Violence in France

[Turin Turambar]

It's maybe a bit late but I just found out there was a German news magazine that published a few caricatures from Charlie Hebdo.

One of them had the picture of Mohammed on it and the title was "Sharia Hebdo".

The other one had a picture of an orthodox Jew on it and the title was "Shoa Hebdo".

The second picture was removed from their website one day later because it was "antisemitic". So what they are actually saying is, that press freedom is okay when it makes fun of moslems but that there is none when it goes against Jews.

[KL4R1N0G4MPR0S]

The second picture was removed from their website one day later because it was "antisemitic". So what they are actually saying is, that press freedom is okay when it makes fun of moslems but that there is none when it goes against Jews.

The Jew who ran this newspaper threatened to stop funding it. So that "anti-semitic" cartoon had to go.

[Grantrithor]

It's maybe a bit late but I just found out there was a German news magazine that published a few caricatures from Charlie Hebdo.

One of them had the picture of Mohammed on it and the title was "Sharia Hebdo".

The other one had a picture of an orthodox Jew on it and the title was "Shoa Hebdo".

The second picture was removed from their website one day later because it was "antisemitic". So what they are actually saying is, that press freedom is okay when it makes fun of moslems but that there is none when it goes against Jews.

Money runs this world.

[MaxLam]

It's maybe a bit late but I just found out there was a German news magazine that published a few caricatures from Charlie Hebdo.

One of them had the picture of Mohammed on it and the title was "Sharia Hebdo".

The other one had a picture of an orthodox Jew on it and the title was "Shoa Hebdo".

The second picture was removed from their website one day later because it was "antisemitic". So what they are actually saying is, that press freedom is okay when it makes fun of moslems but that there is none when it goes against Jews.

That wasn't a caricature from Charlie Hebdo. That was a caricature from the French antisemitic far-right close to Dieudonné and his friends which copied the style of Charlie Hebdo to create this horrendous "Sharia Hebdo" picture:



Charlie Hebdo would never have done something like that. The newspaper was far-left, not far-right.

[Turin Turambar]

But they bot suck as far as I can see.

And I was referring to the fact that the German newspaper considered one of them as antisemitic and the other one as a glorious example of western freedom.

[MaxLam]

It is said that around 5 million people died during the Shoah. That would be a problem if a German newspaper thought that mocking the memory of the Shoah was a "glorious example of western freedom."

[Nipplestockings]

How would that be a problem? Are jokes only morally or legally permissible if they refer to tragedies affecting say... 2 million people maximum?

Free speech is inalienable. The nature of the speech means nothing.

[Archduke Sven]

But they bot suck as far as I can see.

And I was referring to the fact that the German newspaper considered one of them as antisemitic and the other one as a glorious example of western freedom.

Yep, Jews are overrepresented in media. Its disgusting.

It is said that around 5 million people died during the Shoah. That would be a problem if a German newspaper thought that mocking the memory of the Shoah was a "glorious example of western freedom."

There is no problem with that. Insensitive yes, but it is a freedom one should be allowed to take.

[MaxLam]

Fascists always demand the right of free speech for themselves. But as Saint-Just said: "No freedom for the enemies of freedom."

[MarshalKim]

Volkswagen Group is cool though.

[Nipplestockings]

Fascists always demand the right of free speech for themselves. But as Saint-Just said: "No freedom for the enemies of freedom."

So freedom of speech only for people you agree with, then?

[MaxLam]

I don't consider that those who disagree with me are necessary "enemies of freedom." Freedom, political freedom, is the common ground of a great variety of political opinions. But some ideas are not acceptable if they are harmful to society.

After WWII, since a lot of people suffered, and I personally know some survivors from the camps, it was an inalienable right for the European populations to live in a society in which nobody would dare to speak lightly of the crimes of Nazi Germany. And of course, especially for the Germans. That's why this limitation of freedom of speech was done accordingly to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. And therefore I agree with this part of the forum rules which is infringed quite often without any reaction from the moderators:

11. No posting of National Socialist imagery, symbols or right wing opinions or representation that may glorify or seek to represent elements of former Nazi Germany.
In many countries such symbols and imagery are banned particularly in Germany where FSE's host servers are based. At the end of the day this is a forum for the enjoyment of FSE products and not a platform for political discourse. FSE does not wish to contravene Germany's strict policies in regards to Strafgesetzbuch section 86a and thus requests that its users adhere to this policy as part of the terms of service agreement.

[Nipplestockings]

g-good goy! Don't speak ill of the sh-shoah, remember the 10 trillion. Oy... oy g-gevault.

[MaxLam]

Are you drunk?

[Nipplestockings]

At 8 in the morning? No, but I haven't slept for around 24 hours.

Doesn't matter though, my point still stands that the content of speech is entirely irrelevant when considering its legality and to what extent it's covered under the right to free speech. A right is a right. You can hate what someone is saying all you want, but it is no government's place to force a person or people to be quiet on those grounds.