je ne suis pas charlie

[Adam Wrong]

So Charlie Hebdo who people praised for freedom of speech etc earlier this year have this week published a photo mocking Aylan Kurdi the dead little boy washed up on a beach. Yet this isn't being condemned or praised in the media. Rather just being overlooked. Utterly disgusting if you ask me

[Flins.]

Were they mocking him? I've seen the comic and I can't figure it out. It's either crude mockery that is pretty horrible, or more a look at the commercialization of the western world and the use of the poor kid in our media. That is what I took from it, but then, I could be seeing what I want to see.

This is what Charlie Hebdo does, always has, people who praised them after what happened most likely had never paid much attention to them.

[BamBamBunglow]

They did two in the same edition - the first was with the "He was so close to his goal" and the kids McDonalds menu (bad taste).

The second one was downright fucking horrible. A drawing of Christ stood on the sea, and a pair of legs jutting out of the water, with the quote "Christians Walk on water, Muslim kids just sink".

Bunch of twats.

[Adam Wrong]

They did two in the same edition - the first was with the "He was so close to his goal" and the kids McDonalds menu (bad taste).

The second one was downright fucking horrible. A drawing of Christ stood on the sea, and a pair of legs jutting out of the water, with the quote "Christians Walk on water, Muslim kids just sink".

Bunch of twats.

This

[Flins.]

Yeah, I didn't know what was said. No defending that.

[BamBamBunglow]

Yeah, I didn't know what was said. No defending that.

It's apparently;

Comic 1: a dig at the people throughout Europe who are very anti refugee and spouting the lines "they're coming to take our jobs/money/benefits".

Comic 2: Some form of religious dig at Christian Europe.

Some people might disagree with my view of them being twats. You're entitled to that, as I've said before, Your Mileage May Vary. But both me & my partner physically cried when we saw the video of that boy, and the officer lifting him out of the water. It's a horrifying tragedy brought on by a horrifying situation. To me, anyone who would even THINK of drawing a cartoon of a kid face down in sea needs to check their fucking morals.

End Rant.

[Adam Wrong]

And defend that bullshit with the claim of freedom of speech... fucking disgusting.

I'm with you bammer. As a few MFX guys will testify, I'm a pretty dark humoured chap but both images are fucking horrifying.

[The TeeJ of Philly]

Looking at the pictures, agree that they're distasteful, I get the point they're trying to prove with the second one, not really with the first, but either way that was an odd way of going about it.

As far as why there's not an uproar over it, and there was one before, was because part of the freedom of speech, is that you can say what you want, whether people like it or not. And you know who leads the attack on someone "punishing" people for saying what they want? The media and what is Charlie Hebdo? A member of the media. This wouldn't be a case of The Daily Show mocking CNN/MSNBC/Fox News, it would be media on media, and the first to speak out opens themselves up to everyone else. It's basically "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Plus there's not views/listeners/watchers on a satire magazine's drawing a tasteless cartoon, not as nearly as artists getting killed over a drawing. It's not a tragedy, its not something that moves the needle, so it doesn't get play. And European news is slightly smarter in not giving people who do bad things the attention.

[Adam Wrong]

But people shit the bed when they were posting pictures of Muhammed...

[The TeeJ of Philly]

But people shit the bed when they were posting pictures of Muhammed...

Again, because 1) those who were shitting a bed were Muslims whose region was offended and 2) People died because of those pictures.

No one shot up Charlie Hebdos over the drawings.

[¿PapaPancho?]

You got to defend the speech that disgusts you as much as you defend the speech you love. That's the philosophy of freedom of speech.

As much as the Westboro Church makes my skin crawl i have to defend the right for them to picket veterans funerals or other events. Because i dont want someone who find my views distasteful to use the same argument on me

[¿PapaPancho?]

Though as with all things philosophical everything is easier in theory than in practice

[BamBamBunglow]

Though as with all things philosophical everything is easier in theory than in practice

They are free to say whatever they want. Conversely, I am free to say they are a pack of shock inducing exploitative cunt muffins with as many morals as a shit house rat. As I said, your mileage may vary.

[¿PapaPancho?]

They are free to say whatever they want. Conversely, I am free to say they are a pack of shock inducing exploitative cunt muffins with as many morals as a shit house rat. As I said, your mileage may vary.

This is also correct.

And defend that bullshit with the claim of freedom of speech... fucking disgusting.

That is NOT correct.

Freedom of Speech protects your speech. It does not shield you from the consequences of your speech.

[Judge]

Freedom of Speech protects your speech. It does not shield you from the consequences of your speech.

To clarify this, it means the government can't throw you in prison or censor your webpage.  It doesn't mean that someone can't sue you for what you said.  All of Freedom of speech means is that the government can't stop you from saying what you want.  It's purely a public thing.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to a private entity, however.  If you said that at work, your employer could fire you and you could not claim freedom of speech.  Also, it doesn't extend to a private message board.  If you said something I didn't like, I could ban you and there's no freedom of speech claim there as well.