Je suis Charlie

[Rajan Parrikar]

I think the essential point here is that offensive and slanderous comments should be allowed in the interests of free speech, provided such comments have a factual basis.

"Allowed"?  And who decides that?  Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis.  Is that offensive and slanderous?

[jjj]

Totally agree I wasn't defending them, Slobodan. Just saying that for a a few nobodies this whole jihad thing is an opportunity to do something 'exciting'with their crappy lives.

Here's a thought, say you fancy being a serial killer/mass murderer and are not sure how to best go about it or don't fancy getting caught. Then why not join the local terrorist group where people will help you with your murderous tendencies and even supply you with weapons.
Eamon Collins, who joined the IRA for political reasons became disillusioned with his comrades in the struggle as it became clear that some of them simply liked killing people. The 'struggle' was simply an excuse to hurt people. He wrote about his time in the IRA in the fascinating book Killing Rage. I gather that some of the IRA went back to being gangsters after the ceasefire.

[Isaac]

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is Isaac.
    Just a joke, Isaac....relax. 

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.

What!? How dare you to offend us!?

[Gulag]

Do you really believe there is so called freedom in this setup? I don't and that's why I call it Gulag.

[mezzoduomo]

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.

Boring, predictable...just Isaac being Isaac.   

[Isaac]

Look in a mirror.

[mezzoduomo]

What!? How dare you to offend us!?

I'm offended as well. So whatever might happen henceforth is someone else's fault. 

[shawnino]

I'm offended as well. So whatever might happen henceforth is someone else's fault. 

Not "someone" else's fault...
"EVERYONE" else's fault.

[Justinr]

With the right of free speech, comes the obligation to use it wisely.

There is also a difference between insulting for the sake of insulting, and e.g. exposing hypocrisy by using a sensitive subject in a satirical context which could be perceived as an insult. There are also degrees of sophistication in insults, and this is one of my all time favorites.

Cheers,
Bart

Churchill had something of a penchant for putting down those who disagreed with him. I can't remember the names of those involved but a playwright, critical of Churchill, once sent him two tickets to his opening night, inviting him to bring a friend, "if he had one". Churchill declined the offer saying that , "I can't make the first night but will get to the second, if there is one."

[David Anderson]

Not "someone" else's fault...
"EVERYONE" else's fault.

WRONG - it's Americans fault...

[Gulag]

What could have happened if the cartoons were for the French Jews?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What could have happened if the cartoons were for the French Jews?

Nothing. They already had plenty of cartoons ridiculing Jews, Catholics, the Pope. Pretty much equal opportunity offenders.

[stamper]

I asked you two questions:"Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?" and "Guise?", I did not express an opinion.
Maybe if you could answer the questions, it then becomes possible to express an opinion about whatever you were specifically referring to, instead of having to guess.

Cheers,
Bart

I stated my thoughts in the reply previous to your post. Here it is.

I find your post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speech with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?


No need to guess. That is the thrust of my thinking.

Bart did you think I was being serious when I posted this?

Breaking news.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts

And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?

[stamper]

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.

Of which you won't be contributing any of it, not in the past, the present or the future?

[Justinr]

"Allowed"?  And who decides that?  Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis.  Is that offensive and slanderous?

Quite, and as humans we have this natural belief that there is some great arbitrating force that automatically sides with our right and proper way of thinking. You might call it 'God' in fact.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart did you think I was being serious when I posted this?

Breaking news.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts

And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?

I assume you were serious posting it (although I assume the Iranian link was used to demonstrate their one-sided view, and right to express it, even though their own citizens are not allowed, but it is unclear which of the points that Roberts raises you wanted to enter in the discussion. Of course he is entitled to his opinions and publishing them (which is how he seems to make his living, publishing articles). I noted that he has an Economically oriented background, so most of his points are based on that angle.

Now, what Roberts is doing is gather supporting 'evidence' for his conspiracy theory. But by doing so he is selective, and he is missing (or leaving out) the other mechanisms at work. Obviously, looking at the European situation from a distance may explain part of that shortcoming, but I presume it's more because it would undermine his theory. And as always, a more balanced analysis wouldn't sell as well as a conspiracy theory ...

One of the big challenges in Europe at the moment is that most countries have become immigration countries, and in particular from immigrants that have difficulty with integrating in society, due to their cultural background. Countries like France have even bigger difficulties, because of their specific cultural system where amongst others hierarchy plays a big role. This makes it easy for cultural minorities (many from former colonies) to become and remain marginalized. Mixed with some intolerant cultural backgrounds, that produces a volatile combustible mix which is exploited by fundamentalists to radicalize youths (some carefully selected vulnerably folks can radicalize in a few weeks time). And true, the geopolitical machinations of the USA (but there are others as well) do not help either.

But there is a difference between (indirectly) adding fuel and the CIA orchestrating the whole Paris tragedy. If you listen to the 'discussion' (that was recorded over an open phone-line by reporters) with the man who held hostages in a kosher grocery store, it is quite clear that the guy got radicalized by others than the CIA ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

"Allowed"?  And who decides that? 

What's 'allowed' and 'not allowed' is determined by the laws of the country. In Australia, laws are changed and created through a democratic process. Whatever one's religion, one must abide by the laws of the country one is in, however ridiculous those laws may seem, or suffer the consequences.

Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis.  Is that offensive and slanderous?

Not in the minds of rational people, and in my opinion, not even in the minds of sincere and truly religious people. But clearly it is offensive in the deluded minds of some people who probably have little understanding of the religion they claim to support.

[graeme]

Here's a thought, say you fancy being a serial killer/mass murderer and are not sure how to best go about it or don't fancy getting caught. Then why not join the local terrorist group where people will help you with your murderous tendencies and even supply you with weapons.
Eamon Collins, who joined the IRA for political reasons became disillusioned with his comrades in the struggle as it became clear that some of them simply liked killing people. The 'struggle' was simply an excuse to hurt people. He wrote about his time in the IRA in the fascinating book Killing Rage. I gather that some of the IRA went back to being gangsters after the ceasefire.

Yes that's what I was getting at. The big attractions are excitement & being part of a gang which can bring you status & 'identity'. The 'cause' is secondary.

A couple of years after I left school ( early eighties ) I bumped into a kid from my year who had joined the military police and was based in Northern Ireland. He didn't mention being proud of serving his country or of fighting for a particular cause but spoke with great satisfaction of physically overpowering & dominating misbehaving squaddies during arrests. He referred to anyone Irish as a 'Paddy'.

I remember him saying 'At school I was always overshadowed in everything I did'. I can't remember his next words exactly but they were to the effect that he had become 'someone' in the MP.

I'd left school with about the same pretty low level of education as this guy but I was in a band ( a really crap one, I haven't an ounce of musical talent ) so maybe that was me being 'someone'.

I think that there's a large element of this psychology in radicalised Muslim youth.

Graeme

[graeme]

Good to see that we have some great minds working on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297