viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

The Muslim attack on the French magazine Charlie was bestial and completely inexcusable. However the magazine was utter filth wirh cartoons for instance showing Christ sodomising God.
Freedom of speech is absolutely essential but should it not draw the line
in the way it offends people?
The magazine is violently left wing and despises all religeon.
The Muslims didn't need much excuse to attack there and the Jewish store but they have had the effect of turning a 60,000 circulation into one of millions.
The vile attack should not disguise the fact that the magazine would not have been bought by normal decent people.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

I hear you, but I disagree with your underlying subtext that the magazine "asked for it" or that there was any excuse for attacking the deli

There are a lot of magazines and papers that are swill and I didn't hear about any Christians chopping off heads or shooting up a city over a cartoon.

The best analogy I heard on this view was comparing it to blaming a woman who dresses nice. Or stays out late for being raped.....there is ZERO blame!

Yes, the magazine is garbage.....but if their religion is so weak it can be toppled by dumb ass cartoons it must not be much of a religion!

jockellis Loc: Cumming, GA

Doubt I'll ever read CH. I know I'll never buy one.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

No I don't think think the magazine asked for it, nothing can excuse the Muslim atrocity, I am saying it is a vile magazine but it does not mean they should be k**led.

verichrome Loc: California

When the first edition Charlie went on sale in Paris after the attack, people were standing in line to purchase a copy. The people in line were young and old alike, well dressed, and the appeared to be “normal decent people.” Have ethnocentricity and religious intolerance distorted your world view?

Raider Fan Loc: Lake County, IL.

I agree with you that the magazine is pure garbage and I wonder how long the editors thought that the Muslims would not do anything about their "cartoons" when they were after the magazine in Denmark a while ago for the same reason. It does almost seem like they were "asking for it". As for the deli, I feel that these "people", used loosely to describe these murdering vermin,k*****g innocents is just a bonus if you will for them. K**l them all and God sort them out is my take.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I don't know much about the magazine but I do think it should be allowed to print wh**ever it wants to print. I am as Conservative as most people can be and do not want anyone drawing a line about what is good or decent that should be printed or not printed. I am wondering, if we did that, who would get to draw the line about what is good or not, decent or not, acceptable or not. The line you are talking about is drawn in our heads, in our notion, within ourselves, about what we think is acceptable or not.

Many accepted works of art are in museums and I don't like seeing them. One is the well known, Jesus in Piss. I can't comprehend how that is art, how someone could even do that to my religion or any religion. And yet it is supposedly a work of art. It offends my very sense of being, honor, what is supposedly good and right in the world. But apparently it delights the creator of the work and others who love seeing it.

If we draw this line on what can be in print then what about speech? I think it is demeaning to most people to go online and read what people have written giving their viewpoint on a certain Utube video or movie. Sometimes the foul language is terrible. I get angry and swear at home but to actually write the F word or the C word which demeans women is beyond comprehension to me. Yet it is legal and apparently proper to others.

As for the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, I think this particular issue is selling well because people who buy it want to have a keepsake, a memento if you will of what happened in Paris, people standing up for freedom. I suspect the next issue will not be a million but probably back down to the normal level of distribution.

So again, who gets to draw the line, some religious panel of experts, the POTUS, Congress, who?

I much prefer we each make up our own minds as to what is acceptable to us and if we don't want to purchase a magazine that we find to be vile or distasteful then we won't be putting our hard earned money there.

Dennis

Ransch Loc: O'Fallon MO

Deciding what we tolerate is so important, and it's so individualized. I can go to a museum and enjoy myself, though I would walk past a rendition of Jesus in Piss. I would not enjoy reading Charlie Hebdo or any of the many publications that present radical views, so my decision is simple. I don't buy it and I don't read it. If there are thousands of people who get involved in what I do not, I have no control over that. Those kinds of things are very different from the groups who show up at a military funeral to protest anything military. That's invasion, whereas the other is not.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Than we agree on all accounts!

larrypayne Loc: Texas Hill Country

More topics on the Hog which cover this topic from different viewpoints:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-274677-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-276206-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-275898-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-275551-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-275169-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-275169-1.html