The whole freedom of speech thing is great but it will never truly happen while double standards exist.

I'm sure it's been mentioned already but a Hebdo cartoonist was sacked or jailed or both for doing a cartoon about the holocaust .. An Iranian newspaper ran or sponsored an exhibition holocaust cartoons, the west slated it as a disgrace, including the UN.

Western newspapers ran some of the cartoons of the holocaust but were afraid to publish the prophet cartoons.. Some ran them the other way around.

Dieudonné is being charged with racism offences

In other words, It's double standards in all directions. We can all shout for freedom of speech but we ain't getting it anytime soon unless it's the correct freedom of speech. I thought freedom of speech meant everything is a legitimate target, not just some things.

keep sending negative reputation, it is still a valid point

Cartoon is also valid, where Israeli president is building wall with blood of Palestinians.

agree...Erdogan was best friend of Israel and they did not care about his "democratic spirit"....until the day he started criticizing Israel. Then he became suddenly a naughty boy. Exact same scenario happened with Apartheid.

This is NOT a real cover but a fake made by the circle around Dieudonné. Quite a few international media did the mistake because they didn't keep up with French public debate.

Charlie Hebdo agrees with you on that one. Or is it you agreeing with Charlie hebdo…

Didnt know that. Thanks for the info.

Perhaps they ought to change the term from "the freedom of speech" to "the freedom to offend."

freedom to offend (Muslims)

"freedom of speech" means nothing more than freedom from government regulation of speech. it certainly does not mean you cannot be fired for speaking your mind, or that somebody cannot sue you, or that your friends may not start to dislike you, etc.

Right. So there is an obvious difference between what is legal and what is "socially acceptable."

I am not French, so I must ask...

Would it be considered "socially acceptable", for example, for a (non-Muslim) French person to go up to a random Muslim on the street and say: "You are an idiot for what you believe in, and Mohammad is a fool!" ... ?

If not, then why?

No, they can do so- but they better not come complaining to me if they get a bloody nose (not killed though).

Went to a conference today about risks and freedom- we were all over 60- but all agreed that there is no such thing as total freedom, in speech or otherwise. The 'French' are now playing with fire- very stupidly, if I may say so. For what? All this c*** about 'better to die than live on their knees' is just becoming so immature and ridiculous. By doing so, they are putting so many innocents at risk, both in France and all over Europe, including the UK- for what???

If you are going to take such risks- do it for things that are worthwhile- not stupid cartoons, like a 5 year old going round 'nananananananana'
like spoilt brats. Basta.

The legacy of the soldiers who died for these rights through history including two world wars. But its great you've decided they were just being immature.

Charlie Hebdo never ever said anything like that. On the contrary. Their point is again and again that extremism and a religion are two distinct concepts. Why do you think they draw a crying Mohammad on this week's cover? Duh.

As for not being French, it shows, otherwise you would know that French law does not recognize blasphemy at all and make a distinction between attacking a belief and attacking an individual.

Lol. Why especially "including the UK"? What's so special about the UK that it merits a special mention?

you are, dear.

So, has anyone covered the "ultimate act of DaDa" theory yet?

yes, of course there is a difference between what is legal and what is "socially acceptable", although I would never suggest that the difference is "obvious". then again, 99% of the purpose of free speech is to permit people to challenge societal norms, and to challenge the limits of what is or is not "socially acceptable".

Sadly the truth is these soldiers mostly died for nothing. They were there because politicians ordered them to be there under the threat of death.

Certainly the first world war (14 - 18) had absolutely nothing to do with rights but still managed to wipe out almost an entire generation. In fact nobody knew what that war was about and even now they have not figured it out.

True - not WW2 though. That was a fight for freedom in the purest sense. My post stands although I'll concede WW1 isnt included.

Are you two and others finally admitting, or coming to terms with the truth that those who massacred Charlie Hebdo were Muslims and did so for the cause of Islam? You don't actually have to. You just about did. Just stop the hypocrisy.

I could care less for this publication, the Mohammed cover and hypocritical notions of speech. But purely on principle, capitulating to the coercions of tyranny sets precedents for further demands and capitulations. We just can't let Islamic terrorists win. It would just encourage more terrorism and institutionalize violence.

About "That was a fight for freedom in the purest sense." Except for most of Eastern Europe that was occupied by Russia for many years; the opposite of freedom