they may be religious fanatics, they don't represent muslims or any other group but in my opinion looking at the video they are certainly terrorists, in that they terrorized and murdered those people.

Well, it certainly doesn't exist in most Islamic countries. But that shouldn't apply to western/non-Islamic countries.

If I published satirical cartoons about Jesus Christ, it would most likely piss off quite a few people. If a few of those people decided to take violent revenge because of it, does that mean that the freedom of speech in relation to Christianity shouldn't exist? It doesn't make sense that societies and mankind in general should (continue to) evolve according to fear instilled by religion.

firstly, l'hebdo has been accused of anti-semitism in the past (claiming sarkozy was converting to judaism for financial reasons, i believe- just one example) and the point of the journal is to provoke. to laugh. to question.
and yes, you can be sure that many journalists and staff of various journals in paris have received threats at some point for writing on subjects that are even slightly religious, political and sometimes simply for having a somewhat ethnic name. it is a very common occurance.

some of those murdered are brilliant writers who dared you to laugh and look at the ridiculous of current events, politics etc. these are people who society NEEDS to keep it in check. and all of those murdered didn't deserve to be gunned down so violently- and viciously for any reason.

my house, as many right now, is in mourning...
my husband knew quite a few of those killed today, he worked with them throughout his career and up until this past summer. trust me when i say these are people who were highly respected among journalists for their bravery and intelligence to use humor to criticize and examine the world.

__________________
'there isn't enough of anything as long as we live.
but at intervals a sweetness appears and, given a chance prevails'

I agree.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
   "the fight against terrorism"
   
   
   
   

Now, some might argue that seeking (and acting upon) religious-inspired vengeance about cartoons isn't really an act "in pursuit of political aims." But when it comes to Islam, I do sometimes find it difficult to separate the religion and politics, since so often the politics of Islamic countries are based on the religion.

Nevertheless, I do hope that it is not the fear of jail that prevents Charlie Hebdo from writing anything like that, but their own choice and common sense.

Yes, maybe they were asking for it. Free speech can rile people and one can question whether it should be the job of the state to protect people who use it to excess. Geert Wilders for example lives under constant police vigilance at massive costs to the taxpayer. But part of the objective of radical free speech is also to rile and provoke opponents in order to expose themselves. Holocauist deniers rock the boat with the express purpose of provoking state crackdowns to be able to demonstrate today's state is no more tolerant or open minded than the Nazis were, and similarly prefers repression to debate. They are thus succesful in many countries. If that was the objective of Charlie Hebdo to prove Islam contains elements that have little self restraint or tolerance, they have succeeded, albeit at a high price.

Said like that it's still wrong because it seems they "aimed" at "islamist fanatics". While in fact, they made caricatures about everything, "including" islamist fanatics. There's a big difference here.

So it's not "lack of respect", it's simply caricaturing, in general!

I am not suggesting for a minute that they had it coming, or that this was in any way a proportionate response. I am simply saying that with rights come responsibilities. The French government who have a lot more security intelligence to call upon pleaded with the magazine not to publish certain cartoons in 2012, and when they did it prompted the French government to shut down dozens of its foreign embassies and missions overseas as a precaution.

Once your words or images have the power to put lives at risks, you need to rethink whether the benefits outweigh the risk.

But isn't the whole point of caricaturing, the expression of a certain element of lack of respect?

But that said, I do think at least some of the Mohammed caricatures were clearly mocking radical Islamism rather than Islam in general. You know, the one about running out of virgins for example?

Caricature can also be solely for entertainment.
And they are part of freedom of expression.

Depends on how "sensitive" and/or the level of "victimization" people have.
Obviously these "islamists radicals" or radical criminal idiots did not have much sense of humor.

A car bomb has just blown up near a synagogue.

What is wrong with people..bombed mosques in Sweden, car bombs near a synagogue in France. This is turning into some vicious urban guerilla warfare lead by disillusioned and disturbed lunatics.

the suggestion that mere words or images have the power to put lives at risk is inapposite to the foundational concepts of "freedom of speech", and frankly disgusts me. I don't mean that personally against you in any manner whatsoever, simply expressing my frustration at the notion that somehow anything someone says or draws in a cartoon can be construed by any rational person as an excuse for barbarism.

Free speech should be absolute, and is so in most of the Western world. Holocaust denial being the exception in a few European countries given their proximity to the events that took place and the fact it's still within living memory. I personally think it shouldn't be prohibited, because at the end, everyone knows it happened.

If a few loonies can't accept ideas or a cartoons then tough. No pandering or "finding a different way to make your point". Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights that we have. Every newspaper in the world should put that cartoon on their front page tomorrow.

for anyone in the lausanne area- there were be a vigil here at place de la riponne at 18h.

Attached Images

 

Absolute freedom of speech is not even allowed here.

And there's the crux. The folks making these attacks (shootings, bombings, whatever) are not rational people. They're fanatics of one sort or another. Rational people can write and read satire and irony and might get a tad upset and write a nasty letter to the editor. Nutjobs be nutjobs.

Of course the great irony is that the resultant terrorist attrocities are reducing our privacy and freedoms as people willingly trade them for security.
So rather than this race to the bottom, satirists should perhaps get back to their core competency of holding governments to account.

Denial of the Holocaust and Armenian genocide apart it more or less is. And anyhow, they happened, it's a fact and there's proof, so if you deny it then you're just an imbecile.

agreed. and i believe that charlie does just that. one of the few that is intelligent, unforgiving and on target. it would be a shame for them to be silent (as other papers choose to be) for fear of, as they've been called in a post above, nutjobs.

not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't seem to recall too many fanatics of recent vintage who would fit into the "or another" category.

I'm not sure if you really meant that, but... do you realize how many non-violent "normal" Muslims that would inadvertently piss off?

Do you mean in CH... or on the EF? It certainly isn't always welcomed on this forum.