Comment by teamhappy
11 years ago
A lot of people seem to feel that way. I don't get it though. Given the circumstances, you'd think everybody understands that the "je suis charlie" thing is just a gesture. And even if people intent insult when they use the phrase (to make a point, I guess) I still think that would be okay (given the circumstances).
// Funny how both you and the notepad++ people felt the need to add a disclaimer btw.
> Given the circumstances, you'd think everybody understands that the "je suis charlie" thing is just a gesture.
The popular sentiment on most forums (at least ones I've seen) seem to equation the 'je suis charlie' statement with effective re-publishing of the offending cartoons.
You've gotta understand that Mohammad is a very significant and sacred symbol to Muslims everywhere. Printing cartoons Mohammad doing weird things is pretty seriously distressing moderate Muslims -- it's like if someone in America were to making fun of black people being slaves -- it's a no-no, you don't go there, it crosses a line, it's insulting black people, why do that? Of course everyone should have the right to print absolutely anything, but we adults should distance ourselves from childish and belligerent content like that.
> The popular sentiment on most forums
You can't control how people interpret what you say. Granted, in this case it wouldn't have been too hard, but that's not the point.
> You've gotta understand that Mohammad [...]
I do actually. You sound exactly like my muslim friends (living in Egypt, Turkey, those kind of places) so we can cut this one short. The rules concerning Mohammad contradict freedom of expression. That's what we end up agreeing upon every time.
> it's like if someone in America were to making fun of black people being slaves
Like every american stand-up ever?
> but we adults should distance ourselves from childish and belligerent content like that.
Fuck that.
---
The problem is the contradiction. The simplest and most cynical solution is to just not live there if you don't like the rules. That obviously doesn't seem to work. So we have people being upset in one country about what people in another country are doing. Happens all the time — we got rules for that at the UN. They don't seem to work either. Compromise is not an option, because both religion and freedom of speech are all-or-nothing kind of ideas. So there really are only two choices left. Getting over it or going to war. Most people don't like war, but apparently that changes if all you ever saw was war.
> The rules concerning Mohammad contradict freedom of expression.
It's really not as simple as that.
You have the "freedom" to do anything, what matters is what kind of consequences there will be after exercising that freedom. If you say antisemtic or racist things, you're going to get your platform taken away from you. If you're a CEO, you'll be fired (and if you control the board -- well, other companies will distance themselves from you, boycotts will take place, etc.). Would you say the laws governing antisemitism contradict freedom of speech? Indeed Charlie's cartoonists were fired for this, see:
1) http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired...
2) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
> Like every american stand-up ever?
I don't know of any popular American stand-up who can get away with saying anti-black things. Mel Gibson ruined his career by saying a few n-words and some antisemitic slurs, and he was a pretty big guy in the industry. Helen Thomas ruined her legacy by saying something antisemitic. No, there's no such thing as absolute, true freedom of speech. You can't say bigoted things in this day and age and survive.
1 reply →