Satirical Cartoons

[City Fan]

After the success of the Ched Evans thread, it's time for some more mass debating.

Considering the recent events in Paris, should newspapers/magazines have been printing religion based satirical cartoons in the past? And should they continue to do so in the future?

GO!

 

[pork pie fox]

There was quite a good debate on Channel 4 news yesterday with Will Self and *satirist whose name I can't remember* about this.

 

[Matt_B]

There was quite a good debate on Channel 4 news yesterday with Will Self and *satirist whose name I can't remember* about this.

I too enjoyed that. I agree with the concept of free speech but it doesn't work in reality. If we are arguing free speech here, then why was Abu Hamza bemoaned for preaching Islamic hatred? We have to allow free speech for all, otherwise we have don't have free speech. Similarly, should I be allowed to go around referring to black people as niggars under the presumption of free speech? Of course not.

Will Self's argument that satire should mock those in power and provide comic relief for those under the regime; politicans are a prime example of those. Were the Muslim faith relieved by the satirical cartoons? I doubt it. As Self also said, wit free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely, especially in such a public and sensitive arena.

If we aren't careful, the excuse of free speech will jus become another version of "it's only banter mate".

It certainly doesn't excuse the nutjobs who did what the did, ever.

 

[pork pie fox]

I too enjoyed that. I agree with the concept of free speech but it doesn't work in reality. If we are arguing free speech here, then why was Abu Hamza bemoaned for preaching Islamic hatred? We have to allow free speech for all, otherwise we have don't have free speech. Similarly, should I be allowed to go around referring to black people as niggars under the presumption of free speech? Of course not.

Will Self's argument that satire should mock those in power and provide comic relief for those under the regime; politicans are a prime example of those. Were the Muslim faith relieved by the satirical cartoons? I doubt it. As Self also said, wit free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely, especially in such a public and sensitive arena.

If we aren't careful, the excuse of free speech will jus become another version of "it's only banter mate".

It certainly doesn't excuse the nutjobs who did what the did, ever.

I think Self was saying that it should mock those in power, whilst empowering those without it and, in a situation where that doesn't occur, then it isn't of benefit.

 

[spionfox]

I think the final word should rest with the many Muslims who have stated that whilst they were offended by the cartoons they were hundreds of times more offended by the killings.

 

[East Anglia Fox]

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Outlawing speech just because it's unpleasant and hurtful paves the road to authoritarianism. Of course, for some people this is good news.

 

[Feriol]

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Outlawing speech just because it's unpleasant and hurtful paves the road to authoritarianism. Of course, for some people this is good news.

Do we allow free speech for those encouraging terrorism, what about threatening rape or some other crime? do we only step in when they actually do something? I think that would be dangerous.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Matt_B]

Do we allow free speech for those encouraging terrorism, what about threatening rape or some other crime? do we only step in when they actually do something? I think that would be dangerous.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Exactly, it's a nice idea that is impractical in reality. Unfortunately, once you allow a government to block some speech, you're also on a slippery slope.

 

[spionfox]

Nobody has the right not to be offended.

Eh?

 

[David Gwilliam]

Why should religious opinions get a free pass?
If you tell me that the world is less than 10,000 years old I can call you a fool - except if you say your opinion comes from religion when I am supposed to respect your views.

I am an Islamophobe. I am also a Catholicophobe, a Protestantophobe a Conservativeophobe and a LibDemophobe. These are all belief systems that try and push their views at other people. No child is born with these beliefs. Why should I respect the first three opinions and not the last two. I strongly believe in atheism and Old Labour values. These are both controversial and people who disagree have a right to denounce them - and I have good friends who do.

The idea that religious leaders have no power is ludicrous. Has Will Self ever heard of Sharia Law? Tell the pro-choice lobby in America that they are not facing the power of the Catholic Church. In this country it is religion that leads the attack on "assisted dying."

A few weeks ago I was in the Camp de Fiori in Rome where a man called Giordano Bruno was burned alive in 1600. His crime was to question the Catholic view that the Sun went round the Earth. The respectable people of Rome at the time felt burning him was quite right. Good men do good things. Evil men do evil things. But if you want a good man to do evil things give him faith.

As an old time Socialist I found it disquieting that it was Mrs Thatcher who condemned the burning of Salmon Rushdie's book while the left made excuses for it. I find it offensive that someone who claims to be left wing should want to limit satire but Will Self is perfectly entitled to offend me.

 

[East Anglia Fox]

Yes because you can use free speech yourself to argue against those who are in the wrong. The values we perceive as good and righteous have no meaning unless we are aware of their opposites and are allowed to discuss them.

We shouldn't be scared of the idea of letting people say ludicrous things without fear of prosecution. It doesn't make those things any less ludicrous.

I don't want to live in an authoritarian state where everyone's scared of offending everyone else. Perhaps you should read John Stuart Mill or George Orwell.

 

[spionfox]

As an old time Socialist I found it disquieting that it was Mrs Thatcher who condemned the burning of Salmon Rushdie's book while the left made excuses for it.

See. She wasn't all bad afterall :icon_wink

 

[spionfox]

I don't want to live in an authoritarian state where everyone's scared of offending everyone else.

Nor do I, one step further would be appeasement and look where that got us.

 

[Jeff]

 

[fitz]

Should we laugh at people who have imaginary friends? Probably not. Though the line where you shouldn't cross when it comes to mental issues is a bit blurred.

 

[Matt_B]

Yes because you can use free speech yourself to argue against those who are in the wrong. The values we perceive as good and righteous have no meaning unless we are aware of their opposites and are allowed to discuss them.

We shouldn't be scared of the idea of letting people say ludicrous things without fear of prosecution. It doesn't make those things any less ludicrous.

I don't want to live in an authoritarian state where everyone's scared of offending everyone else. Perhaps you should read John Stuart Mill or George Orwell.

The question is, what purpose were the cartoonists trying to achieve? Was it to troll the Muslim community by deliberately offending them? The people publishing more images of the prophet, as a kind of "**** you" to the terrorists, are only succeeding in pissing off the general Muslim community, IMO. They aren't attacking the beliefs solely of the terrorists.

 

[Jeff]

only succeeding in pissing off the general Muslim community, IMO.

If people want to be offended by cartoons, they're the ones with the problem. Maybe they should grow up and start living in the 21st century.

 

[Jeff]

 

[Matt_B]

If people want to be offended by cartoons, they're the ones with the problem. Maybe they should grow up and start living in the 21st century.

I don't think they want to be. My wife is vegetarian and regularly gets comments like "save a cow, eat a vegetarian". She says it doesn't offend her in and of itself, but the fact that someone is saying it simply to get a rise about something that has no bearing on their life is offensive.

 

[Mawsley]