My original thesis was that free speech is no more sympathetic than capitalism or any other democratic concepts, and that any institution or organization that indulges in either has to cover it's backside. They need to be willing to gauge the response of the affected community and protect themselves accordingly.
Your "thesis" is completely wrong. In a free society, nobody should be subject to violence for expressing an idea or for making a cartoon or a satirical statement. There are laws that protect free expression and that prohibit violence. You should direct your criticism toward the arsonists and toward those who issued death threats to these cartoonists. The cartoonists did NOTHING wrong. In fact, they and others should do more of the same.
pouhe and da_juice: If the KKK had firebombed a magazine that lampooned Southern racists, would that be the fault of the impudent magazine writers? (I stole this from the comments section of the idiotic article by the Time journalist)
It's hard to take a side on things like this. On one hand, no one's preventing Muslims from practicing their religion and stuff. So I'd like to say one should just get a sense of humor. OTOH, this really stretches the whole freedom of speech thing. There's a fine line between freedom to say what you want an being a a-hole trying to rile things up.
It would be preventable, hence the dearth of firebombed French magazines. Extra risks entail extra precautions. And Muslims are not the KKK or Southern racists.
KKK is not in the right, but the satirists are still morons. Ideally, this shouldn't be happening, but it does, so in the name of self preservation you don't awaken the Beast so to speak.
But then you let those who are violent define the boundaries of freedom of speech. So, according to your logic, the more violent you are, the more "successful" you are in defining what can be said and what cannot be said. Don't you see the problem with that logic? I disagree with you: There should be more and more and more of this kind of satire, every time intolerance and violence rears its ugly head. Every time this kind of satire appears, it is a manifestation of freedom. Every time it is suppressed (and be it self-suppressed, as you demand it), freedom loses and violence wins.
And they should have to face the consequences. I mean, technically I can go up to a black belt and tell him his daughter is a slut and a w**** with my "free speech", and technically him beating me to a pulp afterward would be unlawful on his part, but there's still something wrong with doing such a thing.
No, you are wrong. They were within the law, the arsonists were not within the law. They should not have to face any consequences for acting within the law. Violence is not an acceptable answer to words.
French intellectual history pretty much IS hundreds of years of a-holes trying to rile things up, and the world is a better place for it. If there was a good comparison, I'd probably liken it to Lenny Bruce making fun of the Catholic Church (and religion in general) for which he was often jailed for obscenity in the US. Protesting in front of it would have been reasonable - blowing it up makes the people who already hate and fear Muslims hate and fear them more.
I'll add that political satire often IS provocation. If it doesn't provoke the intended audience, it has pretty much failed to deliver its message. The line that it crosses when it's gone to far, is incitement. That's the difference between him and Jean-Marie LePen, and it's not a fine line.; it's an enormous chasm.
Any comment on the issue at hand? As you can see, there are still people who think that drawing a cartoon means you "deserve" to get firebombed. As long as that is still the case, it is still an issue worthy of discussion.
The consequences of free speech should never be the burning down of an office. Satire is merely making a point it isn't insulting someone just for the sake of insulting someone.
I disagree. I think you keep waking the beast until it realizes that it's criminal and immoral reaction aren't a valid way to show displeasure.
Then by that rule, as you continue to put words in their mouths/keyboards, and as you continue to find it unfathomable that people disagree with your exact point of view, it will be a perpetual discussion, with always the same posts back and forth. But let me take a serious crack at a different take from my normal comment. Spoiler
