a sensible request to never draw a picture of Mohammed at all. Reasonable minds ought to agree that nobody should be murdered for doing it.
I saw some of the “offensive” cartoons, and I totally see how a Muslim could be very offended by them, ESPECIALLY given the fact above. But is the solution to attempt to have them censored, or does one organize a boycott, or any number of other ways to show displeasure?
“Thinking that one has the right to say/present blatantly offensive things isn’t mutually exclusive from thinking that one ideally should refrain from doing so”
I’m not sure what this has to do with being murdered for a cartoon. But, now those cartoons are newsworthy and if people don’t get to see them because the press is afraid to publish them that cannot be a good thing. And, it really has nothing at all to do with offending people or not which no-one has a right not to be although it may not be nice…
There’s no freedom if there’s no freedom of the press and if the press caves voluntarily the result is the same. Not good. Would you post it on your Facebook page is who cares but when news outlets shy away it is concerning.
That is because assimilation or the lack thereof goes to the heart of the debate and the problem. Unless I am mistaken, we have had discussion about the religious freedom --if you can call that freedom-- to wear full veils. The practice is illegal in a number of countries, but is massively ignored as the police has refused to enter in zones that are now called no-go areas, which are under the control of zealots. How about the rights of the people who lived in those zones for decades, and well before the Sharia became the weapon of choice?
I am not sure what you find misleading about Western values beyond idle battles of semantics.
Be specific, please. Which specific news organizations that are refusing to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons have published which specific things offensive to Christians or Jews?
Actually, France’s free speech laws are pretty restrictive in their own right as shown by their attempts to ban Ebay from allowing folks in France from viewing or buying Nazi memorabilia.
Many European countries, especially Germany have such restrictive free speech policies because of what happened due to longstanding history of anti-Semitic and xenophobic attitudes in the mass media and past right-wing groups/political parties which fomented society-wide hatred of the Jewish people and other unpopular minorities which culminated in the rise of Fascism and policies which created the Nuremberg Laws, concentration camps, and WWII.
That’s the reason why Germany and other European countries don’t agree with what they perceive as American absolutist attitudes regarding free speech. In their historical context, allowing hate speech in the mass media and population at large to go unchecked played a key factor in the rise of Fascism and the systemic policies which lead to furthering already widespread hatred against groups deemed “outsiders” by conservative dominated elite society of the time.
This is equally ironic in France’s case as it has its own ignominious history with hate speech fanning the flames of anti-semitism…Dreyfus Affair and Vichy France anyone?
That and one major reason why France has a large Muslim immigrant population had to do with its long colonial legacy in the Middle East and North Africa. A legacy which is another ignominious mark on France’s history.
Is that really a question? The history of the Danish and Charlie subsequent cartoons is pretty simple. MOST of the media only reproduced them partly or blanked them out. This was almost universal. Just as universal as the position regarding limiting criticism of Christians/Catholics or Jews in the media.
Asking for specific is rather silly. You’d be better off asking which outfits endorsed the publishing of the Danish cartoons!
“Civilized doesn’t imply Western, and Western doesn’t imply civilized.”
In civilized cultures, if Person A does Thing B which is offensive to Group C, we have ways of dealing with those things that don’t involve violence. We may boycott or refuse to do business with Person A. We may peacefully march or protest outside Person A’s office. We may write op-eds disagreeing with Person A, and we may expend significant energy trying to convince others to our point of view. We may indicate public sympathy for Group C and public scorn for Group A. We have a ballot box that we can use, and we have judges and a rule of order and a constitution we follow. But we don’t kill people over it. That’s why we are civilized, stressedoutt.
Bill Maher made the point - and he’s right - that they are beheading people in Saudi Arabia for being gay. What do you think the outcry in America would be if they were beheading people in the Vatican City for (insert whatever sin goes against the Catholic church)?
The KKK was still murdering and lynching people well into the 1960’s with not only muted condemnation, but much praise and protectiveness of perpetrators by the local White population.
Abu Ghraib perpetuated under US military watch/some military personnel?*
There was a bomb explosion at an NAACP office yesterday which hasn’t gotten much news coverage…much less condemnation.
This incident is one of many which makes American demands for greater human rights and "being civilized" to other countries look exceedingly hypocritical to many in the international community.