Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

"Freedom of Speech" seems to be thrown around a lot between all of this and it's triggered some questions.

What's the difference between claiming freedom of speech and insults?
Why should it be allowed because it's a right to have freedom of speech?

In Islam drawing/creating/visualising the Prophet Mohammed is against their faith, and is forbidden. However when it's done by Charlie Hebdo through a cartoon it should be allowed due to freedom of speech?

It was always going to spark attention and uproar, albeit murdering people because of it is ludicrous to say the least and don't agree with that one bit. But knowing full well it was going to cause a uproar especially as the Muslim community are very vocal with things they're not happy with, what did they think would happen?

Plus I then read this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/france-shooting-idUSL6N0US1PX20150113

What point are they trying to make exactly, besides annoy Muslims even more?
It seems more like revenge/pay back which I understand following the attacks it seems a little risky/silly.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
"Freedom of Speech" seems to be thrown around a lot between all of this and it's triggered some questions.

What's the difference between claiming freedom of speech and insults?
Why should it be allowed because it's a right to have freedom of speech?

In Islam drawing/creating/visualising the Prophet Mohammed is against their faith, and is forbidden. However when it's done by Charlie Hebdo through a cartoon it should be allowed due to freedom of speech?

It was always going to spark attention and uproar, albeit murdering people because of it is ludicrous to say the least and don't agree with that one bit. But knowing full well it was going to cause a uproar especially as the Muslim community are very vocal with things they're not happy with, what did they think would happen?

Plus I then read this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/france-shooting-idUSL6N0US1PX20150113

What point are they trying to make exactly, besides annoy Muslims even more?
It seems more like revenge/pay back which I understand following the attacks it seems a little risky/silly.
Click to expand...

I know this is all serious but I still just have to laugh that all of this was sparked by an image. I mean did people really need to die over it.... Reminds me of that south park episode where they done some sort of Family Guy spoof. In it the south park characters were pretty much arguing about the same thing we're discussing now lol.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
"Freedom of Speech" ....

In Islam drawing/creating/visualising the Prophet Mohammed is against their faith, and is forbidden. However when it's done by Charlie Hebdo through a cartoon it should be allowed due to freedom of speech?

In Islam it is prohibited to represent Mohammed... but then it is also prohibited to make snow men;but why does it follow that non muslims in non muslim countries should have to abide by their muslim laws.

Lets be honest these nut jobs would have went on the rampage regardless - targeting some other aspect of western society that didn't fit with their world view if the cartoons didn't exist.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DAIR said:
I know this is all serious but I still just have to laugh that all of this was sparked by an image. I mean did people really need to die over it....
Click to expand...

I completely agree, as I'm not religious or believe the concept of religion so in my mind it's a cartoon picture of something that doesn't or has never existed and people have been killed for that reason, it just raised some questions I wanted to jot down!

In Islam it is prohibited to represent Mohammed... but then it is also prohibited to make snow men;but why does it follow that non muslims in non muslim countries should have to abide by their muslim laws.

Lets be honest these nut jobs would have went on the rampage regardless - targeting some other aspect of western society that didn't fit with their world view if the cartoons didn't exist.
Click to expand...

I agree with this also, non-muslims shouldn't have to abide or die because of not following rules set by a religion they do not follow. So that does answer my question nicely and makes sense.

However knowing how 'muslim extremists' work from previous events I guess they believe as it's what they think is correct religiously everyone should also follow or be killed/punished for their sin, so to speak.
 
Last edited:
plasmahal said:
But people have the right to live more so than those who have the right to be offended........

Being offended doesn't give you the right to kill.
Click to expand...

exactly..organise a demonstration, express your disgust..the things most normal people do when they object to something

machine gunning people, threats to kill, bombings...it seems a bit of an over reaction
 
Re the no blood head shot, imho as it was such close range there would be less tumble in the bullets movement and it would be going so fast on exit that the hole would be smaller than the expected exit wound because the brain offers little resistance so the vortex just pushes the brain against the brain pan and the head shot stops the heart pumping the blood out.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
In Islam drawing/creating/visualising the Prophet Mohammed is against their faith, and is forbidden. However when it's done by Charlie Hebdo through a cartoon it should be allowed due to freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely yes, it should be and is allowed. Because those who do not share their faith are not subject to its rules. If they do not like it, tough. Nothing makes the response in this case right and I cannot personally summon up much sympathy for even a peaceful protest.
 
DangerMoose said:
Yes. Absolutely yes, it should be and is allowed. Because those who do not share their faith are not subject to its rules. If they do not like it, tough. Nothing makes the response in this case right and I cannot personally summon up much sympathy for even a peaceful protest.
Click to expand...

Goes both ways.

Western world doesn't agree with apostasy or the punishments associated with it. (Flogging, stoning to death, etc.)

Western world doesn't agree with forcing women to cover up...

We don't go round blowing up and killing them because we don't agree with these laws.

If someone brings up us invading irag/iran/ afghan please think before you post.
 
balky12 said:
Goes both ways.

Western world doesn't agree with apostasy or the punishments associated with it. (Flogging, stoning to death, etc.)

Western world doesn't agree with forcing women to cover up...

We don't go round blowing up and killing them because we don't agree with these laws.

If someone brings up us invading irag/iran/ afghan please think before you post.
Click to expand...

You're post is hella contradictory :confused:, but i agree with this bit
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
"Freedom of Speech" seems to be thrown around a lot between all of this and it's triggered some questions.
Click to expand...

I've been over this a few times before but we don't have what people consider to be Free Speech in this country - we have a negative definition. You can say what you like as long as you don't say x, y and z. Bar academic institutions and government where positive free speech is allowed by law.

However, in France they have stronger rules regarding the right to expression and they are written into their constitutional values.

Just worth appreciated that there is a difference and people should be quite clear when they use Freedom of Speech because each country seems to weigh how they interpret the UN "Right to Expression" very differently with the more positive definitions being used by countries that have written constitutions for the people. Which kind of makes sense and is perfectly understandable.
 
Xordium said:
I've been over this a few times before but we don't have what people consider to be Free Speech in this country - we have a negative definition. You can say what you like as long as you don't say x, y and z. Bar academic institutions and government where positive free speech is allowed by law.

However, in France they have stronger rules regarding the right to expression and they are written into their constitutional values.

Just worth appreciated that there is a difference and people should be quite clear when they use Freedom of Speech because each country seems to weigh how they interpret the UN "Right to Expression" very differently with the more positive definitions being used by countries that have written constitutions for the people. Which kind of makes sense and is perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

Rules on freedom.... Do you know how silly that sounds?
 
Congrats to Google for helping Charlie run a multi-million copy print. I'm seeing quite a few otherwise reasonable people claim that Charlie provoked the terrorists. Let's be clear. A cartoon never provokes murder. No more than a skirt provokes rape. And if you need evidence, then remember the hostages they killed in the ensuing manhunt. If the image of Muhammed offends you, then look away.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Congrats to Google for helping Charlie run a multi-million copy print. I'm seeing quite a few otherwise reasonable people claim that Charlie provoked the terrorists. Let's be clear. A cartoon never provokes murder. Anymore than a skirt provokes rape. And if you need evidence, then remember the hostages they killed in the ensuing manhunt. If the image of Muhammed offends you, then look away.
Click to expand...

Will that isnt true is it? It provoked those who then went on their killing spree.

Do you think it was some random event?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom