“The terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo has had the entire world talking. Governments, citizens, and companies have been responding in many different ways. Some of the responses have seem potentially proportional, while others seem to many as extreme. As the Inquisitr reported on Tuesday, many governments have been changing policy or espousing tough rhetoric regarding terrorism.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron made a reelection pledge to, more or less, ban encrypted messaging as a means of fighting terrorism.
However, Mr. Cameron is not the only public figure that has been making very odd and slightly disturbing comments following the murders at Charlie Hebdo. An MSNBC host, who seems to be known for inflammatory speech, is at it again. It comes as no surprise to many that his daggers are aimed at Republicans.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1754421/msnb…
Jimmy Dore breaks it down.
Subscribe here:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Follow Jimmy on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore
Follow TYTComedy on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TYTComedy
Visit: www.jimmydorecomedy.com/
Comments
Jimmy, what your saying is the equivalent to screaming the N word because I don’t like certain black people and thinking it’s ok. “well, It wasn’t aimed at all black people, so its OKl” I like you Jimmy, but that argument is flawed.
No, they are not missing the point. The freedom of speech claus is a LEGAL entitlement. the attackers were never arguing that you make drawing the prophet illegal, were they? OF COURSE NOT!
So to make this an argument about the freedom of speech is disingenuous at best.
When someone starts swearing at your wife, or showing others naked pictures of her, or of your daughter or mother, then guess what, you might actually punch them in the face, this person has no right to cry and say that you are restricting their freedom of speech… they can but it will fall on dead ears. How is this any different? In both cases it is not a legal issue, and in both cases the victim relies on our common sense of decency and courtesy, and we the people tend not to to distasteful things because we do not want to offend them or cause trouble. However, we still have every legal right to do so, we already know that it isn’t illegal.
Oh, and I can’t stand bill maher who now thinks charlie hedbo is his hero, despite not having a hero for 60 years, i can assure you this is because of his hatred for muslims, and because he is half jewish and identifies as a jewish person (just like sam harris), the only way he can prove that israel is doing the right thing by killing so many arabs is by making these arabs look like bad people and people who deserve to be killed. Same technique the pentagon uses to get us to hate the iraqi’s and afgans.
Also, finally, since the freedom of speech is about getting to the truth and not subverting the truth, what truth is there that is being communicated with this cartoon that cannot be communicated by text? If you were criticizing the religion like so many have, do the attackers come after you? Of course not! It’s only when you do the drawing, and that is because of the specific claus that they have interpreted as being important. If you were speaking the truth about islam and they attacked you, sure, i would totally stand with you, because then the truth would be subverted, but in this case, what truth is being subverted? NOTHING!
Charlie has a circulation of 30k-60k, they did this for attention and sales most likely. The fact that Cenk doesn’t use rational/logical arguments when responding to the article by bruce is also a big indicator that he hasn’t thought this through enough and is just going with the majority view.
The majority view it like this because of a series of rare coincidences that make people think it is freedom of speech related, when it is not.
Oh, forgot to add, don’t do fake equivalence, it’s not the same thing when you make fun of christianity vs islam by drawing the prophet… because Christianity doesn’t have this “don’t draw jesu'” claus in their religion, but islam does, this is why it is a disingenuous comparison.
Islam is burdened by this claus, whereas christianity is NOT!
I did not get your point. Islam may be burdened with whatever it deems fit but why do french cartoonists almost all of whom were atheists have to carry it. It appears you have some warped notion of freedoms . Because if you are willing to accept islamic blasphemy laws would you also extend the courtesy to their apostacy laws.
Now to your earlier arguments. It should be obvious to anyone that there is a lot of difference between abusing some one as an individual, a legal issue, and drawing cartoons of a prominent personality to make a political or social comment. If we were to go by your ridiculous reasoning all the political cartoonists the world over would be in prison, they are worse than Charlie hebdo, as they draw living politicians in very unflattering ways.
“If you were criticizing the religion like so many have, do the attackers come after you? ”
But the mere act of drawing the cartoon was a criticism. It was meant to show the stupidity of notions like religious blasphemy.
The only thing i can agree with you partly is about Maher and Harris. Both those guys are overestimating the role of religion in people’s motivation for violence , when it is actually the geopolitics that is really the main factor.
That’s not what he’s saying. What he is saying is there are consequences to what you do and say. That’s not to say the consequences are apropriate or sane. I’m sorry but if you do shit that pisses terrorists, you are going to be a victim of terror.