Support NeoGAF

[outunderthestars]

terrorists lost

Yep. It has been amazing to see the French respond to the attack on their press.

 

[Rafterman]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

Since when should a person be held accountable when terrorists kill over a cartoon? The only people who are responsible and accountable are the terrorists themselves.

If that's the cost of peace I'd rather be at war. If you have to control speech or thoughts to achieve peace than the peace is a lie. I'd rather live in a world where people can tell the truth than live in some tightly controlled utopia.

 

[| Praxis |]

Yeah, the BBC actually changed their guidelines last week. They showed the other cover as well.

Before it was a blanket recommendation not to show any depictions of Mohammed, now it's a journalistic decision about accurately reporting what is being covered and understanding the views of those involved.

A worthy change.

I would say the fact publications around the world are too scared to show the cartoons because they fear for their lives is the biggest insult to a religion, bigger than any cartoon.

 

[outunderthestars]

So your solution is to have the lunatics dictate the rules. What could go wrong?

Agreed. If they back down from this, the lunatics will decide to start killing people for some other reason: I.E. allowing girls to go to school/drive/dance/etc, gay couples to marry, people to have personal freedom, or whatever else they choose to find offensive to their 2,000 year old book.

Screw that.

 

[Bisnic]

Congrats to the 2 dumbasses murderers that killed CH staff. The magazine went from being read by 60k people to millions thanks to your actions.

Now even more people will see the drawings of your prophet! They must be making a "wemadeahugemistake.gif" face in hell.

 

[Derwind]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

#5 shouldnt be a deterence to free speech, if someones willing to kill to send a message they'd find a way to do so even if these cartoons weren't made.

Hate speech is terrible but I'm starting to think its a necessary evil for the preservence of Free speech. However, Hate speech should be identified wherever it presents itself and throughly criticised.

Stifling speech in society is the slow demise of it.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

There are no "consequences" for freedom of speech. Only consequences when some people can't tolerate the freedom of others.

If you want to say/publish whatever you want you should be prepared to face criticism, but you shouldn't have to be afraid for your life. It's ridiculous to try and pin the blame on someone who was murdered over a fucking cartoon.

 

[Deadbeat]

When any other religion is critcized its okay, but when islam is criticized its "wait guys people might find this offensive and bad things could happen". Why does one religion get a free pass?

 

[Joni]

Turkey has decided to block websites that show the cover of Charlie Hebdo.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Freedom of expression prevailed. Well done. I am so happy.

 

[ManDudeChild]

When any other religion is critcized its okay, but when islam is criticized its "wait guys people might find this offensive and bad things could happen". Why does one religion get a free pass?

Because it's more difficult to stand one's ground in the face of horrific violence?

I don't agree with it, and the very fact that the violence is a concern needs to be dealt with ... but it is what it is. Head goes in sand, all is well.

 

[RJT]

I don't understand some of you. Freedom of expression is not an absolute value. There's a reason "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" has its own fucking wikipedia article.

In this case, I'm happy that freedom of expression prevailed. But I understand the other point of view.

 

[cwmartin]

The right to say whatever you want doesn't remove the responsibility for what you say. If I come to you and tell you a very offensive "Your momma..." joke, I have a right to do so, but it's on me to anticipate the incoming punch to my face.

If you know that more than a billion people of a faith , who revere their prophet Mohammed as to not even picturing him, posting a "satirical" image of the guy with naked butt is not really funny, even if it's not your target audience. Especially considering a large Muslim population in modern France.

Don't get me wrong: there is no excuse for killing people. Ever. But stirring hatred and resentment is uncool. When you satirize someone, you're also bringing them down and it's important to know what exactly you're satirizing. When Charlie Hebdo sold 60k copies, that could be seen as a minor issue, with 5 million - it's more than that, responsibility is higher.

Other people in this thread are going to explain to you why you are wrong, but I hope for the sake of everything that has happened, you are at least open to understanding why people will tell you you are wrong.

 

[Riposte]

I don't understand some of you. Freedom of expression is not an absolute value. There's a reason "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" has its own fucking wikipedia article.

In this case, I'm happy that freedom of expression prevailed. But I understand the other point of view.

You should read the wikipedia page. It doesn't paint that argument in a good light.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Libération and Le Canard enchaîné are sold out as well.

 

[Holden]

my parents received 11 copies

they had 160 reservation...

wtf

 

[msv]

The right to say whatever you want doesn't remove the responsibility for what you say. If I come to you and tell you a very offensive "Your momma..." joke, I have a right to do so, but it's on me to anticipate the incoming punch to my face..

That you think physical violence for reasons other than defense is okay offends me greatly. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. So if you think physical violence is okay as a response to something deemed offensive, according to you, would it be okay for me to get physical with you?

 

[gutter_trash]

Turkey has decided to block websites that show the cover of Charlie Hebdo.

Turkey are the biggest ass fucks in all of this.

a) they allowed suspected terrorists to travel freely who travel from Western Europe through Turkey then let them cross the border into Syria and back

 

[mekes]

It was shown on BBC Breakfast this morning during a broadcast report (with a verbal pre-warning).

That is good to know, I'm actually surprised as I thought they wouldn't. I wanted them and other places to freely show it as freely as they would talk about it.

Freedom of speech is a real thing, I hope the tragic events from last week and the (hopefully remaining) correct response to it will go a way in supporting that.

 

[Stereogatari]

That you think physical violence for reasons other than defense is okay offends me greatly. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. So if you think physical violence is okay as a response to something deemed offensive, according to you, would it be okay for me to get physical with you?

Well said. It's illegal anyway, the law doesn't care if someone provoked you or not if you harm someone.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Waiting for Japanese release...

 

[RustyNails]

That you think physical violence for reasons other than defense is okay offends me greatly. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. So if you think physical violence is okay as a response to something deemed offensive, according to you, would it be okay for me to get physical with you?

No one is saying physical violence is ok, but you can provoke people with words. The judge will still throw the person who punched you in jail, but he will also call you a dumbass and an idiot for provoking him.

 

[The Incarnation]

Where are the t-shirts?

 

[Stereogatari]

Turkey are the biggest ass fucks in all of this.

a) they allowed suspected terrorists to travel freely who travel from Western Europe through Turkey then let them cross the border into Syria and back

Hypocrite. What about the European countries allowing their citizens to willy nilly travel to Turkey in the first place?

Turkey's border with Syria is huge. It's naive of people to think they could immaculately control it. Same deal with the Iraqi border and Kurdish terrorists, and the Armenian border and illegal Armenians coming to Turkey for a better life.

AKP are conservative Muslims but they are a million miles from ISIS' ideology. AKP are like GOP in America, except instead of being primarily WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) they're WTASs (White Turkish Anatolian Sunnis). The idea that they freely support them is a silly conspiracy.

The cartoons have been published in some Turkish newspapers and cartoon magazines, and the new Hebdo issue itself is being distributed in Turkey in Turkish.

Also keep in mind the internet blocking in Turkey is very strange. You can go to your local court and get a website blocked nationwide and then it's just as likely for it to get unblocked in another case. That's exactly what has happened here, some dude in Diyarbakir (capital of the Kurds) opened a court case and now it's been deemed that any pages showing the Hebdo material will be banned. I'm not excusing it, but this hasn't come from the government, it's just a shit and archaic law process.

Internet blocking in Turkey is a joke anyway, alternative DNSs have always overcome them

Waiting for Japanese release...

lol I thought you posted in the wrong thread at first. Thought you were talking about a game.

 

[msv]

No one is saying physical violence is ok, but you can provoke people with words. The judge will still throw the person who punched you in jail, but he will also call you a dumbass and an idiot for provoking him.

What does anyone's opinion on what was said have to do with it?

 

[Systemwarrior]

damn

Looks like an iPhone launch! Is there a way to buy and import to the States?

 

[jmdajr]

I'm thinking the terrorists lost.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

How is this a backfire for the terrorists?

Even a single death is a tragedy beyond words. The dead remain dead.

Well, those clowns who committed the attack increased exposure to the magazine by a factor of almost 100, even if for this single issue, so there's definitely a backfire.

 

[Ray Wonder]

This is great. I'll have to pick up a copy, if possible.

 

[outunderthestars]

Looks like an iPhone launch! Is there a way to buy and import to the States?

I'd really like to know this as well.

 

[Kabouter]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

A world where the bounds of free speech are determined by violent extremists is not a peaceful world.

 

[TheAbsolution]

Anyone know where I can pick up a copy in the US? I'd like to own one for at the very least historical significance.

 

[neorej]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

Yeah, Pax Romana was the bomb. Everyone lived in peace and trouble-makers would get executed. Those were the days!

 

[PopeReal]

With all due respect, the attackers killed someone because that publication offended their prophet.

This achieves what Draw Muhammed day achieves. Nothing, in the way of real change, but offend millions of Muslims who played no part in the violence. & the Muslim families directedly affected by the murder.

You're just fighting shadows for paper liberties you already had.

But have it your way. At least the publication pledged to give money to the victim's families.

Not sure what point you are trying to make? That people should never be offended? That the terrorists are real Muslims? What?

 

[SiegfriedFM]

That's pretty much guaranteed. Especially in puss countries like UK/Sweden.

DN had pictures of it yesterday and they and Expressen are showing the cover in news reports today. Oh, and SVD and Aftonbladet do, too. What are you talking about again?

Regarding the success, good for them. I'd buy one to help it selling out, but it's kind of against the entire point to buy a copy off a scalper.

 

[Powercast]

I just wish the killers were alive to watch this. Those fuckers.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

Waiting for Japanese release...

Muhammad is smiling in their cover.

 

[nilbog21]

Anyone know where I can pick up a copy in the US? I'd like to own one for at the very least historical significance.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Newspaper-C...t=US_International_Comics&hash=item2c952feb34

 

[yogloo]

to be honest, most of them only dare to print the cover because this is an incredibly tame cartoon portraying Mohammed - not really of the same caliber as one of these:

trust me, they wouldn't print any of these.

What's the context for these two?

 

[chocolate disco]

How is this a backfire for the terrorists?

Even a single death is a tragedy beyond words. The dead remain dead.

It's easier for people to cope with this tragedy with that way of thinking. Be it true or not.

 

[PopeReal]

It's easier for people to cope with this tragedy with that way of thinking.

So it is not a backfire? Explain how.

 

[RustyNails]

What does anyone's opinion on what was said have to do with it?

Words are not said in vacuum. I mean the whole response to the attacks should have taught you that pen is indeed mightier than sword and for very good reasons.

 

[nowarning]

The BBC showed the cartoon.

Good on them, I don't have time to watch TV on the morning and I've been out all day today so haven't seen. My post was just in a general sense from what I've seen myself.

 

[msv]

Words are not said in vacuum. I mean the whole response to the attacks should have taught you that pen is indeed mightier than sword and for very good reasons.

Again, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Comes across to me as if you're just spouting some (unwanted) common sense advice. Get down to business - what are you trying to say here?

 

[Fliesen]

What's the context for these two?

i have no idea. something something religion being shit something mohammed something?

right now, this all just feels like a huge circle jerk around a magazine that will go back to selling sub 100k copies in a few weeks, people having jumped onto some new slacktivist bandwagon, scalpers having made huge profits on re-selling the "historical issue".

While on the other hand anti-islamic sentiments growing stronger, European leaders already reaching for privacy-invading control of the internet (just look at Cameron and Merkel, those last few days) for the sakes of "security".

It's like 9/11. Sure we all felt the solidarity, and candles, and you guys built a huge fucking new tower. "the terrorists haven't won"
I still need to take my shoes off, radiate my junk and put my >100ml cough syrup into my check-in luggage whenever i'm travelling to the US - to spend shitloads of money and keep your economy running (you're welcome btw.)

i don't wanna be a huge cynic, but don't get all "this has backfired" euphoric about this. What will remain from this is a few families having lost their loved ones and a lot more invasion of privacy.

 

[Stereogatari]

i have no idea. something something religion being shit something mohammed something?

right now, this all just feels like a huge circle jerk around a magazine that will go back to selling sub 100k copies in a few weeks, people having jumped onto some new slacktivist bandwagon, scalpers having made huge profits on re-selling the "historical issue".

While on the other hand anti-islamic sentiments growing stronger, European leaders already reaching for privacy-invading control of the internet (just look at Cameron and Merkel, those last few days) for the sakes of "security".

It's like 9/11. Sure we all felt the solidarity, and candles, and you guys built a huge fucking new tower. "the terrorists haven't won"
I still need to take my shoes off, radiate my junk and put my >100ml cough syrup into my check-in luggage whenever i'm travelling to the US.

i don't wanna be a huge cynic, but don't get all "this has backfired" euphoric about this. What will remain from this is a few families having lost their loved ones and a lot more invasion of privacy.

I agree with you that the circlejerk nature of this all is annoying. How many people are genuinely up for a debate about freedom of speech, and how many are just clinging onto something that they have no understanding of but feel its fun to jump on a train that fuels their superiority complex towards Muslims?

What's the context for these two?

Hebdo.

 

[RustyNails]

The right to say whatever you want doesn't remove the responsibility for what you say. If I come to you and tell you a very offensive "Your momma..." joke, I have a right to do so, but it's on me to anticipate the incoming punch to my face.

That you think physical violence for reasons other than defense is okay offends me greatly. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. So if you think physical violence is okay as a response to something deemed offensive, according to you, would it be okay for me to get physical with you?

Again, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Comes across to me as if you're just spouting some (unwanted) common sense advice. Get down to business - what are you trying to say here?

I merely pointed out that he did not suggest that physical violence is ok. You can provoke someone with words (yo mama stuff), but that does not make it ok to punch them. If someone does punch your jaw in, he will go to jail as he should. But you were also an idiot for provoking him.

 

[RustyNails]

Hebdo.

I'm waiting for DECK'ARD to explain to me why the first picture is not juvenile but tells us something deep about the human condition or some shit.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

Yesterday, I saw on french tv a journalist shoving the magazine into the face of muslims just going out of the Grand Mosque of Paris. It was disgusting. The worst was the fake innocent comments "oh! it seems muslims doesn't like Charlie Hebdo?!" What did you expect you piece of shit ?

 

[DEAD RABBIT]

This should be called the Hebdo effect analogous to the Streisand effect.