PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Hebdo Italy earthquake cartoon sparks anger


Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 04:32 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37260217

Satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo has been criticised on social media for a cartoon depicting Italian earthquake victims as pasta dishes.

The cartoon which features in its current issue refers to the town of Amatrice, one of the areas hardest hit by the 6.2 magnitude earthquake last week.

Amatrice is home of spaghetti all'amatriciana, a dish with ingredients including tomato sauce, and guanciale ham.

The image shows an injured man and a woman standing next to a pile of rubble from which feet can be seen. Each of the standing figures has been named after a pasta dish.

The bandaged man is shown under the words penne tomato sauce, a woman with burns is depicted as penne gratin, and bodies lying beneath layers of rubble as lasagne all beneath the heading "Earthquake Italian style".

The cartoon which is being circulated on social media has attracted huge criticism globally and in Italy it has made the pages of Italian national newspapers La Stampa and Corriere della Serra.

It's not as funny when the joke's on you, am I right?

I guess not even getting massacred by extremists is enough to teach these guys a bit of respect and common sense...

We don't need ISIS to spread terrorism anymore, the true terrorists are the ones who died on 7 January last year and the ones who keep making these cartoons.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/10113/production/_91011856_c5d12c37-fed7-4640-a150-b74b98162a62.jpg

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 04:50 AM
I don't agree with the cartoon and I really don't think this is funny or asked for.
However, we can't ban these things. That would be censorship and taking away freedom of speech which is also not something anyone wants.

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 06:09 AM
I agree with The Special One, the guy that made that cartoon is an asshole but he wasn't harming anyone with that cartoon so he should have the freedom to release it.

AussieNicholas
September 4th, 2016, 06:52 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37260217



It's not as funny when the joke's on you, am I right?

I guess not even getting massacred by extremists is enough to teach these guys a bit of respect and common sense...

We don't need ISIS to spread terrorism anymore, the true terrorists are the ones who died on 7 January last year and the ones who keep making these cartoons.

image (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/10113/production/_91011856_c5d12c37-fed7-4640-a150-b74b98162a62.jpg)

I really hope your being sarcastic here. Sure, it's pretty insensitive to make a joke out of a recent tragedy, but being insensitive doesn't warrant being gunned down by ACTUAL terrorists.

The real terrorists are the ones who will murder people who don't act the way they want them to act, not people who offend others.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 07:33 AM
I don't agree with the cartoon and I really don't think this is funny or asked for.
However, we can't ban these things. That would be censorship and taking away freedom of speech which is also not something anyone wants.
Why would a bit of censorship and freedom speech limitation would be unwanted?

The real terrorists are the ones who will murder people who don't act the way they want them to act, not people who offend others.
Your definition of terrorism isn't the same as mine, then:

terrorism:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

In this case, we're talking about the use of psychological violence in the pursuit of a certain goal (whether it is to provoke laughter or to increase the sales of the newspaper). Also, I was not condoning the gunmen's actions, I was just comparing them to the cartoonists' actions and saying that they are both forms of terrorism.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 07:57 AM
Living For Love Because if you take away their right to make these cartoons there goed your freedom of speech.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 07:58 AM
psychological violence
Please define psychological violence. Thank you.

certain goal
Your source defines this as being 'generally political, religious, or ideological' and through that, doesn't leave it open to all goals.

We wouldn't claim that the person that murders someone in a mugging - i.e., to steal their wallet and increase their wealth - is a terrorist. If you would, I would appreciate if you could cite a case in any jurisdiction where this was set as precedent.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Living For Love Because if you take away their right to make these cartoons there goed your freedom of speech.
I know, I agree with that, I just don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing in this case.

Please define psychological violence. Thank you.
Psychological violence is the use of hostile behaviour, gestures, words or writing to undermine or cause emotional damage to someone else.

Your source defines this as being 'generally political, religious, or ideological' and through that, doesn't leave it open to all goals.

We wouldn't claim that the person that murders someone in a mugging - i.e., to steal their wallet and increase their wealth - is a terrorist. If you would, I would appreciate if you could cite a case in any jurisdiction where this was set as precedent.
The cartoonist's goal is ideological, in the sense that they believe they have the freedom to draw/write those things without having to expect any consequence or backlash, just like it happened with the Muhammad cartoons. In the case you described, I wouldn't consider terrorism, because he's not trying to spread a certain belief or achieve a certain political, religious, or ideological aim. In the cartoon case, it can be considered a form of terrorism because they're exercising violence (terror) in order to spread/achieve their ideology.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 08:46 AM
Psychological violence is the use of hostile behaviour, gestures, words or writing to undermine or cause emotional damage to someone else.
If I engage in blasphemous language would that be considered as causing psychological harm, as it is bound to cause emotional damage to some religious people? It would certainly undermine them.

What about about calling someone an explicit - such as a slut or fattie?

The cartoonist's goal is ideological, in the sense that they believe they have the freedom to draw/write those things without having to expect any consequence or backlash, just like it happened with the Mohammad cartoons.
The cartoonist don't expect legal backlash (angry letters and tweets, I'm sure). This reliance on their rights as these exist under the law is not ideological.

In such a case, we might consider a firm firing a number of workers - with respect the the reigning labour law - as ideological. Least it seems like they're trying to push their right to free enterprise on people, and not expect backlash.

(This also happens to cause emotional harm in a lot of cases - being told you're not good enough to work somewhere - but we don't consider each mass-layoff an international terrorist incident for good reason.)

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 08:50 AM
Living For Love Because they have the right to express themselves trough these cartoons. Is not a basic right to be able to express yourself trough forms of art? I don't see how taking that right away from these people is a bad thing.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 09:03 AM
If I engage in blasphemous language would that be considered as causing psychological harm, as it is bound to cause emotional damage to some religious people? It would certainly undermine them.
I'm inclined to say no, because when you're using blasphemous language, you're insulting the diety/god/sacred thing, not directly their followers/believers etc.

What about about calling someone an explicit - such as a slut or fattie?
Yes, insulting someone is psychological violence.

The cartoonist don't expect legal backlash (angry letters and tweets, I'm sure). This reliance on their rights as these exist under the law is not ideological.
In this case, backlash is being made through social media.

Living For Love Because they have the right to express themselves trough these cartoons. Is not a basic right to be able to express yourself trough forms of art? I don't see how taking that right away from these people is a bad thing.
Not when that art is a form of terrorism, or is at least insulting to someone else.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 09:08 AM
Living For Love I don't see how this is al act of terrorism at all. Also does this mean anything someone may find slightly offensive needs to be banned? That's an extreme form of censorship because these days everyone gets offended by everything. Please explain to me how this is terrorism.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 09:11 AM
I'm inclined to say no, because when you're using blasphemous language, you're insulting the diety/god/sacred thing, not directly their followers/believers etc.
So, the Mohammed cartoons should be legally tolerated?

Yes, insulting someone is psychological violence.
People should, thus, be subject to legal action for insults?* (could we ever consider it a terrorist incident?)

What if I refuse to shake someone's hand and fold my arms to express reluctance. Here, I'm most interested in getting to them bottom of what 'hostile' entails.

---

* Who defines insults?

It's also the case that people tend to have a legal right to defend themselves from violence. If I struck someone who taunted me, could I cite self-defence in court?

In this case, backlash is being made through social media.
Yes. I'm not sure how this undermines my point that their work isn't ideological, if it was supposed to.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 09:26 AM
Living For Love I don't see how this is al act of terrorism at all. Also does this mean anything someone may find slightly offensive needs to be banned? That's an extreme form of censorship because these days everyone gets offended by everything. Please explain to me how this is terrorism.
No, but everything with the intention of offending someone yes. I've already explained how it is terrorism: use of violence to spread/achieve an ideology.

Do you think people shouldn't have the right to be offended.

So, the Mohammed cartoons should be legally tolerated?
Yes, but since everyone knows Muslims get mad at them, people should use common sense and abstain from producing them. Muslims could also use common sense and abstain of feeling insulted by them, but since that's not going to happen, because, well, they're Muslims, I'd prefer if people simply stopped producing them to avoid more massacres.

People should, thus, be subject to legal action for insults?* (could we ever consider it a terrorist incident?)

---

* Who defines insults?

It's also the case that people tend to have a legal right to defend themselves from violence. If I struck someone who taunted me, could I cite self-defence in court?
By legal action you mean jailing people for insulting someone? If you struck someone who taunted you, you could cite self-defence in court, since the other person exercised the violence first.

Insult:
- To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness

I'm getting these definitions from an ordinary English dictionary, btw.

What if I refuse to shake someone's hand and fold my arms to express reluctance. Here, I'm most interested in getting to them bottom of what 'hostile' entails.
In that case you're not insulting them, I suppose.

Yes. I'm not sure how this undermines my point that their work isn't ideological, if it was supposed to.
It wasn't. I'm also not sure what you mean by "rights as these exist under the law" and how that can conflict with France's hate speech legislation.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 09:38 AM
Yes, but since everyone knows Muslims get mad at them, people should use common sense and abstain from producing them. Muslims could also use common sense and abstain of feeling insulted by them, but since that's not going to happen, because, well, they're Muslims, I'd prefer if people simply stopped producing them to avoid more massacres.
I don't agree that we should allow the loudest minority to set the terms.

It sets a terrible precedent - to claim the least.

By legal action you mean jailing people for insulting someone? If you struck someone who taunted you, you could cite self-defence in court, since the other person exercised the violence first.
I mean all possible legal sentencing: that is, ranging from fines to a jail-sentence.

On self-defence law it is the case that retaliation must be proportional. How far should someone be allowed to go in self-defence of their honour (or whatever)? I mean - if someone insulted me in a manner I found to be particularly grave, might I stab them? Or is the action I can take bounded.

---

I also disagree on the grounds on the cultural practices this sort of legislative attitude excites.

In that case you're not insulting them, I suppose.
I am not sure about your culture but in mine refusing to shake someone's hand is a significant insult.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "rights as these exist under the law" and how that can conflict with France's hate speech legislation.

Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish what it publishes. The acting on those rights is no more an ideological expression than firms acting on their rights under labour laws, are.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 09:39 AM
Living For Love How is insulting and offending Muslims allowed and doing the same to Italians isn't? Right now you went full 'Muslims should fuck off' mode m8

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 09:45 AM
@Living For Love How is insulting and offending Muslims allowed and doing the same to Italians isn't?
Insulting Italians, and insulting the Muslim religion, act on the victim in different ways.

Muslims find offence in the insult directed at their religion, whilst Italians have the insult directed at them.

---

Of course, recklessness is still grounds when considering whether someone is guilty of assault, so there's a case to argue that indirect harm should be considered.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 09:50 AM
Insulting Italians, and insulting the Muslim religion, act on the victim in different ways.

Muslims find offence in the insult directed at their religion, whilst Italians have the insult directed at them.

---

Of course, recklessness is still grounds when considering whether someone is guilty of assault, so there's a case to argue that indirect harm should be considered.

I agree that the insults are sent and received differently for both groups but that does not mean one has the right to censor it for one group and allow Charlie Hebdo to insult the other one.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 09:53 AM
I agree that the insults are sent and received differently for both groups but that does not mean one has the right to censor it for one group and allow Charlie Hebdo to insult the other one.
If there's a qualitative differences - and, as I described, there is - that is basis enough to distinguish one case from another.

We don't consider murder and manslaughter the same thing (though, in both cases we consider them a crime, albeit: the point I also made in my last post), even those there is killing involved in both cases. The manner in which this killing is 'sent and received' is of considerable importance.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 09:58 AM
If there's a qualitative differences - and, as I described, there is - that is basis enough to distinguish one case from another.

We don't consider murder and manslaughter the same thing (though, in both cases we consider them a crime, albeit: the point I also made in my last post), even those there is killing involved in both cases. The manner in which this killing is 'sent and received' is of considerable importance.

As you said, they are both seen as crime, why label one as 'evil' and not both though?

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 10:01 AM
As you said, they are both seen as crime, why label one as 'evil' and not both though?
Both are seen as a crime, in the context of homicide law. The point I was made is that given to qualitative differences, we don't consider them under the same law and one could reasonably claim that murder is a crime, and manslaughter isn't, and still remain coherent (though, I'd disagree, of course).

The reason we should consider indirect insults a crime is become it opens up people to litigation by people who actively find offence in things. That is not something that will benefit net welfare in the long-run.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 10:03 AM
I don't agree that we should allow the loudest minority to set the terms.

It sets a terrible precedent - to claim the least.
It's an horrible solution, I agree, but it's the best solution, unless you want to exterminate all Muslims who get offended by Muhammad cartoons.

I mean all possible legal sentencing: that is, ranging from fines to a jail-sentence.
A fine would be sufficient, then. It already happens in some countries.

On self-defence law it is the case that retaliation must be proportional. How far should someone be allowed to go in self-defence of their honour (or whatever)? I mean - if someone insulted me in a manner I found to be particularly grave, might I stab them? Or is the action I can take bounded.
The action you could take should definitely be bounded. It can depend on the context, this is, if you were insulted alone or in front of other people and how that could damage your reputation.

I am not sure about your culture but in mine refusing to shake someone's hand is a significant insult.
It's not in my culture.

Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish what it publishes. The acting on those rights is no more an ideological expression than firms acting on their rights under labour laws, are.
But it can go against hate speech laws.

Living For Love How is insulting and offending Muslims allowed and doing the same to Italians isn't? Right now you went full 'Muslims should fuck off' mode m8
I've just said you shouldn't do it because of common sense. And you're not insulting Muslims, you're insulting the deity.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 10:09 AM
It's an horrible solution, I agree, but it's the best solution, unless you want to exterminate all Muslims who get offended by Muhammad cartoons.
Not all Muslims who get offended by Muhammad cartoons go on a murderous rampage in a building full of journalists.

Nonetheless, I would prefer we retained our rights and promoted police action to protect our rights.

It already happens in some countries.
Which ones?

The action you could take should definitely be bounded.
Would you mind giving me greater specifics on this?

It's not in my culture.
Nonetheless, would it be legitimate for me to insult the person that refuses my handshake on the grounds that I have been insulted.

That what is, and what is not, insulting differs between cultures, also creates an issue for these laws. Where cultural-ignorance prevails, what's to stop the foreigner meeting all sorts of trouble - and does the foreigner have the right to declare offence towards native habits that would be considered vile in his own culture?

But it can go against hate speech laws.
Point is - it hasn't.

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 10:12 AM
Living For Love So if I start insulting the Christian god all the time I won't be allowed but I can make fun of for example a terrorist attack trough a cartoon?

Also Vlerchan I do feel like a fine will hurt freedom of speech. The main problem here is where you draw the line though.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 10:17 AM
Also @Vlerchan I do feel like a fine will hurt freedom of speech. The main problem here is where you draw the line though.
I don't feel we should curtail speech at all: that includes insulting someone and it includes hate speech.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 10:32 AM
Not all Muslims who get offended by Muhammad cartoons go on a murderous rampage in a building full of journalists.

Nonetheless, I would prefer we retained our rights and promoted police action to protect our rights.
I'm willing to abdicate from that right if it makes me safer.

Which ones?
In Portugal you can go to jail if you catcall a woman.

Would you mind giving me greater specifics on this?
I can't give you general specifics, I guess this is one of those situations where you have to analyse each case separately and individually.

Nonetheless, would it be legitimate for me to insult the person that refuses my handshake on the grounds that I have been insulted.
Absolutely.

That what is, and what is not, insulting differs between cultures, also creates an issue for these laws. Where cultural-ignorance prevails, what's to stop the foreigner meeting all sorts of trouble - and does the foreigner have the right to declare offence towards native habits that would be considered vile in his own culture?
If you visit a foreign country, you should be obliged to respect and learn the native habits. You don't have the right to feel offended by habits that in that country aren't vile but in yours are.

Point is - it hasn't.
It has.

Living For Love So if I start insulting the Christian god all the time I won't be allowed but I can make fun of for example a terrorist attack trough a cartoon?
You can insult the Christian God and accept any backlash that comes in your way.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 10:41 AM
I'm willing to abdicate from that right if it makes me safer.
You don't have to use it, I guess.

I can't give you general specifics, I guess this is one of those situations where you have to analyse each case separately and individually.
It is possible that it could justify a stabbing, though?

Absolutely.
Would it be legally acceptable for me to punch that person in the face, for refusing my handshake?

If you visit a foreign country, you should be obliged to respect and learn the native habits. You don't have the right to feel offended by habits that in that country aren't vile but in yours are.
Would you mind describing how this is practionable under the law - i.e. how one would write the elevated statues of natives into the law.

Do you also mind that this undermines the principal of equality under the law?

It has.
I would appreciate if you could cite the relevant case law.

You're also not demonstrating that the actions are ideological with this detour. Even acting outside their rights, does not mean that these people acting in an ideological manner. When a firm fires a pregnant woman, for being pregnant, which is illegal in Ireland, we don't consider this action ideological either. Even though this action falls outside the scope of their freedom of enterprise.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 11:05 AM
You don't have to use it, I guess.
I know, I was just saying I wouldn't mind having that right denied if somehow that denial would contribute to make the society I live in safer.

It is possible that it could justify a stabbing, though?

Would it be legally acceptable for me to punch that person in the face, for refusing my handshake?
Yes, I guess so. If someone insulted another person, they must be prepared for any kind of backlash. It seems like I'm just pointing out the obvious, but it's only my opinion.

Would you mind describing how this is practionable under the law - i.e. how one would write the elevated statues of natives into the law.
By writing them? You're asking how could someone gather all the native habits/customs/practices regarding social relationships and interactions?

Do you also mind that this undermines the principal of equality under the law?
Can you enunciate that principal of equality?

I would appreciate if you could cite the relevant case law.
France's principal piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. (http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws)

Basically, the use of those Muhammad cartoons is inciting violence on the basis of one's membership in a religious group, since the cartoonists knew that that it was expected that Muslims would become offended due to the cartoons.

You're also not demonstrating that the actions are ideological with this detour. Even acting outside their rights, does not mean that these people acting in an ideological manner. When a firm fires a pregnant woman, for being pregnant, which is illegal in Ireland, we don't consider this action ideological either. Even though this action falls outside the scope of their freedom of enterprise.
It's ideological because they think they have the right to do it while expecting that the other people don't have the right to fire back They're ideology is the ideology of "I draw what I want because I'm free and I don't care if it offends people or not", or "I draw what I want because I'm free and others don't have the right to punish me for it".

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 11:21 AM
Yes, I guess so. If someone insulted another person, they must be prepared for any kind of backlash.
This sounds eerily similar to the logic used by Islamists to justify the Charlie Hebdo shootings - though I realise you believe that there offence was illegitimate.

You don't see an issue in a society that legitimises the use of violence instead of encouraging people to turn to other cheek? and remain tolerant when such is more than possible?

You're asking how could someone gather all the native habits/customs/practices regarding social relationships and interactions?
Yes.

Can you enunciate that principal of equality?
People should have equal protection of the law insofar as the law applies equally to their actions - and in this case feelings.

In choosing to ignore a subset of the population's offence, you are failing to treat them as being equal under the law.

France's principal piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group.
1. I was hoping I would be pointed towards a conviction of Charlie Hebdo, demonstrating a breach.

2. This law stands against inciting violence against someone of one on the basis of one's 'one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group' which is not what Charlie Hebdo were doing.

Basically, the use of those Muhammad cartoons is inciting violence on the basis of one's membership in a religious group, since the cartoonists knew that that it was expected that Muslims would become offended due to the cartoons.
I don't believe you're interpreting the law correctly.

Would you mind citing one case where it was interpreted in that manner?

It's ideological because they think they have the right to do it while expecting that the other people don't have the right to fire back
1. Them acting in accordance with their rights is not an ideological statement - for the reasons I established prior with the labour-relations example.

2. I am sure that Charlie Hebdo are more than prepared for angry letters and angry tweets. What they didn't expected was to have someone go on a murderous rampage in their office, which was illegal.

They're ideology is the ideology of "I draw what I want because I'm free and I don't care if it offends people or not", or "I draw what I want because I'm free and others don't have the right to punish me for it".
This is not an ideology - it's actions taken in accordance with the law.

"I code what I want because I'm a coder and don't care about the people who lose their jobs on the back of the automations I write" is not an ideology either.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 11:41 AM
This sounds eerily similar to the logic used by Islamists to justify the Charlie Hebdo shootings - though I realise you believe that there offence was illegitimate.

You don't see an issue in a society that legitimises the use of violence instead of encouraging people to turn to other cheek? and remain tolerant when such is more than possible?
No, I don't see an issue with that kind of society.

Yes.
Can't the governments pay someone to gather up all that information? I honestly don't think that's much of an issue.

People should have equal protection of the law insofar as the law applies equally to their actions - and in this case feelings.

In choosing to ignore a subset of the population's offence, you are failing to treat them as being equal under the law.
Ok. Answering to this: Do you also mind that this undermines the principal of equality under the law?, no, I don't mind that that undermines the principal of equality under the law.

This law stands against inciting violence against someone of one on the basis of one's 'one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group' which is not what Charlie Hebdo were doing.
It was, those drawings had the objective to incite violence. They offended the deity, like I said, not the followers, but the violence incitement was there nevertheless.

Would you mind citing one case where it was interpreted in that manner?
I don't know if there was one case where it was interpreted in that manner, I'm only interpreting it myself.

1. Them acting in accordance with their rights is not an ideological statement - for the reasons I established prior with the labour-relations example.
Them wanting to deny rights to others is an ideological statement.

2. I am sure that Charlie Hebdo are more than prepared for angry letters and angry tweets. What they didn't expected was to have someone go on a murderous rampage in their office, which was illegal.
Some cartoonists received threats that they would be killed if they didn't quit doing that kind of cartoons, days ago before the attack. Also, similar threats had been made to other cartoonists months before, in Denmark, I believe.

This is not an ideology - it's actions taken in accordance with the law.
It's not in accordance to the law. From the way I see it, it goes against hate speech laws.

Uniquemind
September 4th, 2016, 12:51 PM
This is not made in good taste.

The only acceptable consequence is a public relations nightmare, and no sales.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 01:51 PM
No, I don't see an issue with that kind of society.

[...] Ok. Answering to this: Do you also mind that this undermines the principal of equality under the law?, no, I don't mind that that undermines the principal of equality under the law.
This is, fundamentally, why most people who read this thread won't be able to agree with you. Including me.

I won't try to convince you, anyways.

Can't the governments pay someone to gather up all that information? I honestly don't think that's much of an issue.
Customs aren't static, and exist in a constant state of flux and development.

It was, those drawings had the objective to incite violence. They offended the deity, like I said, not the followers, but the violence incitement was there nevertheless.

1. You'll need to demonstrate that the authors at Charlie Hebdo desired that Islamist gunmen gunned them down, if you're going to argue this.

2. This is still a misunderstanding of the statute. Incitement laws pose that it is illegal to incite violence against another - not oneself. That I might rile up someone's temper to the extent that someone wishes to stab me is not an illegal act on my part.

I don't know if there was one case where it was interpreted in that manner, I'm only interpreting it myself.
Ok. Well, it's how statute is interpreted in practice which actually matters insofar as this discussion is concerned.

Your own private interpretation of the law is, frankly, irrelevant.

Them wanting to deny rights to others is an ideological statement.
They aren't denying anyone's rights.
Some cartoonists received threats that they would be killed if they didn't quit doing that kind of cartoons, days ago before the attack. Also, similar threats had been made to other cartoonists months before, in Denmark, I believe.

This isn't evidence that Charlie Hebdo expected the threats to be carried out.

Nonetheless, the point I was making is that Charlie Hebdo expected rebuke, though probably not the shootings.

It's not in accordance to the law. From the way I see it, it goes against hate speech laws.

Frankly, how you are interpreting the hate speech laws, is wrong.

The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his 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 because he or she has a handicap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

Please regard the bolded in particular.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 02:14 PM
This is, fundamentally, why most people who read this thread won't be able to agree with you. Including me.
I don't care about that, I'm not trying to force anyone to believe me, this isn't even ROTW. But since you mentioned it, you might as well tell me why that particular statement made you unable to agree with me.

Customs aren't static, and exist in a constant state of flux and development.
Just like morals and ethics, yet we still don't stop making laws because of that.

1. You'll need to demonstrate that the authors at Charlie Hebdo desired that Islamist gunmen gunned them down, if you're going to argue this.

2. This is still a misunderstanding of the statute. Incitement laws pose that it is illegal to incite violence against another - not oneself. That I might rile up someone's temper to the extent that someone wishes to stab me is not an illegal act on my part.
It's because of the national impact that newspaper has, that tends extremists not only to hate the cartoonists but the whole French people. I know it's not a very good generalisation, but they need to be aware of the impact those publications have.

Ok. Well, it's how statute is interpreted in practice which actually matters insofar as this discussion is concerned.

Your own private interpretation of the law is, frankly, irrelevant.
It's relevant to me.

Frankly, how you are interpreting the hate speech laws, is wrong.

The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his 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 because he or she has a handicap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

Please regard the bolded in particular.
Nope, the law is clear and your interpretation is wrong.

The laws forbid any communication [communication here is the drawings] which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of [they are inciting hatred of the French media], or harm to [they are harming the Muslims who they know will feel offended], anyone because of his 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 because he or she has a handicap.

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 02:36 PM
But since you mentioned it, you might as well tell me why that particular statement made you unable to agree with me.

I believe temperance is a virtue and citizen's should be discouraged from indulging in their hate and anger.

I believe that equality under the law allows for the most efficient distribution of resources in the long-run because recourse allocation goes un-distorted by entrenched hierarchies. Culture, is a recourse, too.

Just like morals and ethics, yet we still don't stop making laws because of that.
You'll note that in Ireland, before 1997, we hadn't updated our law on assault in 145 years. Before 2005 (or so) we hadn't updated our law on homicide in 50 years, or so. Our morals and ethics change, but it is sparingly that we update our criminal law because the process is long and arduous.

It's because of the national impact that newspaper has, that tends extremists not only to hate the cartoonists but the whole French people. I know it's not a very good generalisation, but they need to be aware of the impact those publications have.
So, we can agree that it was not their objective to have violence incited against them?

Which means, there actions don't fall under hate speech laws [re: intention].

It's relevant to me.
We're discussing the actual law, as it stands.

Nope, the law is clear and your interpretation is wrong.

The laws forbid any communication [communication here is the drawings] which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of [they are inciting hatred of the French media], or harm to [they are harming the Muslims who they know will feel offended], anyone because of his 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 because he or she has a handicap.
The laws forbid any communication [communication here is the drawings]
I agree.

hatred of [they are inciting hatred of the French media]
1. You can't demonstrate this is their intention.

2. The fact that I make a film that people don't like - and people hate the academy I work for as a result - does not mean I have committed a hate crime. That is obviously absurd, and has never been the manner in which hate-speech laws have operated.

If we interpreted the law like you did, then every time someone brings reputation damage to their profession, we could bring litigation against them for hate crimes. That is not how this law is intended to operate. The law was intended to operate - as we can see from examining the foregrounding clauses, which all prompt towards another - to deter people from inciting discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, others.

or harm to [they are harming the Muslims who they know will feel offended]
The law refers to inciting harm against - and whilst Muslims might have been psychologically harmed, Charlie Hebdo did not incite harm against them: as in, encourage people to commit harm against them.

Living For Love
September 4th, 2016, 03:21 PM
I believe temperance is a virtue and citizen's should be discouraged from indulging in their hate and anger.
Even when they're being constantly provoked and discriminated against? I agree with you, honestly, and all I can say is that it only speaks highly of you if you think that way.

I believe that equality under the law allows for the most efficient distribution of resources in the long-run because recourse allocation goes un-distorted by entrenched hierarchies. Culture, is a recourse, too.
I can agree with this, too. Not sure how my previous point that foreigners should adapt to the foreign country customs and habits goes against this, though.

You'll note that in Ireland, before 1997, we hadn't updated our law on assault in 145 years. Before 2005 (or so) we hadn't updated our law on homicide in 50 years, or so. Our morals and ethics change, but it is sparingly that we update our criminal law because the process is long and arduous.
I understand. Making the process less long and arduous is a good start.

So, we can agree that it was not their objective to have violence incited against them?

Which means, there actions don't fall under hate speech laws [re: intention].
We can agree that that was not their objective, yes, but it was the effect of their actions, ultimately.


or harm to [they are harming the Muslims who they know will feel offended]
The law refers to inciting harm against - and whilst Muslims might have been psychologically harmed, Charlie Hebdo did not incite harm against them: as in, encourage people to commit harm against them.
Well, the cartoons prompted the attack which prompted general hatred towards Muslims.

AussieNicholas
September 4th, 2016, 05:46 PM
Why would a bit of censorship and freedom speech limitation would be unwanted?


Your definition of terrorism isn't the same as mine, then:



In this case, we're talking about the use of psychological violence in the pursuit of a certain goal (whether it is to provoke laughter or to increase the sales of the newspaper). Also, I was not condoning the gunmen's actions, I was just comparing them to the cartoonists' actions and saying that they are both forms of terrorism.

Gunning down people who insult your religion is hardly comparable to drawing a cartoon that insults a religion. There isn't any violence in the latter. You could say it's distasteful, sure, but not a form of psychological violence.

ThisBougieLife
September 4th, 2016, 07:33 PM
This is not made in good taste.

The only acceptable consequence is a public relations nightmare, and no sales.

Yep. Charlie Hebdo essentially deals in shock media. They want a rise out of people. Of course I'm coming at this from an American perspective, and like most Americans, I have a fairly "anything goes" approach to free speech, but unless they are actually inciting violence with what they publish, there shouldn't be a restriction of their freedom to publish cartoons like this, no matter how tasteless they are. The worst that should happen is that their image is tarnished and they lose sales/sponsors.

EuRo
September 4th, 2016, 11:22 PM
Everything has the possibility of being comedic. People just need to lighten up a little bit and stop getting offended at things. If I were in that situation I'd love it if someone made a cartoon like that to make things a little happier.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 05:16 PM
It's not as funny when the joke's on you, am I right?

It can be quite non-funny, yes.


[...]the true terrorists are the ones who died on 7 January last year and the ones who keep making these cartoons.

Directing humour in bad taste and/or in an arguably inappropriate context is not the same as inflicting terror upon a certain population of people.

Being gunned down in a theatre is not the same as being stung by a perhaps-uncalled-for joke.




["terrorism:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005."]

In this case, we're talking about the use of psychological violence in the pursuit of a certain goal (whether it is to provoke laughter or to increase the sales of the newspaper). Also, I was not condoning the gunmen's actions, I was just comparing them to the cartoonists' actions and saying that they are both forms of terrorism.

Psychological violence? This cartoon is psychologically discomforting, but it is not violence. It's not like any Italian personally identifies with e.g. lasagne, such that labelling them that with implication to a destructive earthquake, has significant risk of putting the Italian into a mental injury or disorder requiring external help. It may very well be the mental analog of a strong slap, but not something stronger.

PlasmaHam
September 5th, 2016, 10:45 PM
Well, the cartoons prompted the attack which prompted general hatred towards Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo mocks basically anyone and everyone. They've mocked countries and nationalities, religions and cultures, the right and the left, almost all groups have at one time or another has been the victim of Charlie Hebdo. Yet only one group has consistently brought violence and even murder in response to these cartoons.

To say that Charlie Hebdo was fully guilty of causing the attacks is foolhardy. No one forced the Muslims to attack and murder those 12 people because of simple cartoons. The Muslims who attacked Charlie Hebdo are fully guilty. Their unacceptance of free speech and culture brought this upon themselves, and the resulting anti-Muslim attitude is theirs to blame.

Dalcourt
September 5th, 2016, 11:47 PM
No I won't comment on the Islam and Muslim terrorists turn it has once again taken since honestly I'm just sick of it.

Of course this cartoon and maybe also the follow up one they had posted on Facebook may be seen asbad taste. I'm sure I would not think it was funny if I were Italian.
But honestly that's what satire and freedom of press/opinion/speech is about...sometimes it hurts someone and most people are okay with it as long as they aren't the ones who are hurt. But once they are the victims this freedom suddenly isn't so important anymore.
Personally I didn't find that cartoon funny cuz I didn't really see the point in it...I liked the one about the mafia building those houses and not charlie hebdo better even though it's still mean.

Reise
September 11th, 2016, 05:18 PM
A bit old but at least my knowledge of French is gonna be useful for once.

Living For Love.
I've read the article 24 (Press Law 1881 (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070722&dateTexte=20100812)), it is referring to article 23. And that article is about direct provocation.
It doesn't include people getting triggered for whatever shit they read/heard.

Vlerchan
There is no actual case law in France. A trial doesn't have the same "weight" as you may expect.
Charlie Hebdo has been sued approx. 50 times. For some of them they have effectively been condemned.