Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And as we can see on this board, let's not pretend anglophones are paragons of sensitivity either. Maybe the relative anonymity allows them to say what they really believe instead of dressing it up under the cover of politeness.
Yes, but no too tough. I'd rather save the lives of my staff; then again, they knew what they were writing and drawing, it's not as if it was a surprise when the publication came out. Not to say that they had it coming to them...but, at the very least, they were naïve to think nothing would happen.
The editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo certainly knew what could happen, and accepted it. Nevertheless, I will take the bold stance of proclaiming that it is unacceptable to respond to speech you find offensive with mass murder.
The editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo certainly knew what could happen, and accepted it. Nevertheless, I will take the bold stance of proclaiming that it is unacceptable to respond to speech you find offensive with mass murder.
By "extreme vulgarity" do you mean something like the one below?
(This one isn't about Muhammad; I don't know the exact context but I think it lampooned the Catholic Church's role in opposing same-sex marriage in France.)
Yup there are ones like this mocking Islam. I think there is a big difference between starting a conversation and picking a fight.
What the cartoonist were doing is legal and should remain legal. That the cartoons were so vulgar and I don't think inspired conversation makes their deaths more tragic. Ironically their deaths have inspired a lot more conversation than their art ever could have.
OK, thanks for this, it answers my question. Do you have a link? I'd like to see how they framed the discussion.
Sure, here's the link to the article I read. It seems they had some other discussions from the radio and a video explaining English CBC's decision not to reprint on the left. I've watched the CBC's explanation and it's pretty interesting, I think it probably sums up what was probably going through most of the Anglophone media decision maker's heads. For those who don't want to watch it, I think the salient point was that he was saying that media should at least attempt to be neutral as regards opinion and at least aspire to simply report the facts when it comes to the news, especially the public broadcaster. With that in mind, publishing a picture of the prophet Muhammed would amount to a statement that would be far from that editorial neutrality and quite polarizing, so that wasn't what they wanted to do. As for why the Francophone media was doing it and they were not, he wasn't willing to discuss that matter at all, he just stuck to his own explanation for why his organization made the decision it made. For sure I can appreciate that Charlie Hebdo has an unabashed editorial agenda and doesn't pretend to minimize bias and so one can support their right to behave that way and not want to do so yourself when you have a different philosophy as a newspaper, even if I'm not entirely convinced by it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
