|
Post by whatagain on Oct 10, 2015 14:51:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 18:30:28 GMT
The whole point of Charlie Hebdo is to be in bad taste, which is what got it in trouble so many times over the years and not just with Islamic terrorists. The greatest number of lawsuits over the years have been by right wing groups, followed by 'press media' and then Catholic groups. It has lost 9 of 48 lawsuits. The last case it lost was in 2006 when it portrayed one of the government ministers of the time wearing Nazi insignia. Normally I would not even see the cover of Charlie Hebdo every week except that it takes out a little ad every week on the day that it comes out showing the front page in my daily newspaper ( Libération). Sometimes it makes me laugh, sometimes I find it disgusting, but I have never really been outraged by it since I believe in freedom of speech. In fact it often reassures me when the front page is particularly disgusting, because it means that I live in a free country. Obviously I do not approve of making fun of children with Down's syndrome ("trisomique"), but this item was particularly perverse and showed an excellent knowledge of French politics (as Charlie Hebdo always does). The person being criticised -- Nadine Morano -- is a major right wing French politician and what she said on a major TV show last week was that France is a country of the white race, attributing the statement to General de Gaulle and totally supporting that view. Even her political party disowned her for that and stripped her of candidacy for an upcoming regional election. Charles de Gaulle had a "hidden" child with Down's syndrome, who died at age 20. Put through the Charlie Hebdo mixer, the front page became "Morano: De Gaulle's hidden Down's syndrome child" Obviously it is despicable, but it made its point very effectively. That is why Charlie Hebdo exists. It hurts various groups almost every week, but that is part of freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Oct 11, 2015 9:20:12 GMT
I find it interesting that several of the cartoonists and writers who worked at Charlie Hebdo before the attack have quit recently, saying they don't have the courage to carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 9:53:49 GMT
Well, they know that their lives are at risk. And even if they have individual courage, when you have all of your family and friends asking you to walk way and stay out of trouble, it undermines one's determination.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 11, 2015 15:24:49 GMT
Freedom of expression must always be respected, but it's hard to suppress the perception that Charlie Hebdo are assholes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 15:56:18 GMT
But they are politically astute assholes. Trying googling "funniest mongoloid jokes" and you will see that they have no hope of winning an asshole contest -- thousands of people are very much ahead of them on the list.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 11, 2015 16:36:37 GMT
Obviously, if you say they are politically astute I accept that. But somebody else being a worse asshole doesn't make it okay!
There are Ponzi schemes that have defrauded thousands of their life savings. Does that make it okay for me to shoplift from the grocery store?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 17:03:21 GMT
Getting off track here. Nobody is obliged to read Charlie Hebdo, just as no one has to look at tasteless jokes.
Denouncing the sometimes tasteless humour of Charlie reminds me of the times when the leagues of virtue were trying to stop people from having access to pornography. They acted as though pornography was at risk of becoming obligatory whether you wanted to look at it or not. Well, nobody is going to force anybody to read Charlie Hebdo either.
Racism is illegal in France. If anybody should be prosecuted, it is Nadine Morano.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 11, 2015 17:51:20 GMT
Well, to get completely back on track, I believe Pariswat was objecting to the portrayal of someone objectionable as a Down's Syndrome child. I believe Kerouac's explanation validates their having done so, although I still respect Pariswat's contention that the cover perpetrates negative perceptions about Down's syndrome people. (am I correct in saying that, Pariswat?)
A tasteless cover on a national magazine is different from pornography. Pornography must be sought out if one wishes to see it. National magazine covers are right out in the open. I don't think the DeGaulle cover should be suppressed, but disliking it because of the Down's Syndrome element and expressing that dislike doesn't make one an enemy of free speech.
That said, I still think that the very shock value of some of their covers distracts from important points they might be making. A case in point would be their use of the drowned Syrian toddler in a recent cover, which is hard to see as anything other than cheap sensationalism. Also, I thought the "point" they were making with that particular cover was stupid.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Oct 11, 2015 18:24:19 GMT
Bixa,
Your words exactly reflect my thinking.
Inc pornography. Can't be more ok with a post than yours here !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 19:09:16 GMT
Well, if truth be told, Charlie Hebdo is normally hidden in newsstands quite like pornography.
|
|
|
Post by chexbres on Oct 11, 2015 20:22:15 GMT
I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo and think that most pornography is boring and/or too violent to suit me. But I am a fan of free speech, and think that most people have sense enough to just ignore what offends them.
It's interesting - and important - to think about what people used to find offensive in the past, and how values have changed over time and in different societies. I understand that some issues might touch people on a personal level, and that this can reach an intolerable level. But censorship is intolerance taken to the nth degree - I don't believe an individual or any group should have the power to enforce that. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the nearest jihadist.
|
|