Breaking News - Allegedly 10 people killed at office of satirical magazine in Paris

I don't know Alie, do tell.

Rights dont trump compassion.

The UK newspapers were very sensible in not reproducing the cartoons. They most likely realised that that would only add fuel to the fire. And probably bring this closer to our shores.

The cartoonists who instantly responded to the Je Suis Charlie emotions were careful to target the terrorists and not Islam in their supportive cartoons.

I saw one cartoonist admit on TV that he was going to draw Mohammed wearing a 'Not In My Name' T shirt then thought better of it.

Good sense and responsibility might have prevented all those deaths.

Where is this quote from?

"An thou do no harm, do what thou wilt"

Islam is of course not a race - but its practice is mainly within certain nationalities and I would guess that they would be skating on thin ice legally to publish this in UK.

It may be that the UK newspapers were not simply (or even) scared of the consequences, but had the good taste and wisdom to deem the cartoons irrelevant and pointless. Good editorial guidance.

If that's addressed to me nigglynellie I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.

Do some of you, who defend free speech, have any limits whatsoever on it?
I have seen thatbags, on another thread, think there is a limit for say terrorists to have their freedom of speech curtailed.

So presumably the freedom to offend is fundamental and to be defended. So where does that leave the dictates of political correctness, against our saying or doing anything that might cause offense? This would appear to be a rather mixed message.

Mishap I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that Islam is not a race.

The cartoons were not published here because they broke any laws, but that the newspapers were scared of the consequences.

I'm not sure about that riverwalk - inciting racial hatred is a crime here.

I have just seen the news! The awfulness of Boko Haram completely beggars belief! I give up!

As far a I'm aware nigglynellie there was nothing in those cartoons that couldn't be legally printed in the UK.

No matter how tasteless or crass, I assume the cartoons were legal under French law.

I am slightly puzzled by 'freedom of speech and expression'. Is this just for satirist's? or does this privilege extend to all of us? If it DOES include all of us then what is to stop anyone saying or writing absolutely anything about anyone? I can't imagine that if I (hypothetically) were to be extremely offensive about another person of different ethnicity to myself or wrote to my local paper in the same offensive vein, that I would be able to claim these freedoms to justify my behaviour?! But why not? Surely what is acceptable for one section of society is acceptable for all. Perhaps it is different in France, but I did find it rather ironic to see our P.M marching in Paris in tandem with other world leaders in support of something that would, quite rightly, not be tolerated in the U.K!!

The principle of free speech is a sound and vital one; but sometimes compromise is necessary.

If those negotiating the Northern Ireland peace agreement had all dug their heels in and said they would not talk to killers they would still bombing each other on the same scale.

Digging ones heels in over a principle and pushing it to its limits for the sake of it is not always the best way forward, however laudable the principle.

Now that's a different matter petallus.

I think we can expect a rise in far-right votes in France, and elsewhere.

And the sheer hypocrisy of some of the world leaders in that march who wouldn't know a free press if it hit them in the face.

The editor of this paper had received several death threats and knew the risks of his actions. That is fine - he can choose to take that risk for himself - but not for others.

If he chose to take the risk, then how much better it would have been to do so for the sake of some useful, constructive piece of journalism that would have illuminated the situation and helped to inform the public and move the debate forward; rather than for a bit of offensive nonsense.

merlot - why indeed should his religion (or any other aspect of his existence) be mocked? Mock away if you are targeting an evil fanatic. That is quite different.

I understand jingl's point of view entirely. And agree with it.

Muslims have and are being persecuted in the Middle East, not to mention the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay.

I am wondering if the marches in Paris are not just in support of Charlie but also a chance to express pre existing anti Muslim sentiments.

I certainly do know ordinary law-abiding Muslims were hurt by the cartoons - I personally know many, many more than you do I suspect.

But I also know many law-abiding people, of all faiths and none, who are hurt that abortions are carried out - does that mean abortions should be stopped as it hurts many sincere people?

The very brave muslim man who hid Jewish customers in a cold store then escaped to help police with information would have known full well why these events were taking place. He chose to help the people being targeted.

Why should his religion be mocked?

Thats what I object to. A whole religion being cruelly mocked. And no. I don't think it should be punishable by death.

I could say "I am not Charlie. I am an innocent policeman on a pavement".

Just in case you haven't understood my point of view yet.

Who is talking about religious fanatics? Do you not think ordinary law abiding Muslims were hurt and upset by the cartoons?

Religious fanatics have no more right to be protected from being offended than anyone else.

The fact that they exact revenge on the offenders is what harms us.

Well we are back to this word 'offend'.

Why does a fanatic have a right to be so offended that free speech, no matter how puerile and stupid, has to be reigned-in as so not to offend the easily-offended?

An abortion is done for personal reasons, so no intent to personally offend anyone, however many people are very offended.

If you're offended, your offended, doesn't matter how it was achieved.

I think I will stand by what I say.

I have heard plenty of comments whilst watching the media coverage and during debates over the Paris killings that HAVE clearly stated the murders were obviously wrong. Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise. I totally accept that.!!!

However I have also heard comments such as "Well Charlie Hebdo courted controversy, why were we surprised". "They knew their cartoons were offensive and kept doing them, they should have stopped publishing them". "They knew they were targets because of their satire"

The same people then inevitably go on to say something like "There is obviously no excuse for the killings" That is the BUT .On one hand they say murder is wrong, wrong, wrong on any level BUT then give a view that contradicts/understands/detracts from that statement.

My comment is a generalisation of what I have noted over the past few days in the swathes of comments/debates/interviews I have viewed mainly on t.v. However if you feel I have made a personal attack on you then I will have to say I stand by what I say .
If you read a post and automatically think it is a personal attack then obviously it has made you believe the words I have used and the point I was making have been said / implied by you, if not why on earth would you feel it was personal. That's not my problem.