Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 897 comments
  • 38,044 views
They do it again! Despicable german satiricists mock "Je Suis Charlie" supporters.
And they tricked me to post this image because they wrote "Please share" next to it!
JeSuisTitanique.jpg

That's satire, folks!
Titanicu akbar! Love these guys haha.
 
This might be true if revised to state that it does not always endorse racism. Because its not possible to assert that every depiction of racism does not endorse racism. So it becomes a fine point of discrimination to discern which is which, and it is too often lost upon those without the requisite education or sophistication.
"by itself" is implicit. But we rephrase it with "always", indeed.
To the question "Can we laugh about everything?", the answer "Yes but not with everybody" from Pierre Desproges usually set most people agreed in France.

Because of race issues in America, most officials, educators, HR departments and careful people will simply avoid such depictions, and when confronted with them, may declare them all racist out of an abundance of caution.

PS, I looked at the cartoons in those links, and I can assure you they would not be allowed in the work place, in public places or on the public air in America. They are really for sophisticated people to enjoy in private, and shouldn't be pushed on an unsophisticated public.
Those cartoons are not widely publish in France. Usually... ;)

What has really shocked french yesterday is a video taken from Fox News and that is so much disinformation that we don't understand how this channel doesn't have to justify those mistakes to its audience, like if nobody cares (this is not the first time, Fox News coverage really hurt USA image at almost every occasion). The video was an interview of a so-called specialist describing peaceful and common inner Paris area as "no-go zones" that looks like Afghanistan. The map even included the Pere Lachaise cemetery (which is worth a visit by the way)...
proxy.jpg


Hi all, would someone in France be able to secure a copy of the return edition of Charlie Hebdo for me? I understand that they are in high demand but it would be greatly appreciated. Last time I was in the country was 10 years ago and I enjoyed reading them then. There are no stockists in Australia and even more so now, any niche bookshop is grappling to order in 10 copies for every 100 demands. People are offering on reddit but I thought I would try in a community I am comfortable with first. Happy to take to private messaging.
The 3 millions sold out just after release. They will print another 2 millions, but i've heard yesterday from someone close of the magazine that there will be an official digital release (soon). The translated version, i guess.
 
What has really shocked french yesterday is a video taken from Fox News and that is so much disinformation that we don't understand how this channel doesn't have to justify those mistakes to its audience, like if nobody cares (this is not the first time, Fox News coverage really hurt USA image at almost every occasion). The video was an interview of a so-called specialist describing peaceful and common inner Paris area as "no-go zones" that looks like Afghanistan. The map even included the Pere Lachaise cemetery (which is worth a visit by the way)...

Totally agree.

Fox news is extremely popular in the US, probably more popular than any other cable news channel. But to be clear, none of them are any good, all pursue an agenda which differs from objective reporting, and Fox, with its lavish financing, has the best production values and best looking female news presenters. Fox news is unofficially an organ of the Republican party, currently in control of both houses of Congress. It will only get worse.

PS, I grew up with a French national in my family, an adoptive sister. The biggest thing I yet want to do is spend a summer in the south of France, touring Carcassonne, the castles and the paleolithic cave paintings.
 
The biggest thing I yet want to do is spend a summer in the south of France, touring Carcassonne, the castles and the paleolithic cave paintings.

Do it.

I spent 12 summers there. It is absolutely worth a visit.
 
The 3 millions sold out just after release. They will print another 2 millions, but i've heard yesterday from someone close of the magazine that there will be an official digital release (soon). The translated version, i guess.

Would perhaps prefer a non translated version, but cheers all the same for the info. :)
 
What has really shocked french yesterday is a video taken from Fox News and that is so much disinformation that we don't understand how this channel doesn't have to justify those mistakes to its audience, like if nobody cares (this is not the first time, Fox News coverage really hurt USA image at almost every occasion). The video was an interview of a so-called specialist describing peaceful and common inner Paris area as "no-go zones" that looks like Afghanistan. The map even included the Pere Lachaise cemetery (which is worth a visit by the way)...
proxy.jpg
Fox did the same with the UK a few days ago, in which an 'expert' stated that the entire city of Birmingham (second largest city in the UK) was totally lost to Islam (of course its not). However in this case I do believe the Fox claim originated from Nigel Farage (UKIP leader), who is of course a total expert on both France and Islam (of wait - no he's not).
 
Damn. And here I was thinking that FOX was the leading authority on news.
You may have been right, in practical terms. The guy with the biggest bullhorn, or biggest arm, is often the "authority". Rupert Murdoch is unquestionably one of the most powerful and influential men in the world today.
That is why we must be very suspicious of authority.
 
What has really shocked french yesterday is a video taken from Fox News and that is so much disinformation that we don't understand how this channel doesn't have to justify those mistakes to its audience, like if nobody cares (this is not the first time, Fox News coverage really hurt USA image at almost every occasion).

They do not care about facts and certainly are not going to let them get in the way of telling a "good" story. They only care about retaining eyeballs. That means throwing out whatever will keep people watching, truth be damned.
 
They do not care about facts and certainly are not going to let them get in the way of telling a "good" story. They only care about retaining eyeballs. That means throwing out whatever will keep people watching, truth be damned.
IMO this is true of all American networks regardless of which viewpoint they hold. Some are just better at being more subtle about it than others.
 
Newspaper stores in Brussels received papers that were dropped in their letterboxes overnight, threatening them in the name of 'Allah the most merciful' to not sell the new Charlie Hebdo issue or revenge will come...

Luckily security cam caught the dude and they are tracking him down as we speak.
 
"by itself" is implicit. But we rephrase it with "always", indeed.
To the question "Can we laugh about everything?", the answer "Yes but not with everybody" from Pierre Desproges usually set most people agreed in France.

The 3 millions sold out just after release. They will print another 2 millions, but i've heard yesterday from someone close of the magazine that there will be an official digital release (soon). The translated version, i guess.

163151.jpg
 
So the freedom of expression is in fact restricted already.
Since the formulation of a death threat is likely to be done via expression, i can't imagine that you realize something here. Or did you think France is ruled by anarchy?

The free speech in France is, by its law, a bit more restricted than in America, for example. And morale has less weight in actual expression.
 
Since the formulation of a death threat is likely to be done via expression, i can't imagine that you realize something here. Or did you think France is ruled by anarchy?

The free speech in France is, by its law, a bit more restricted than in America, for example. And morale has less weight in actual expression.

I somehow don't think so. A film producer was arrested in 2012 for filming a anti-Islamic film that our current administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks. Granted, he may have violated his probation when he first uploaded the video seven months prior to the attack, but the point was that Obama needed to blame something for the attack other than his own negligence, and that video was the perfect out.
 
Yes you are.

Maybe where you live. But not here.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
 
Maybe where you live. But not here.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

So if cartoons causes unnecessary panic they should be banned. Right?
 
Then you don't have freedom of speech.

I thought we were talking about the principle of freedom of speech, not worldwide legal limitations on it? The principle comes with no limitations, or else it would not be freedom - though like all rights it comes paired with responsibilities and does not protect you from consequences of exercising that right.

If you were talking about US Federal Law all along, perhaps you should have said "The freedom of expression as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court comes with limits, responsibilities and consequences."?
 
And I saw the news that the suspects were a 18-year old guy and two brothers (they have 32 and 34 years old).

I saw it on the new. I fully support France. I wish my condolences for the familly. What that gunmen did was unacceptable and it goes against to the premium. So, I hope that we can mantain the democracy, because nobody wants the democracy to end.
 
So if cartoons causes unnecessary panic they should be banned. Right?
Possibly. A case in law would have to be tried, appealed and affirmed.

It's all very well to deal with hypotheticals and principles, but the real test is the real world.
 
Back