Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by Kevin C
In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And who decides what is "reasonable." Censorship is a "cure" that's even worse than the disease.
That's a blade that can cut both ways...
Hey Bill, did Christ provoke his own crucifixion?
Well, either that or we wait till the likes of Charlie Hebdo recognize that they are evil and apologize to everyone they insulted, and close shop for good.
Really? Closing down that miserable rag is worse that having 16 innocent people dead and a country under martial law?
You miss this big point. France will have government either way. It is not a libertarian society. You either have slaughter and the government running around in ninja suites hunting the terrorists down or you have a country where an average Catholic can live free from insults AND terrorist attacks.
Yes, because it won't stop there.
Does anyone deserve a free speech protection?
(Should we be stupid about this or should we use our brains?)
Neither the leftwing calumnies and the martial law.
Yes, a voice of reason deserve a free speech protection. There have been plenty of Atheists and Marxists who nevertheless presented coherent arguments, and that is protected speech. Blasphemy and pornography are not in that category.
Problem is, you assume someone like you will determine what is offensive speech. Far more likely someone like Obama will determine what is offensive and use the power of the IRS to shut it down. Oh, wait. That’s already happened.
And what happens when a hundred different groups argue over a hundred different definitions of reason?
Yes. Obama is a problem. The idea that Hebdo Charlie is protected speech is another problem.
Obama, however, is a product of a certain culture, the kind where Chicago thuggery is normal politics. In other words, a cultural and legal problem, — what is free speech and what is trash, — gives us a country where Obamas can get elected and re-elected. I propose we strike the root.
No, nearly anyone can tell the difference between insults and speech. Courts make more subtle determinations daily, and for the most part we trust them.
A hundred court cases. I don’t see the downside.
So you’re going to arrest Don Rickles?
The question remains, Who decides? Based on what standard?
Yes, there have been certain moral standards -- regarding, for example, profanity and pornography -- *currently* based on Judeo-Christian principles. But, frankly, while I may agree with those, I am uncomfortable with them.
Why? Because our Judeo-Christian principles might not be the accepted moral standard forever. It is not inconceivable that in our lifetime, even the preaching of the Gospel could be ruled "blasphemy."
I don't want the government to have the power to silence *anybody*. That's the *only* way I'm guaranteed to never be silenced myself, no matter who's in power or what passes for the current moral standard.
The answer to offensive speech, is to answer the offensive speech. Censorship? Well if you can guarantee me that only angels will rule over us. Otherwise, no thanks.
Perhaps you mean libel and slander? In which case yes, the courts rule on those.
But insults? If you could sue for being insulted, the court system would grind to a complete halt.
For all of Donahue’s talk about how violence should be condemned, I didn’t see where he did.
Maybe you should define "insult" as you are using it.
How about this? "Obama sucks!!!" Is that an insult, free speech, or both?
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.