I think the Channel 4 interview with Will Self and Martin Rowson (a cartoonist), the link for which granjura posted quite a way back on this thread, included some interesting points.
Martin Rowson, who was speaking in favour of freedom of expression, said that he would not produce the sort of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo publishes, partly because he doesn't feel all together comfortable with their salacious style and partly out of fear. I believe it was he that also said he would not produce cartoons which similarly mocked Judaism, not through fear of being physically attacked but through fear of never being commissioned to do any work again, i.e. "career suicide".
He commented that he had been invited to attend a vigil, for which he had been asked to bring along the words of the Marseilles. He pointed out the irony of this as the Marseilles had been composed when France was a "terrorist state", and includes a chorus to the effect of "We will irrigate the fields with the blood of our enemies".
Outright censorship, or self-censorship, is not a new phenomenon:
In 2005 France's Catholic Church won a Court injunction banning a fashion house from displaying a poster based on The Last Supper. The judge said it was a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". The posters were also banned in Milan.
In several European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. Quite right, you may say, but how exactly does that accord with the principle of free speech and surely there are several examples of genocide which have not been granted such recognition and protection - for instance, the estimated 50-100 million American Indians wiped out in North America?
Charlie Hebdo fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic. The writer was then charged with and cleared of a hate crime offence, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination.
The 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theatres due to bomb threats.
The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War. In fear, they yielded to the threats and apologised.
In 2004 a play relating to the Sikh religion was shut down after violent protests outside the theatre and death threats made against the playwright.
In the face of death threats or "career suicide", most of these artistic ventures were halted but who knows what would have happened if those under threat had, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, gone ahead anyway.
Recently on the news was a report of the punishment meted out to Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia for writing a blog. He has been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and 1,000 lashes, to be administered 50 at a time. His writings have been described as an ongoing discussion about religion which included a criticism of the clerics in Saudi Arabia where the strict conservative interpretation of Islam first originated and continues to be practised.
And yet, marching in Paris last week - against the atrocity that happened there but also in tacit support of the "Je suis Charlie" message championing free speech - was a representative from Saudi Arabia.... and a representative from Egypt, both of which are really not that keen on free speech but who know that the murder and torture they use to silence criticism will be overlooked by their western allies.
Personally, I think the sort of satire whose sole purpose is to insult and ridicule is neither funny nor beneficial. My feeling is that it serves only to create further division and hatred. But if "freedom of speech" is to be the mantra on which the "civilized" world is to be judged, then let that freedom of speech be applied equally in all matters.
Of course most people are appalled and angry about the attacks in France and I understand why they feel that freedom of expression must be maintained at all costs. I do not understand, though, why David Aaronovitch feels he is entitled to call those with different views from himself "weasels" and "victim blamers". For someone so keen on free speech he seems very keen to shut down discussion by impugning the character and motivation of others just because they see things differently.
I thought it was Dan Hodges who was pompous. Not soontobe.