Funkstain wrote:

Eh, if I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood after all dem posts I guess I have to give up

It's clear. It's just wrong.

So - you think that Hebdo were not, and are not being racist? Because that's like, my only point. The fact that they hide behind a "see terrorists you'll never win..." so that they can get away with "...against our racism".

This is the point I originally responded to.

Funkstain wrote:

People defending Hebdo for publishing insulting cartoons on purpose after what happened, are in my view totally missing the point of what Hebdo are trying to do, which absolutely is "fuck you muzzos"

This doesn't say "hebdo are racist" this says "defending them is wrong because they are racist" and also "they are lying about their reasons for doing this". First point is wrong, second one is a supposition which I disagree with. They haven't hid their views in the past. I don't see why they'd do it now. 

This is now an argument about an argument (or a debate about a debate, or an argument about a debate). We're both clear, we both disagree, so dunno. I'll try and leave it here before it gets too tetchy.

Funkstain wrote:

There is no-one on this forum who has said anything like " they shouldn't print this cos they could get killed / deserve what they get / etc ". it's a straw man argument and I don't understand who it is for, since obviously everyone in here is in agreement with such an obvious point.

Just to be clear, this is actually what most of us are arguing. The question is not Hebdo are hiding behind bravery to get a racist poke in. I'm not sure they are or are not in this case, but that hasnt been what got most of us posting. Its this line of thought:

b0r1s wrote:

If this causes more terror attacks they should be held responsible. Why would you do this?

Dinostar77 wrote:

If there is another terror attack on hebdo staff then the magazine is to blame for poking the Hornets nest again. There are enough nutters out there who take this stuff far too seriously and are willing to throw their lives away for retribution. So why risk it again? Stupid of hebdo.

LivDiv wrote:

Publishers have to so people don't get shot.

I wonder if Hebdo put it to a vote? I presume they did but I bet they didn't ask the cleaner.

I'm not sure the last two sit well together.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

I'm not sure the last two sit well together.

I think that may be his point?

Because the man said so.

Exactly. I could call Wookie a cunt, but I should expect a roundhouse to the face for it.

No you should not, although he is a policeman.

Only when I'm on shift, Im signed off for a month so I'm just plain old wookie

Wookienopants wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, just kinda skimmed the last two pages but here's my two cents for what it's worth (which is fuck all) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You're free to say and write whatever you want, other people are free to react in the way they deem fit and if that means consequences then that's partially on you for being an asshole. It doesn't excuse violence but you can't expect to openly offend someone and not have some sort of reaction.

I don't think many people would be all too bothered if the reaction was a protest outside their office, or an advertiser boycott or something.

The reason you can't draw the man is to prevent idoltry. I'd say that's backfired spectacuarly.

GurtTractor wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

I'm not sure the last two sit well together.

We already have the social mechanisms to start to work against racism and general cuntery, legal and governmental intervention is not and absolutely should not be needed when it comes to what groups and people can say. In this instance what use would intervention from the French government be? This has clearly sparked plenty of healthy debate, denouncement, and hopefully some self awareness, which is what is needed for progress.

I don't agree with this. I'd obvs like to believe in free speech but I think you should be prosecuted for saying racist stuff. Most awful behaviour, probably any behaviour, is learned. If you're forced to be nicer then it might take a generation or two but it will result in nicer actions, even if that means giving up a little freedom. 

Now it's true that you can't break out of a cycle of hate without having free speech in the first place, and the way AI is going we'll probably have to ask our monitors for permission to piss in 30yrs, but I still think total free speech is a silly idea.

monkey wrote:

The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say.  Take a look at the people currently in power.

Ah well, we're grand so. I guess that's that.  Side note - quite enjoyed this debate for the morning. I know some here hate when threads go this way but I quite like reading the different points brought forward, even if they disagree with me.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Wookienopants wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, just kinda skimmed the last two pages but here's my two cents for what it's worth (which is fuck all) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You're free to say and write whatever you want, other people are free to react in the way they deem fit and if that means consequences then that's partially on you for being an asshole. It doesn't excuse violence but you can't expect to openly offend someone and not have some sort of reaction.

 I don't think many people would be all too bothered if the reaction was a protest outside their office, or an advertiser boycott or something. The reason you can't draw the man is to prevent idoltry. I'd say that's backfired spectacuarly.

Thats the reason? Oh wow, take about the point being missed in that case. Although it is a nice core concept for a religion - most go the opposite way in terms of statues and pictures.

monkey wrote:

The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say.  Take a look at the people currently in power.

As long as we vote them into power I don't have a problem with that. If the internet has taught us anything it's that people will believe anything. We're morons and need to be stopped.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

monkey wrote:

The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say.  Take a look at the people currently in power.

As long as we vote them into power I don't have a problem with that. If the internet has taught us anything it's that people will believe anything. We're morons and need to be stopped.

But not by other morons.

By a sort of collective moronity, hence democracy. It's not perfect but it'll have to do.