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

That link is very interesting. I think he is saying what I have been saying - his phrase "Though tweaking the nose of muslims ....might be permissible, it has never struck me as anything other than a vapid way to use the pen." And he goes on to produce other tasteless cartoons - basically saying I COULD publish these, but why would I?

Free speech and a free press are vital. No-one likes the idea of censorship but we do have this in the form of legislation about not inciting racial hatred. And rightly so.

Discretion on the part of editors is what is needed.

I have said before that journalists can be very arrogant - we need to ask them to be thoughtful.

I wish people would stop putting up links to other people's views, and say something off their own bat. Reminds me of floating voters.

Sod what the media think.

I cant read that link petallus.
I dont know if it is just me.

I agree with the viewpoint of the cartoonist.

www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

Here is something else from today's Guardian. Offensive cartoons.

The problem with censorship, which I think is an underlying theme here, is the sheer complexity of administering it, or even deciding upon it.

If, for example, (only an example) I am offended by heavy Christian proselytising and propaganda, and say so, satirically or outright, many evangelical Christians (despite their alleged humility) might then be offended and say so, in whatever fashion. Whose words should be censored? Either party would feel disenfranchised.

It is clearly the manner or genre or tone of the objection that is a problem, but it would be impossible to litigate for the nuances here, because each provokes a very individual response, as we can see on this thread.

I don't have an answer - no one is clearly in the right, and the only ones clearly in the wrong are those who under the innocent.

Cross questioning

I would like to state again my view on all this, and then leave it.

Nothing will convince me that the cartoonists didn't largely bring it on themselves. The kind of satire they went in for has a strong element of ego feeding. Nothing was ever going to be gained from it. Unfortunately other people were taken with them.

The arguments being put forward by journalists are largely down to supporting their own. A lot of that is fired by testosterone. And look where that has got us in the recent past.

eloethan I had in mind immigrants.

soontobe you have nothing to apologise for so stop doing it. That kind of cross questioning you were given last evening would make me angry.

OK soon pax

I mentioned the St Denis area of Paris because I know the area. Didn't mention that other countries have similar areas as we were talking about France.

There are some 2nd and 3rd generation Maghrebis who will tell you they are Algerian, Tunisian etc. and don't want to be known as French.

Good article by Jonathan Freedland this morning, the essence of which is

"Charlie Hebdo: first they came for the cartoonists, then they came for the Jews: Of course the Paris killers targeted a kosher supermarket: they’re a fascist death cult fighting a dirty little war"

As for satire one doesn't like, what happened to turn away, walk away? No-one has to read books or magazines they don't like. No-one has to watch TV or listen to radio they don't like. We are not at the Hunger Games where it's compulsory to watch and listen to propaganda. Choose. One can choose not to take offence as well.

jingle You make the assumption that Muslim people in France are not French people also.

I must admit that there are levels of satire that I dislike. I do not like to offend or to see people offended but sometimes this is the only way to show how ridiculous something is. In this instance I agree with Nick.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/11333256/Watch-Nick-Cleggs-amazing-answer-to-phone-in-caller-on-Paris-shooting.html

Words do lead to killing and maiming people.

Apologies again about last night Agus.

Not really jingl

There's a plethora of these kinds of schemes but they never seem to follow through and last I heard Sonny was back in his same environment unemployed though more fluent in English.

I think the Saudi flogging does belong in this discussion - it's another example of what can happen if you're accused of blasphemy.

I can't see any point in bringing Saudi Arabia's practices into this discussion. We don't go in for public flogging in Europe.

Sounds like Anya's work exchange student was being given good life chances.

What do you expect the authorities to do? Give arab families priority over French families needing decent accommodation? That would go down well. Same as it does here.

Words do not kill or main people

And yet ironically it is words that are radicalising these young people. Sadly 'bad arguments' (IMO) can change minds and beliefs too.

What a powerful weapon words are - for good and for evil

Thank you Bags for expressing so well the revulsion I felt when I heard about Raif Badawi.

I agree thatbags the punishment you quote made me feel physically sick when I heard about it on the news last night. I cannot actually add to your post -you have said it for me.

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi has received a flogging of 50 lashes in public, the first part of a 1000 lash punishment. His crime? Writing a blog that some people thought blasphemous. Writing his thoughts.

I'm remembering the imprisonment of dissenters in the USSR now.

This is what we're up against. The suppression of free thought. The imprisonment and barbaric punishment of people who dare to differ from what the authorities say is right and proper. Total authoritarianism is the endgame.

Words do not kill or maim people. A good argument might change your mind, your beliefs, it might challenge your beliefs, but it doesn't hurt you that someone else thinks that your belief is daft and says so. If that were true, how could I be an atheist. Lots of people say lots of things against atheism and atheists. I shrug or argue back. It's that simple.

It's flogging and killing people who disagree with you that's the crime, not questioning or ridiculing ideas.

Oh the dangers of " links" or quoting things verbatim without necessarily understanding either the context or the detail.

The disaffected youth of any society, whether Asian lads in Leeds, Arabs in Paris or black kids in some parts of the US or even the "white underclass" of some of our UK towns and cities must provide a fertile breeding ground for the organisations which seek to undermine our culture and government.

Even football violence seems to me to stem from a desire to " belong" (to a team and its supporters) and gangs and extreme religious organisations provide that sense both of belonging and ownership many of them crave.

Anya the 17th Octobre 1961 was an appalling massacre of FLN Algerians when the French police actually herded the demonstrators into the Seine, some of whom were unconscious.

The St Denis area of Paris would probably be one of the areas you are talking about and sadly many youths looking for something to give their life some meaning.