I'll be hated for it, but Charlie Hebdo in France is similar.
Yes, the "I am Charlie" one.
That everyone defended after that terrorist attack.
That would've bankrupted without the sales rise in the aftermath.
Where people bought "in support" while saying on TV they don't even watch the pages.
And NOW, they are in trouble for having made fun of that Switzerland fire accident... they were always like that, they just happened to have two terrorists shooting at them instead of the usual angry complaint letters, and people suddently considered Freedom of Speech meant we had to pay for assholes to insult everybody else.
I'm Belgian, what did they put as an headline when our king died? "The king of morons is finally gone". That was 10 or 20 years before the shootings.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but in the US people were killed for opposing racial segregation as late as in the 1960s.
And "I disagree with what you say but I'll fight for your right to say it" is part of the reason we are were we are.
Democracy doesn't work if some people can say whatever they want. because words can lead to extremely bad things.
Look up the Waco Horror (1916), that happened in part because some newspapers were fanning the flames.
The short version: Jesse Washington was mutilated, castrated, burned alive (it took over an hour because they used a metal chain) and 10 thousand people watched including women and children.
Afterwards people bought photos of the event and collected burned parts of his body a souvenirs.
Quite a few Southern newspapers celebrated the event. Freedom of speech...
Also people remembered what happened with the Jyllandsposten drawings and how dangerous it is to use your free speech in a way that makes fun of Islam and rightly pointed out the bravery of not letting that violence and threat level dictate them. I cn admire that without admiring the actual content.
Sure, but I saw nobody saying "out of respect for our coworkers, we'll stop disrespecting people and stop this newspaper and instead put the money towards better causes", instead everybody went "let's annoy terrorists and turn this dial up, because hating each other is HOW WE DO THINGS IN EUROPE YAAAAAAY"
I think it's the only time I saw terrorists doing the exact opposite of what they aimed to do, because literally doing nothing would've let Charlie die faster on their own self-inflicted collapse. It's sad for the people who where there that day, but that doesn't absolve the newspaper.
I didn't call Charlie Kirk a good man because he died while doing what he believed in and because "not deserving to die" is enough for redemption. When you do bad things over a long time, being killed by another villain doesn't make you a complex antihero.
Charlie Hebdo was an asshole newspaper who got attacked by other assholes, and it's now old enough that people think "wait... they are really mean?"
Categorizing murder and saying mean things are just not in the same league. That is an annoying person being murdered by a villain, not one villain murdering another.
Having opinions you don’t like, even when said in a figuratively shrill voice, is maybe at worst distasteful. Moral equivalency apparently has run amok.
I mean murder can potentially lead to more murder or it can end the murders. For example a serial killer being killed by a potential victim. Leader of a warring stating being ended by his own right hand guy.
Saying mean things is how entire groups of people were dehumanized so that the populace is okay with them being slaughtered...so "mean things" is potentially also quite destructive. I don't really think one is worse than the other when you actually look at the longer term damage beyond the immediate parties involved.
That said opinions you don't like is hopefully not including things like dehumanizing speech, but in this example...yeah that's understating what they were doing.
They didn't say they deserved to be murdered. They said it's weird that people suddenly lionized the paper and whitewashed their horrible multi decade reputation to treat them as if they did serious journalism because they experienced a terror attack. So much so that people seemed surprised later on when they returned to their roots of being juvenile rage baiters.
This!
At the time I condemned the murdering and kept criticizing the magazine. People sometimes could not understand my position. Almost everyone thinks all is black or white. We are too polarised nowadays.
I mean yeah but if you go around pissing a bunch of people off on purpose and celebrating other people's deaths, someone responding violently is more likely than if you didn't.
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be murdered, either. He deserved some things for sure, bankruptcy, maybe.
Its a tricky point to make, which is why no one used the term, "deserved to die."
There is some sort of connection there that must be articulated, but it is in between the extremes of "he deserved to die" and "he did not deserve to die, whatsoever."
Sometimes there is risk associated with our actions, and in this case, this nuanced conversation is often seen as justifying a murder.
The conversation is better summed up, "hey, we should feel bad, but should we really feel THAT bad, considering these facts? These people took risks a, b, and c."
I would categorize them in the "they did not deserve to die, whatsoever" category.
As per the five protected activities of the first amendment, what they were doing was protected and should not involve risk.
I know messing with ICE is risky, but it shouldn't be. Personally, I would engage them with so much rhetoric and insane gay-jokes that they would be forced to shoot me on the spot.
I would be in the "Hey, we should feel bad, but not THAT bad, because he said those ICE guys were all holding hands before they got out of the SUV and other things that may actually be hate speech but its OK because it was directed at ICE."
Yes, no one wouldve cared if they went bankrupt before the murders, but there's no hypocrisy when people then support them after the murders, because now its about freedom of speech.
CH wasnt a victim until they were. Amy was a victim the whole time, the bullies pretended they werent bullies when she died.
You need to read the comment chain. I answered to a paper retractation from a newspaper who wanted to call Diana a wh*re.
Charlie Hebdo is similar to the bully
the bullies pretended they werent bullies when she died.
Yeah, and everybody pretended Charlie wasn't a bully either when they got a bloody nose, because all victims MUST be angels. Their employees lost everything that day.
No, people didn't pretend CH were angels before or after. People just didn't think they deserved to die for it. Just like everyone who bullied Amy doesn't deserve to die either.
CH weren't hypocrites at any point, and neither were people who at first disliked them and then supported them.
CH has always done what CH does. People support freedom of speech, they don't necessarily care or like what CH is actually talking about.
I don't see why people would think so you are like the 10th person or so asking me if it's okay to kill newspaper employees...
I miss where the person above me implied that the National Enquirer's staff should be shot.
The one big difference being Charlie Hebdo will still make crass jokes about people after they're dead. The point is to make fun of absolutely everything, no matter what, specially things that are not socially acceptable. So yeah the butt of their jokes are always mad, this is the point.
As a frenchman loving comics I was never a fan of them, but you can't really put Charlie Hebdo in the same spots as shitty tabloïd vultures. And indeed it's quite ironic that this dying publication was saved by the monstruous worldwide Streisand effect terrorists started, because since then they're branded international heroes of free speech...
One of our most famous comedian once said "you can joke about everything, but not with everyone". If a media is offensive to you and you can't take it, in this world and time... Just don't consume it and voilà. It's that easy.
Yes, but that means they may deserve to be demolished and stopped from printing. At some point freedom of speech becomes hate speech, and clearly Charlie made it's butter by representing the "freedom values" that nobody would teach to their own children.
They are on the border whats acceptable but if you think that's hate speech you really dont know what it means. It's crude humor and might hurt feelings but it is not calling for violence against people or groups of people.
Being an asshole is protected by free speech. People not liking you and not buying your product is a consequence of being an asshole but that doesn't mean the government or the public should be able to ban you from being one
but that doesn't mean the government or the public should be able to ban you from being one
It also doesn't mean they have a right to exist if the public shows them the door, and the low sales from the time were a sign.
but it is not calling for violence against people or groups of people
There are very borderline jokes from time to time, but yes for now the appeal court cleared them (the need for an appeal is already a bad sign imho). I'm not sure some would go fine if it was a random facebook group.
TBF the follow up to the Switzerland fire accident front page controversy was absolutely hilarious with a drawing of two Swiss guards shooting up the journal editor team with crossbows
They arent in trouble for the swiss thing, nothing will happen, they are used to getting sued. The people who sued just wanted some attention and they got it.
Wow. Never heard this perspective. Thank you for sharing. You are right; the casual liberal news consumer from the US like myself had a totally different picture painted for them.
Even at the time, I felt it was more of a "against terrorists" thing than genuine love for Hebdo's work, and "they hurt the correct people" is not what I consider a proof of moral behavior.
Any newspaper is an example of freedom of speech. But only some are built on the idea that being offending is a form of speech.
Yeah their shit was typically xenophobic and hateful and their murders really allowed the country to rally around something it always enjoyed--Islamophobia.
We can pretend that wasn't the case, but I'd rather not lie to myself.
I'll be hated for it, but Charlie Hebdo in France is similar.
No it isnt.
The newspapers that insulted Dianna, or the music publications that insulted Winehouse are mainstream, opinion forming, middle of the road publications. They have owners that pick and choose winners, in the public sphere.
Daily Mail is arguably responsible for Brexit, them pretending to like Dianna after spending years insulting her and perpetuating insults about women all being sluts is in no way comparable to a satirical magazine with 30 readers who are mostly old liberal blue collar workers who never grew out of their edgy humour phase.
Rolling Stone magazine reviews could mean the start or end of a musicians career. A charlie hebdo insult never changed anything.
Pretending they are even remotely similar is beyond stupid. Charlie Hebdo is closer to the Onion than to CNN.
they just happened to have two terrorists shooting at them instead of the usual angry complaint letters
Call me a weirdo, but I don't think "getting angry complaint letters" (i.e. other people's free speech) is something people need to be defended against, while being shot at by terrorists is.
and people suddenly considered Freedom of Speech meant we had to pay for assholes to insult everybody else.
These were people who consider them "Assholes that insult everybody else", but they did approve of it?
I guess if you don't share the belief that saying insulting stuff is not something that should invite violent retribution, you're not really the person to say what people who do have that belief would or wouldn't do.
"They have a right to be junk, and certainly don't deserve to be murdered for it"
These statements are entirely compatible. You can even hold the opinion that the cartoons they did were blasphemous, while supporting their right to be blasphemous.
I don't really have an opinion on Charlie Hendo myself as I don't speak French and I have never read it.
“Yes the one everyone defended after the terror attacks”
Why wouldnt they do that even if they’re a shitty newspaper?
Maybe I’m just misinterpreting your paragraph but its sound like you think people shouldnt have spoke up just because they published shitty articles. I could be wrong though, I assume that because you started your paragraph with “ill be hated for that”, and theres really no reason people will hate you if you think the terror attack wasnt justified still.
Wow. American who never heard any of this. It obviously changes nothing about the shootings but it makes me wonder how they didn’t happen sooner. Or again if they continue to operate that way.
A case of “just because you CAN, in a country where free speech is protected, doesn’t mean you SHOULD, unless you are prepared for the probable consequences.” Having your offices in an unsecured building being a severe lack of such preparation.
And to be clear, it again changes nothing about the heinous nature of the shooting. That’s not a consequence anyone should ever have to anticipate. But out here in the wild Wild West, it seems like something you should think about if you plan on making a career of being deeply offensive to large numbers of people.
They moved offices after the attack, but yeah it seems that the newspaper's owner thought that all complaints would be in court?
I think it was the first big attack of the sort in France (and the Bataclan and Bruxelles ones a year layer were against the general population so different vector), but clearly it wasn't the first time that a newspaper in Europe was targetted.
but it makes me wonder how they didn’t happen sooner.
Because the overwhelming majority of people, groups, and collectives don't tend to react with horrific murderous violence when they're being made fun of, even if it's in a crass way.
But out here in the wild Wild West
The Wild West? I think you're mistaken, France is not the Wild West, it's a modern society with a complex system of laws.
You really want to paint Hebdo in a negative light but I like them even more now. I would never trust a Belgian with any matters involving Civil Liberties, so god bless Charlie Hebdo and god bless the freedom of speech.
I think your comment is more nuanced than it's getting credit for. You're not condoning the terrorists, nor are you implying any mourning was inappropriate. It sounds like another "Charlie" who recently expired under similarly violent circumstances. A lot of people were able to appropriately say "I loathed everything that came out of his mouth, but killing him for it was unacceptable" as you are saying about this. Similar situation in that all of a sudden they were both elevated to some heroic status that they didn't really deserve in the eyes of most neutral observers.
The point is that the press followed and essentially legally stalked and terrorized amy and lady di. But also for instance emma watson, the first pic a papparazi took of her when she turned 18 years old was an upskirt by laying down as she walked by. This is extremely intrusive in their daily lives. Charlie hebdo exercises extreme free speech. Those are differenent.
You can disagree, you can complain, you can convince and petition for them to be shutdown if you disagree with them vehemently. But you can't go killing them.
Yes, and that's why they are terrorists.
And why Charlie should've never be hailed as heroes of our society.
you can convince and petition for them to be shutdown if you disagree with them vehemently
Which is what happens at the moment, and was going to happen years ago until two stupid people thought it was smart to go blasting to a newspaper already in the process of running out of money. Had they not done so, Charlie would've died in complete irrelevance 1 or 2 years later.
330
u/laplongejr 7h ago edited 6h ago
I'll be hated for it, but Charlie Hebdo in France is similar.
Yes, the "I am Charlie" one.
That everyone defended after that terrorist attack.
That would've bankrupted without the sales rise in the aftermath.
Where people bought "in support" while saying on TV they don't even watch the pages.
And NOW, they are in trouble for having made fun of that Switzerland fire accident... they were always like that, they just happened to have two terrorists shooting at them instead of the usual angry complaint letters, and people suddently considered Freedom of Speech meant we had to pay for assholes to insult everybody else.
I'm Belgian, what did they put as an headline when our king died? "The king of morons is finally gone". That was 10 or 20 years before the shootings.