Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by Kevin C
In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Who gets to define what is “reasonable”?
The US concept of freedom of speech is wider, stopping only short of actual libel. The ideal here is that someone speaking foolishness or lies will be revealed as such by someone else’s criticism. The problem is that today people are lazy and rely on an oligarchy of sources and such criticism is seldom heard.
My preference would be: customary tort law. All I am advocating is removal of special protection of free speech from agitators and pornographers.
Insults are the antithesis of free speech.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article included images offensive to various religious groups that did not meet the Post's standards, and should not have been published. They have been removed.
Please see http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
There is hope for the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C979Hluj8i4
FUAL!
“I know pornography when I see it.”
Then you are not American, even if you were born here.
A technicality? LOL! You are pathetic!
And so does everybody. If there are corner cases, the courts can decide them.
Those courts might one day rule that the Bible is offensive.
Other than personal remarks, do you have an argument based on reason or the Constitution of France or of the US?
I haven't read the Constitution of France, my French being really bad. However, no constitution is correct if it is less liberal than the US Constitution.
Under the US Constitution, you have the right to mock any religion you see fit without being shot. Anyone who disagrees, even under color of law, deserves to be met with deadly force.
Any who dig into Charlie Hebdo's past work and find it distasteful and therefore make excuses for the Islamists and advocate adoption of elements of Sharia are traitors. Pure and simple.
They may, and we’ll have another revolution. That modern governments are incapable of delivering justice I know. But it does not alter the fact that insults, blasphemy, pornography is not protected speech.
That is no excuse for the perpetrators of the massacre who deserved to be shot by the French police. It is simply an advice to anyone who wants less massacres and more justice: work to remove the protected status from speech like that Hebdo Charlie, and everyone will come out ahead.
Pure insults are absolutely protected (unless they allege material false facts). Otherwise, we couldn't have political campaigns.
Pornography is protected speech as long as it isn't produced by exploiting minors. If you don't like it, don't view it.
Blasphemy is inherently a religious matter. It is therefore beyond the ken of government, which, in a just society, is required to abstain from involvement in religion.
The American constitution is of course irrelevant here
Nope. The American Constitution is the standard against which other constitutions are measured (and, if found wanting, should be ignored).
That is no excuse for the perpetrators of the massacre who deserved to be shot by the French police. It is simply an advice to anyone who wants less massacres and more justice: work to remove the protected status from speech like that Hebdo Charlie, and everyone will come out ahead.
You are a classic appeaser! As Sir Winston said, "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
No argument there.
You are a classic appeaser!
In a just society there will be no Charlie Hebdo. Whom did I appease? Myself?
You agree government is evil but you want to give GOVERNMENT the power to decide what is offensive speech. ridiculous. government IS evil and the problem so is the mainstream media.
The mainstream media does more to slander Christianity and capitalism than anyone and they do it from a million times a day from a million sources
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.