The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/...

Apparently, the next issue will feature You Know Who on the cover.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...

NPR's explanation of why they are not showing the cartoons is total bs in my opinion:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...

I can sort of understand their decision. Many people are only willing to speak out when there is no consequence (I am one of those ppl myself), and many of them try to rationalize their cowardice with various excuses.

I remember when Time magazine said they would not show the Danish cartoons because "they did not want to offend the sensibilities of Muslims." The real reason is that they did not want their offices ransacked and employees killed around the world. They never had any qualms about offending the sensibilities of lots of other groups.

Same goes for NPR.

I don't get this whole Charlie Hebdo thing. First, I've seen their most controversial cartoons and they're not funny. If you are going to put lives on the line for satire, at least make it something worth fighting for like comedy.

Second, the cartoons are often misogynistic, anti-semitic, anti islamic, etc. They did a cartoon "which depicted the Nigerian schoolgirls who were abducted (and raped) by Boko Haram as pregnant welfare queens, demanding that no one touch their payments."

I'm wondering if they were just advocating a right wing racist agenda. I mean seriously, if someone ended Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like, I wouldn't exactly be mourning and/or defending their right to free speech. Hate speech is not protected for a good reason.

http://m.thenation.com/article/194593...

Nancy, did you read this in Vox:

Here's what the cover shows: a group of headscarf-wearing, pregnant Nigerian women shouting "Don't touch our welfare!" The title reads, "Boko Haram's sex slaves are angry."

On the surface, then, it would appear that the magazine is ridiculing Nigerian human trafficking victims as welfare queens; hence the outrage among non-French readers. However, that is not actually what the cover is conveying. In many ways it's saying the opposite of critics' interpretations.

French satire, as Vox's Libby Nelson explained, is not so straightforward as it would seem; jokes usually play on two layers. In this cover, the second layer has to do with French domestic politics: Charlie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare for immigrants, whom they characterize as greedy welfare queens cheating the system.

What this cover actually says, then, is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants, that they want you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare. Charlie Hebdo is actually lampooning the idea that Boko Haram sex slaves are welfare queens, not endorsing it.

That's what's tricky about two-layer satire like Charlie Hebdo's: the joke only works if you see both layers, which often requires conversant knowledge of French politics or culture. If you don't see that layer, then the covers can seem to say something very different and very racist.

Well then, it's a clash of cultures? I bet the immigrants in France are just as confused by French satire as the rest of us.

To be fair, most people don't get French movies either. They usually come off as weird and off putting.

Terribly sad if those at the newspaper were murdered because of confusion.

Ok, so I thought I finally understood the Charlie Hebdo newspaper then I reread the nation link I posted above and it said that,

"In fact, in 2009, Charlie Hebdo fired Maurice Sinet (known as Siné), one of its most famous cartoonists, because of a column in which he suggested that Nicolas Sarkozy's son would "go a long way in life" after marrying a Jewish heiress." So were they not that into free speech or did they enact a double standard?

Nancy wrote: "Well then, it's a clash of cultures? I bet the immigrants in France are just as confused by French satire as the rest of us.

To be fair, most people don't get French movies either. They usually co..."

Not to worry, Nancy. I'm very fluent in French, and I still occasionally have difficulty deciphering French political cartoons. Humour can be one of the hardest things to translate, and of course, Americans and French people do have somewhat different political and cultural "Weltanshauungen." (Maybe it's symptomatic that I have to use a German word to describe it. :))

Concerning French cinema, I think Americans are conditioned to expect more emphasis on narrative tension and a great deal of action, whereas French directors, historically, have tended to be interested more in nuanced character studies, and evocation of emotion. But you ought to see "Joueuse" ("Queen to Play"), which I think is currently available for free on Netflix and/or Amazon Prime. It stars Kevin Kline and Sandrine Bonnaire, both superlative actors, and whereas it's not an action film, per se, it's one that I think anyone would find both engaging and uplifting.

Nancy wrote: "...Ok, so I thought I finally understood the Charlie Hebdo newspaper then I reread the nation link I posted above and it sai.." Sarkozy was a notoriously conservative president, so I think Charlie H. would probably have been lampooning him all the time. Obviously, Sarkozy's son was guaranteed a "successful" life no matter whom he married. My assumption is that Siné was fired for making a patently anti-semitic remark. I'm sure he would have been fired for making a racist remark about any ethnicity.

That's exactly right, Mark.

Nancy wrote: "Terribly sad if those at the newspaper were murdered because of confusion.

Ok, so I thought I finally understood the Charlie Hebdo newspaper then I reread the nation link I posted above and it sai..."

There is a difference between censoring something you own and censoring something you don't own. Jihadists are free to censor their own media outlets and they almost always do so. I wouldn't exactly say this is a misunderstanding b/c CH is hostile towards Islamism just like most other decent leftist publications.

IMHO a point that hasn't been said enough about this attack is that many, if not most, politicians who support CH after the attack are themselves enemies of free speech.

"Mock Charlie Hebdo cover circulated after the murder of the magazine’s cartoonists. The text says 'Charlie Hebdo is shit. It doesn’t stop bullets.'

It may sound like an ironic joke, but it isn’t. Less than a week after the massive rallies in defense of “free expression,” following the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, French authorities have jailed a youth for irony.

The arrest is part of a harsh crackdown on free speech in the country that has prompted criticism from national and international human rights organizations."

I don't understand. Before it was Charlie Hebdo. Now it's more like Charlie Hebdon't. Thank God for France's double standards otherwise I would have never been able to use my lame joke.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/a...

Personally I am in favor of absolute free speech that protects all hate speech and terrorist apologia, just to avoid hypocrisy and endless oppression olympics.

Hi to all. Contrubuting to this discussion from a majorly Muslim inhabited country (Turkey), I have to say that defending free speech including hate speech and Islamist terrorism would do more harm than good in my country. I believe people should understand that for Islamic terrorism and hate speech to target you, you don't have to be necessarily anti-islamist and such. I, a woman living in a Muslim populated country which doesn't apply Sharia law was and still am a target of daily hate speech and occasional psychological or physical assult just because I'm a woman, I come from a different religious background than the majority (I'm an Alawi in a majorly Sunni country) and/or I'm an atheist. Political Islamism and Islamic terrorism doesn't act on rationality, it attacks wherever it can in whatever manner it can. It can be aggreviated easily, being different can simply be the excuse so it doesn't matter if Charlie Hebdo is anti-islamic or such. As for double standards and all, I personally believe that every state is like that on that matter.

Yeah, here in the US I am deathly afraid of posting a link to the cartoon on facebook because there is a possibility that I could go to jail. Yay for free speech and democracy which we are in charge of dispensing around the world!

These are very scary times. Nonetheless, the main topic of discussion here is allowing free hate speech against religion. Although, many here condone hate speech against the religion of Islam but not the religion of Judaism. So many levels of double standards it's hard to keep up.

I don't think hate speech should be allowed against any religion or ethnicity but defining the borders between hate speech and free speech is a big problem so I believe it should always be interpreted in favour of the disadvantageous groups whether in numbers or political power.

Utopian wrote: "Hi to all. Contrubuting to this discussion from a majorly Muslim inhabited country (Turkey), I have to say that defending free speech including hate speech and Islamist terrorism would do more harm..."

Utopian - I grieve for your situation. I do not believe that any human being should ever need to be in fear of her life and safety because of her gender, her beliefs, her race, her appearance, or for any other reason. I am not claiming a moral high ground for the United States or for any other country. I do not censor speech on this group unless it is (intra-group) ad hominem, libelous, or it advocates violence, but there are good historical reasons for the existence of anti-hate speech laws in Europe. Thank you for having the courage to describe your experience.

Mark wrote: "Utopian wrote: "Hi to all. Contrubuting to this discussion from a majorly Muslim inhabited country (Turkey), I have to say that defending free speech including hate speech and Islamist terrorism wo..."

Thank you for your support Mark.

Nancy - I do not "condone" hatred or the advocacy of violence against anyone -- by anyone. I do not think the problem is one of double standards -- because every nation is hypocritical (and very notably, the United States). The problem is violence, no matter by whom, no matter against whom, no matter where, no matter on what pretext..

I will have more to say about this, but to be clear, I am claiming moral high ground for no one. The US has committed terrible atrocities. So has nearly every other nation. Murder is wrong. Period.

The title of this thread notwithstanding, the topic is whatever the participants want it to be. I do not censor speech unless it expresses hatred towards other members of the group, or advocates violence -- or it is libelous.

A couple of my facebook friends posted links to articles (or, in one case, a cartoon) that expressed the opinion that support of free speech should not mean that one condones hate speech.

I agreed with them, but I noticed that almost nobody "liked" these posts, or commented on them in any way.

Utopian wrote: "I don't think hate speech should be allowed against any religion or ethnicity but defining the borders between hate speech and free speech is a big problem so I believe it should always be interpre..."

I agree that there is a good moral argument for deciding these issues in favor of the most disadvantaged (or oppressed). And I think that hateful speech does tend to conduce to hateful acts, in the real world. This is a discussion group and not a nation, and I am a moderator and not a government, so obviously, my policies are infinitely less consequential than those of nations and governments... but I try do what I think is moral within this limited context. So I will try to let people express their feelings and real-world grievances -- but on a personal level, I profoundly abhor hatred and violence directed towards anyone , and I deeply sympathize with the fear of violence to which you have been subjected, and deeply regret the persecution that anyone has felt, no matter what the source.

Maggie wrote: "A couple of my facebook friends posted links to articles (or, in one case, a cartoon) that expressed the opinion that support of free speech should not mean that one condones hate speech.

I agreed..."

I think that most people feel (and correctly) that this is an incendiary issue, and it is very difficult to express nuanced positions and have them understood. So I suspect that is the reason for your want of "likes," and certainly not that you are wrong to defend free speech while condemning hate speech. I, myself, am trying to be as even-handed as humanly possible, but I recognize that people are very emotional about these issues (and often, with very good reason).

Ok, folks, this is my final word on the subject. You may continue to discuss it among yourselves, but I won't intervene further, unless absolutely compelled to:

World history is a tapestry of atrocities. The United States has committed many of them, frequently invoking religion as a pretext, frequently invoking real or imaginary threats, or ones we have manufactured for the purpose of creating a pretext (to start a war). US citizens have murdered doctors performing legal abortions, invoking religion as a pretext. Nazi Germany invoked the right to Lebensraum and their perceived need for racial purity as a pretext for genocide. Vichy France was complicit. Most countries -- probably all of them -- are guilty of the commission of heinous atrocities, and many of them are guilty of genocide. All countries have citizens willing to commit murders and mass murders on some religious or ideological pretext, or just because they like to kill. The world -- let's be frank -- is a cosmic charnel house, and human beings are impelled to do unspeakably terrible things to other human beings, often by their governments, often by their belief systems, and again, often just because they're looking for a reason to kill. They can be terrible repositories of hatred and vengeance. We are a deeply sick and defective species. (Of course, we are also capable of great kindness, compassion and spiritual striving, but that is not a problem, so it does not need attention.)

I say this as a prolegomenon, because I do not want to claim a moral high ground for the United States, or for France, or for any country in the world, or any culture in the world.

That said, murder is wrong, no matter on what pretext, no matter where it's committed, and no matter by whom. Organized murder is wrong. Wars are just organized campaigns of mass murder, wherein the perpetrators feel "authorized" to do it, because their governments say it's "patriotic," and it's morally okay.

Let me say this in boldface: There are no pretexts.

Of course, you can find citations in the Bible or in the Qur'an to kill -- or to refuse to kill.

Qur’an 6:151 says, e.g., “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” And Matthew 5:21-26: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment."  (and this passage goes on to broaden the scope of who is "in danger of judgment" to include "whosoever shall hate his brother")

But Scripture never resolves disputes. Each of us has a moral core, and mine says there are no pretexts.

Obviously, people may differ (and YMMV), but I think there is a reason why the prohibition against killing crops up in virtually every religion.

So if someone posts on facebook a cartoon that shows someone with a mock Charlie Hebdo magazine that says "Charlie Hebdo is shit. It doesn't stop bullets" and they get imprisoned siding with terrorism, is that not a double standard.

F$%& the French, f#$% Charlie Hebdo, je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo. If you apply context to free speech now, where was the context when the controversial issues were distributed?

This reminds me of laws in America and their application to young brown men.

Nancy wrote: "So if someone posts on facebook a cartoon that shows someone with a mock Charlie Hebdo magazine that says "Charlie Hebdo is shit. It doesn't stop bullets" and they get imprisoned siding with terror..."

I absolutely do not think that anyone should be imprisoned for wearing a T-shirt, and that isn't what I said. I have, moreover, made it overwhelmingly clear in innumerable posts that I thoroughly condemn racism in America and our treatment of young African-American males In a very recent post, I strongly condemned our criminal "justice" system for imprisoning 1 in 10 young black males (versus 1 in 106 white males).

I would like to ask you not to express hatred for whole nations because their police have unjustly imprisoned someone for wearing a t-shirt. The police in many countries (including especially this one, and I have thoroughly condemned it) have treated non-white people in a despicably discriminatory way. That does not mean that all or most citizens agree.

I would also like to point out that I have censored absolutely no one.

Utopian, do you find many atheists in your country? Can they speak publicly about it?

Nancy wrote: "Yeah, here in the US I am deathly afraid of posting a link to the cartoon on facebook because there is a possibility that I could go to jail. Yay for free speech and democracy which we are in charg..."

Is "defending terrorism" really a crime according to the laws of the United States?

Utopian wrote: "Hi to all. Contrubuting to this discussion from a majorly Muslim inhabited country (Turkey), I have to say that defending free speech including hate speech and Islamist terrorism would do more harm..."

I'm very sorry for your situation.

Utopian wrote: "I don't think hate speech should be allowed against any religion or ethnicity but defining the borders between hate speech and free speech is a big problem so I believe it should always be interpre..."

Who should decide which groups are disadvantageous and which are not though? Many Islamists and Christianists in europe & north America believe very strongly that they are being prosecuted by secular liberals, or everyone other than themselves.

Jimmy wrote: "Utopian, do you find many atheists in your country? Can they speak publicly about it?"

I don't know how much you mean by many but there are quite a lot of atheists. You can speak publicly about it of course but there is a great possibility for you to be labelled by the police for your future "suspicious" acts so you're more likely to be prosecuted if you're an activist on the subject. This is generally like that for the big cities in smaller ones or in the country feudal values or the fear of being shunned from the society and family generally stops people to express themselves openly. Other than that there are some symbolic events. As an example to that 35 people were burnt alive in an hotel because they were from a different religious background and they organised a meeting/festival in which one of the speakers was an atheism activist. The anti-atheist feelings tend to rise periodically, in those times it can simply be life threathening.

I'm not at all familiar with Charlie Hebdo, but based on what Jimmy says, their satire is similar to Stephen Colbert's. He's pretending to be an egotistical right winger like Bill O'Reilly when he's really making fun of O'Reilly. Satire is always dangerous because it's bound to offend some people, even when they get the joke. And what one person finds funny, another one doesn't. I was watching Bill Maher last night when he was discussing with an obscure comedian the problem with political correctness. Apparently, this comedian was criticized for seeming to joke about rape. I'm not sure what the joke was, but I would be offended by a rape joke. On the other hand, I thought it was hilarious when Maher said during the 2008 campaign that people should stop telling Obama to attack Hillary. He said something like, "Can you imagine what would happen if a young black man attacked an older white woman?"

Obviously, no one should be killed or even locked up for making jokes. And we must always distinguish between hate speech and humor, even when the humor is not funny. I think political correctness is just as dangerous as hate speech. I've been on another site calling out people like Super ABC producer and very angry black woman, Shonda Rhimes, and activist-media hound, Reverend Al Sharpton, for going after the Sony executives who joked (in their hacked e-mails) about President Obama's watching black movies. The joke is not funny, but it's also not racist. I told Shonda that she shouldn't be surprised to learn that some ABC executives joke about her dominance of a particular night by calling it Black Thursday. When young, unarmed black men are being killed in the street, we need to stay focused on real racism.

I'm actually less bothered by the fact that journalists were killed (I don't think media people are more important than ordinary citizens) than that satirists were killed. As a pre-civil rights era black woman who identifies as angry and has every right to be angry, I know that humor has saved me many times. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Chris Rock often calm me down by saying in a humorous way what I am at home ranting about. It's not a coincidence that so many comedians come from oppressed groups (Jewish, black, Latino) and/or have had difficult lives or suffer from depression (like Robin Williams). I'm a secular Christian who believes that we need humor more than we need religion.

One of the first things I thought of after learning about the recent Paris attack was the Sivas massacre Utopian mentioned above.