Posted on 05/05/2015 10:06:17 AM PDT by don-o
SEVERAL PUBLISHERS in Western countries have disgraced themselves in recent years with self-censorship to avoid being targeted by Islamic militants. The French newspaper Charlie Hebdo did the opposite: Even after its offices were firebombed in 2011, and even after its editor was put on an al-Qaeda wanted list, it continued to courageously publish cartoons and articles lampooning Islam — as well as Christianity, Judaism and established religion in general.
snip
Equally important is that media across the West refuse to be cowed by violence. The attack in Paris comes after a year in which two U.S. journalists who traveled to Syria were beheaded by the Islamic State and theaters across the country refused to screen a movie lampooning North Korea because of the threat of violence. Such acts cannot be allowed to inspire more self-censorship — or restrict robust coverage and criticism of Islamic extremism.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
h/t to Eroteme
ping
Thanks for bringing this up on the other thread
If Hebdo was hitting Christianity too, of course the left supported them. Gellar focuses on the “religion of peace”, so she’s a bad guy, to them. Hypocrisy, especially in the interests of targeting Christianity, is a leftist law of nature.
As far as I know, Pamela Gellar is not a Christian.
I don’t know if she is or not, but she doesn’t have to be. The point is that she hasn’t targeted Christianity in these exercises in pointing out Muslim violence, because there’s not a Christian equivalent.
Well, here the Post is actually standing with the forces of liberty and free expression and against the suppression of free speech by radical Islam.
Who's to say it's gratuitous? The Islamists and the Islamoserviles among MSM, univeristy, and government employees? Will we tarry until attending Christian churches is considered a "provocation"? I think the backlash would be devastating. Enough is enough.
At some point Islamoserviles in and out of government will no longer be able to control their fellow Americans' outrage -- actually this will occur long before going to church is deemed too provocative to remain a constitutional right.
So the more immediate concern is protection from outraged Americans -- protection for Muslims.
Remote living accommodations for Muslims are strongly urged -- far from harm from violent backlash.
Don't like the idea of internment? Then help rid America of the Islamists.
Charlie wanted to ban the National Front party. They aren’t in favor of free speech. They were a bunch of commies that were killed by the very thing they promoted, mass non-white immigration. F them.
You’re missing the point. The WaPo had a moment of clarity. I suppose it was a once in a lifetime thing.
“Interesting” if sparse posting you got there, Bud.
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.