polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11
th, 2015 at 10:06am:
Karnal wrote on Oct 10
th, 2015 at 6:46pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10
th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
saying they were "tame" is neither here nor there.
And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship.
Why shouldn't a cartoon of Muhammed saying "a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine" be published? I'm still trying to work out how it can be seen as offensive. What do you think?
I'm curious.
It was the racial caricatures I was more worried about.
Regardless, its irrelevant to the point. It could be Mother Theresa expressing goodwill to humanity, it doesn't matter - if someone finds it offensive and inappropriate, they should be free to say so, and not be deterred from saying it by external pressures.
Er yes, G. If you’re telling me my words or art have offended you in some way, you
do have to say why you’ve been offended.
"Inappropriate" is just the modern word for verboten. If you want me to refrain from my work, you need to say why.
I’m a bit surprised you think all that needs to be said is "inappropriate" and "cultural sensitivities" and that’s it. Cartoonists, publishers, people should rub out what others don’t like and think up something unoffensive to fill up the blank space - without even being told what it is that offends.
After the attack, the original Charlie Hebdo front page was going to be a blank page. But remember, that was seen as even more provocative.