• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

To publish or not to publish, that is the question

G

GaryH

TS Member
Ok, controversial one currently but wondered what the general consensus was. As we all know about the dreadful events in Paris and the cartoon that sparked them off, Charlie Hebdo has today, published another cartoon on its front cover.

However, hardly any British (or for that matter, European) newspapers or magazines have published it, including the one which started the killings last week.

We all saw the millions turn out to protest, holding their pen's and saying that freedom of speech will never be given up, and that they will not give in to terrorists.

However, if that were the case, shouldn't all these newspapers and magazines therefore, be printing this cartoon today*. Wouldn't the most powerful message to these terrorists the very next day after the killings have been for every press source to reprint the cartoon, in a massive two fingers to these terrorists.

But, alas, no, it would seem the terrorists have won and that freedom of speech has been curtailed because everyone is now too afraid to publish these pictures?

My own personal opinion is that they should have been published. If something offends me, I turn the page, or write to complain, I don't grab a gun and go killing people and don't think we should start censoring things that may or may not offend others. I believe that we have lost some of our free speech with the events in Paris.

*I believe a few sources have printed it, but hidden away on their websites or in their newspapers, but only a Danish magazine was brave enough to reprint the original cartoon last week.
 
"It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom."

"But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven’s name pack your bag and leave.”

“There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself... be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists.

“And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.”

“This is stupid, this so incomprehensible... vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.”

Mayor Aboutaleb, The mayor of Rotterdam

The MUSLIM Mayor of Rotterdam.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-mayor-rotterdam-tells-4970496
 
Every paper should publish it to make a point.

I quite like the idea of getting as many people as possible to draw their own depiction of Muhammed. What are they going to do, kill every non-muslim on the planet? (Oh wait, that's exactly what those nutjobs do want...)

On the other hand, I have seen several people make the point that even though they support the freedom to create such a cartoon, they don't want to deliberately insult any religion, as a matter of principal.
 
DiogoJ42 said:
On the other hand, I have seen several people make the point that even though they support the freedom to create such a cartoon, they don't want to deliberately insult any religion, as a matter of principal.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this point entirely. I think sometimes it does go too far, and is disrespectful to others beliefs.

Then again, so is murdering people.
 
But is it really any different to when we mock radical creationist Christians?
 
As so many have said, its our right to offend, and our right to be offended. Listening to a lot of people on various phone-in's today on the radio, it was surprising how many people said that they shouldn't publish anything which would offend people. Well, isn't that essentially censoring free speech. I find the "Merlin Sale" offends me and angers me, but I wouldn't want them to have to stop publishing it just because i'm offended by it and I wouldn't dream of going to their offices with a machine gun!
 
DiogoJ42 said:
But is it really any different to when we mock radical creationist Christians?
Click to expand...

No it's not.

It's also the same when Radical Christians talk about being gay is a sin etc etc.

Doesn't mean a ton of gays rock up to a church and murder the vicar with rainbow Kalashnikovs
 
Surely there are ways to give the two fingers to the murderers without upsetting the 1.5 billion Muslims that didn't kill anyone?

It's interesting that France has the hots for free speech now, after they banned protests for Palestine. And it's interesting how the magazine wants to use its free speech to say what it wants about Muslims, but a few years ago sacked a cartoonist for a negative cartoon about Jews. And politicians here are defending the right to free speech while telling us they should be allowed to see all our encrypted messages, even snapchats, and keep restricting our rights to protest and strike.

The media only seem to care so much because it was one of their own. Even The Guardian have printed it and the BBC shown it on the news.

I don't really mind them printing it, I do mind the hypocrisy.
 
Blaze said:
and keep restricting our rights to protest and strike.

The media only seem to care so much because it was one of their own. Even The Guardian have printed it and the BBC shown it on the news.

I don't really mind them printing it, I do mind the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

The law in the country about preventing charities speaking out during election time is an absolute disgrace and when you hear muppets like Johnson coming out defending the guy in Holland, which is fair enough, but on the other hand being part of a party that is doing MORE to restrict free speech than any Government I can personally remember you are absolutely correct about the hypocrisy!
 
Blaze said:
Surely there are ways to give the two fingers to the murderers without upsetting the 1.5 billion Muslims that didn't kill anyone?
Click to expand...

Theres a big difference between upsetting someone and someone going on a killing spree. Every religion every faith is mocked or made fun of at times. Why should people be so afraid of upsetting this one in particular?

I agree however with your other points. But my point is, should terrorists be able to dictate what we do and do not publish?
 
My point is, a lot of Muslims have condemned the attacks, and there's been a rise in crimes committed against Muslims since the attack, it seems a bit unfair to do something that will also annoy them as well as the killers. I'm not saying the religion should never be mocked, just that the cover could maybe have been done in a way that more specifically targets the few nutters who'd shoot people over cartoons and not the 1.5 billion that share the religion want nothing to do with murdering cartoonists. But I suppose since the depictions of Muhammed were what made them do it, the best sign of defiance is to depict him again. But I'd imagine the more they do it, there's a chance they might push more Muslims towards radicalism. The reaction from Muslims seems to be mixed, understandably.

Like I said though, I don't mind them publishing it, they're not Muslims so they're allowed to, it's insensitive, but killing people is even more so and they should in no way let the killers think they've won.
 
Just read this on BBC News and I think its a fantastic statement from a Turkish writer....

"In an op-ed piece in the paper (Charlie Hebdo), Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol calls on the Muslim world to ease its concept of blasphemy.

"Rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity," he says. "The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers."
 
The idea that we allow free speech in this country is laughable.
Try standing on a street corner and shout the n word or pa** and see how long before you would be arrested.

Personally I'm for complete free speech whether it incites hatred or not, it's only words and is completely different to violence.
The newspapers bottled it.
 
Do you want to be able to stand on a street corner shouting racial epithets? Seems like a weird hobby to me. I doubt you'd be arrested before being punched. Most people would probably just assume there was something wrong with you though.
 
We should be able to stand on a street corner and shout whatever we want, thats why millions died in WW2, to fight for our freedoms.
 
I always thought they died fighting in World War 2 to defeat a racist, genocidal psychopath bent on ruling the Earth and cleansing it of non-Aryans. Guess that's what my just liberal education wanted me to think.
 
Blaze said:
I always thought they died fighting in World War 2 to defeat a racist, genocidal psychopath bent on ruling the Earth and cleansing it of non-Aryans. Guess that's what my just liberal education wanted me to think.
Click to expand...

No they did it so we could stand on street corners yelling abuse at people.

Dumb ass.
 
Well, if Hitler did rule the earth we wouldnt be able to say what we want, or behave how we want, and life now would be very different. One faith, his set of rules, his way of living, the Aryan race.

Come to think of it.....it would be very similar to life should these Islamic extremists get their way in the world.... segregation between men and women, one faith, very harsh sharia law, public stoning, hangings, no freedom of speech. But hey ho, must not say anything eh unless we upset anyone eh....
 
You should probably look in to the sort of person Churchill was if you think he was bothered about freedom.

And likewise, freedom to racially abuse minorities also seems like something Hitler would approve of. Complicated, isn't it?
 
There is no comparison between Churchill and Hitler. No its not complicated. People should be free to say what they want. If others dont like it - tough - do what everyone else does, turn the other cheek. write a letter to complain, organise a protest, not go on a mass killing spree over a frickin cartoon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top