Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Intercept: In Solidarity with a Free Press: Some more blasphemous cartoons


SkinsHokieFan

Recommended Posts

This thread is more a commentary on media reaction to the awful Paris attacks

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

 

 

Click link for rest

 

 
IN SOLIDARITY WITH A FREE PRESS: SOME MORE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS

 

Glenn Greenwald

 

Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.

I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups andexpressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channelin a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.

Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.

But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,”announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Really think it should have gone in the other thread.

2) Haven't read the whole article. (It's long. But maybe the first half. And a second one, which he referenced in the one you linked.) but I think he's kinda got a point. (And I think he's kinda spinning thing, too.)

3) And I predict that the first attack (if there hasn't been one while I'm typing this) will be to attack the author, or the publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about the guy's article, some more. I can see why his article required him to print some of what he claims are cartoons offensive to Muslims. But what's his purpose of printing cartoons which are targeted on Jews or Israel? What's the purpose of putting those in his article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article: "But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated."

 

I disagree.  Writing material that a vast majority of people would consider garbage shouldn't be celebrated.  Any jackass who can draw can draw an offensive cartoon and post it on a website.  What is there to celebrate in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about the guy's article, some more. I can see why his article required him to print some of what he claims are cartoons offensive to Muslims. But what's his purpose of printing cartoons which are targeted on Jews or Israel? What's the purpose of putting those in his article?

 

The purpose is that he's trying to point out a hypocrisy in the medias acceptance of satire for one religion vs. the other. That there is a greater acceptance for blasphemous satire targeting Muslims than for satire targeting Jews or Israel.

 

Overall he raises a pretty good point that I agree with. Though he is off on one major point; Judaism and Christianity are not free of criticism, especially from secular or non-theist critics. But I don't think any of them are in real danger for their lives from any known Jewish or Christian terrorist groups or independent actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...