Do you think it's smart to make caricatures now

[Pastek]

The "Charlie Hebo" a french satiric journal did some cartoons today about the Prophet Muhammad.

People rushed to buy it. It's a real "success". Like it was the last time they published the cartoons of the danish cartoonist.
The difference is that the danish cartoons showed a violent prophet and the french cartoons show let's say someting more sexual.

Just that you know they always have sexual cartoons. If you make a research on google you'll see what kind of journal it is.


Do you think it's more about freedom of speech or for money ?

Is it irresponsable or do you think that "people have to show they are not afraid of extremists ?" Like the journal says.

After what happen with Mohammed Merah, i think it's really stupid.

Your opinion ? Did others countries did the same ?

Here what says a dirigeant of the Muslims brotherhood (Essam El Erian) :

"If Kate's case (the british princess) is a question of private life*, caricatures are an insult for all a people. Beliefs of others must be respected."
He's against any violence from the muslims, but he thinks they have the right to protest pacifically

*The french Tabloïd "Closer" published photos of Kate Middleton half naked.

Le Figaro - Flash Actu : Charlie Hebdo: ractions en gypte

 

[Wirey]

So an actual photograph of a living person and a cartoon are the same?

 

[freethinker44]

I think it's more irresponsible to let a violent mob half a world away dictate the freedom we have enjoyed for a couple centuries. No body's beliefs are exempt from criticism, ever. Even the truth isn't exempt from criticism.

Let them rise above it and become better people or violently destroy their own cities, either way the world will be a better place.

 

[sandandfoam]

If people didn't get excited about the cartoons or the princesses boobs then there'd be no point in publishing them.
I think that whoever wants to publish either the princesses boobs or offensive cartoons should be allowed to. No one is forcing anyone to look at either.

I do think it's in bad taste to go out of ones way to offend for the sake of it - but that's just my view.

I also think that publishing rubbish as some sort of 'freedom of speech' crusade is daft.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps if enuf offensive cartoons are regularly published, they'll become accustomed to the offense.

 

[sandandfoam]

Perhaps if enuf offensive cartoons are regularly published, they'll become accustomed to the offense.

Not a chance. The Daily Mail comes out every day of the week and it never fails to offend me in novel ways. If they brought out an evening edition it would only make things worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not a chance. The Daily Mail comes out every day of the week and it never fails to offend me in novel ways. If they brought out an evening edition it would only make things worse.

Of course, you aren't in the demographic I would hope to become accustomed.
I still have hope they'll settle down.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not a chance. The Daily Mail comes out every day of the week and it never fails to offend me in novel ways. If they brought out an evening edition it would only make things worse.

I may laugh for several days at this! Nice one!

 

[Secret Chief]

I still have hope they'll settle down.

In time yes, the extremist violent bigoted fundamentalist narrow minded medieval fools.

But never the Daily Mail.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you think it's more about freedom of speech or for money ?

It's both. You must try to understand that poking fun at "out of bounds" people is the point of doing such cartoons. That is what makes people want to see them.

Is it irresponsable or do you think that "people have to show they are not afraid of extremists ?" Like the journal says.

Well, the last time I checked, France is not a Muslim country and does not adhere to Sharia Law. In that regard, the magazine took a risk. There is a possibility each month that nobody will buy their magazine and they will lose money. Each issue is a bit of a crap shoot, as it were.

After what happen with Mohammed Merah, i think it's really stupid.

What does that nutjob have to do with the topic?

Your opinion ? Did others countries did the same ?

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong about publishing pictures of Muhammad, no matter how much it offends Muslims. Most non-Muslims do not recognize him AS a "prophet". The thing is, we MUST allow people to write/draw/film pretty much anything they like because it is a slippery slope when you begin to draw lines in the sand. The point is, how long is it before ANY kind of speech, any group does not like is banned?

Here what says a dirigeant of the Muslims brotherhood (Essam El Erian) :

"If Kate's case (the british princess) is a question of private life*, caricatures are an insult for all a people. Beliefs of others must be respected."

I think he is an idiot. He just doesn't get it. It is not that one must respect the beliefs of others, but rather one MUST respect others RIGHT to believe what they want. Expecting people to respect the beliefs themselves is just silly. It is respecting the RIGHT TO BELIEVE whatever you want - that is paramount. I don't give a fig if you are respectful about my beliefs. However, you better respect my RIGHT to believe what I believe. There is a subtle, but important, difference.

He's against any violence from the muslims, but he thinks they have the right to protest pacifically

All too many Muslims really have to get over themselves and their hostility to anyone who thinks contrary to themselves. I thought Islam was about tolerance? It would seem the Muslims are pretty intolerant about people poking fun at their vaunted prophet, so I guess it is a very selective and perhaps superficial "tolerance".

 

[Pastek]

What does that nutjob have to do with the topic?

Because it can give an opportunity for someone to act. Like what we have seen today in Afghanistan, a woman killed many people in a bomb attack.
I mean, it's a big responsability for some cartoons.
1 person can kill many people and instiguate fear.

I live also abroad. I remember the bomb attack in Paris in 1995.
I Remember that everybody was in psychose at that time. I don't want to die for some stupid cartoons.

 

[Alceste]

Not a chance. The Daily Mail comes out every day of the week and it never fails to offend me in novel ways. If they brought out an evening edition it would only make things worse.

Ah yes, the Daily Hate. It used to drive me nuts that seemed to be the only paper lying around at restaurants and coffee shops in the UK. I rioted every time, on the inside.

Because it can give an opportunity for someone to act. Like what we have seen today in Afghanistan, a woman killed many people in a bomb attack.
I mean, it's a big responsability for some cartoons.
1 person can kill many people and instiguate fear.

I live also abroad. I remember the bomb attack in Paris in 1995.
I Remember that everybody was in psychose at that time. I don't want to die for some stupid cartoons.

It may be a little unwise to draw cartoons of Mohamed, but it's far more unwise to kill people. You can't blame a cartoonist for the actions of an outraged reader. Perhaps if imams stopped whipping up anger and activism by aggressively promoting these offensive images to muslims, they simply wouldn't be noticed.

 

[HonestJoe]

Having the freedom to do something doesn't mean you have to do it, it means you have the right to choose to do it or not. Having the freedom also doesn't automatically excuse you from any consequences of how you choose to exercise it.

If you choose to do something in the knowledge that it is likely to cause some kind of negative consequences, you share some responsibility for those consequences. You can justify it with greater positive consequences of the act (or greater negative ones of not doing it) but you can't simply dismiss them with the magic words "free speech".

Anyone who reacts violently because they find something offensive are indefensible. People who do something in the full knowledge that it is very likely to illicit that kind of reaction, especially if their core motivation is to make more money, are little better.

 

[Wirey]

Having the freedom to do something doesn't mean you have to do it, it means you have the right to choose to do it or not. Having the freedom also doesn't automatically excuse you from any consequences of how you choose to exercise it.

If you choose to do something in the knowledge that it is likely to cause some kind of negative consequences, you share some responsibility for those consequences. You can justify it with greater positive consequences of the act (or greater negative ones of not doing it) but you can't simply dismiss them with the magic words "free speech".

Anyone who reacts violently because they find something offensive are indefensible. People who do something in the full knowledge that it is very likely to illicit that kind of reaction, especially if their core motivation is to make more money, are little better.

So if I question something that a nutjob decides is death-penalty worthy, I had it coming?

 

[HonestJoe]

So if I question something that a nutjob decides is death-penalty worthy, I had it coming?

I wouldn't put it like that but if you know the person is a "nutjob" and you choose to say something you know will set them off, you can't deny some responsibility for the violent consequences (whether they're aimed at yourself or someone else). If someone gives a monkey a loaded gun, should they be able to deny any responsibility if anyone gets shot?

Note that I'm not saying you can't question your "nutjob", only that you don't have to (or it wouldn't be freedom). You can (and should) assess the risks and benefits of doing so and how it's done though.

 

[Wirey]

I wouldn't put it like that but if you know the person is a "nutjob" and you choose to say something you know will set them off, you can't deny some responsibility for the violent consequences (whether they're aimed at yourself or someone else). If someone gives a monkey a loaded gun, should they be able to deny any responsibility if anyone gets shot?

Note that I'm not saying you can't question your "nutjob", only that you don't have to (or it wouldn't be freedom). You can (and should) assess the risks and benefits of doing so and how it's done though.

Okay, so if I'm willing to kill your mom, you should shut up? You just excused the actions of lunatics by saying that we should never question crazy.

 

[idav]

There are cartoons that target anyone or any thing that can be made fun of and politicians and religions are not immune. That isn't the type of comedy that I would write but I do think some of it can be funny. For those who do that sort of comedy, I would feel it a travesty if they gave special treatment for a political figure or religion because of threats. Now because some Islam vocalists started targeting cartoonists, now cartoonists are targeting back and good for them.

 

[idav]

I don't want to die for some stupid cartoons.

I wouldn't want to kill over stupid cartoons either.

 

[McBell]

Because it can give an opportunity for someone to act. Like what we have seen today in Afghanistan, a woman killed many people in a bomb attack.
I mean, it's a big responsability for some cartoons.
1 person can kill many people and instiguate fear.

I live also abroad. I remember the bomb attack in Paris in 1995.
I Remember that everybody was in psychose at that time. I don't want to die for some stupid cartoons.

Problem I see here is that you seem to be putting the blame of the death on the wrong people.

 

[Pastek]

Problem I see here is that you seem to be putting the blame of the death on the wrong people.

No i'm not. But that's the reality of this world.