Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo | Hacker News Reader

Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo

theguardian.com

244 pointsgreenvaio123 comments

Google is not donating to Charlie Hebdo. A fund not managed by Google that Google has to pay into as a result of being fined by the French government is giving the money to help ensure the continuation of its publication.

From article: "The press innovation fund was set up in February 2013 to settle the dispute between Google and the French government over whether the internet group should pay to display news content in its search results. Financed but not managed by Google, that money will go to support the survival of the weekly."

Bravo. In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. and around the world, it's on the U.S. and its citizens to protect free speech and/or show their support for those who have been silenced around the world.

If Google does that by donating some money, the message is still very clear and, at least from me, quite appreciated.

Freedom is never free, and human life, sadly, seems like the ongoing and unending price.

This is not about free speech. There is no such things as "free speech" (look what happen to Snowden, for example). Try to publish plans for a nuclear bomb, for example, and see where free speech gets you. Try doing this extreme parody on sacred cows of the US and not expect a visit from the SS - sacred cows, such as certain family members of political entities.

This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it.

Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc).

What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.

That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.

edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that.

Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point.

I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race.

Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion.

The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.

That's a particularly poor example (plans for a nuclear bomb) if you're trying to make the case that, at least in the US, there's "no such thing[]" as free speech.

In fact, it was a form of plan for an atomic bomb that is the textbook case about prior restraint of speech in the US.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressiv...

Prior Restrain is totally valid in the US and there are many many circumstances where it can be used. Try breaking a gag order, or tweeting your location while fighting in Iraq. Or quit the NSA and start revealing secrets. This whole idea anyone can say anything is simply not true, and frankly shouldn't be true. Some facts are very very dangerous.

I certainly don't want simple plants for bomb making out on the internet.... I'll happily give up certain rights for that.

You probably shouldn't make any arguments about free speech based on whether or not a soldier can say something. You sign a lot of papers and give up a lot of rights when you volunteer to serve or get a security clearance.

Soldier, or whoever. It is totally unwarranted to put our forces in harms way whoever you are and such speech is certainly not protected regardless of who you are.

Do you honestly think plans on how to build a nuclear bomb is reasonable and in the best interest of society? Banning porn videos with consenting adults that contain spanking in them is unreasonable. Easily accessible information on a step-by-step guide to building a bomb that can kill millions of people, is IMHO, not reasonable.

> This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea

There already exists a rationalization in almost every Western country's law that there is a distinction between hate speech (that incites violence) and ordinary free speech. This is obviously a highly contentious issue among smaller-gov/progressive types but one that is not super relevant to the Charlie Hebdo issue which you are replying to.

It is semi-relevant if you factor in the UK's enforcement of offensive language on sites like Twitter and compare it to their politicians outraged reactions. But again, not super relevant - since that doesn't happen in the USA or (I believe) France which are involved in Google -> Charlie Hebdo investment.

So your argument is needlessly polemical and I support the downvotes.

"hate speech (that incites violence) and ordinary free speech." Lol.. exactly. Free Speech (*)

Anyways, I am OK with mostly-free speech. This act is not about our right to have free speech. This act is about our right to make fun of religion in whatever way we want to.

And frankly, there are parts to Muslim religion which I think are just as silly and deserved to be satired as much as possible. I feel the same about parts of Catholicism, Judiasm, etc. etc.

And why should we be able to make fun of these religions? Because they have caused such atrocious conditions for so many for too long. For example, conservative forms of muslim religion has inspired the oppression of women and girls in such horrible ways.

It's very very important to note, that Orthodox Jews are just as bad at oppressing women as well, btw. A fact that is terribly lost on so many westerners.

> Free Speech (*)

Yes, hardly any constitutional rights are absolutes in American law. But you'll find a million examples of this in caselaw where the rights are considered with very carefully worded maybes and conditionals for edge cases (ie. searching a phone but only for particular images as to not totally intrude on their privacy).

    > What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe
    > in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its
    > Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing 
    > to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.

What is "free speech" if not exactly this?

    > That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire.
    > Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.

I agree. Even if you were to make free speech the norm everywhere, that wouldn't make this particular speech any more valuable.

> It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it.

You don't have to fundamentally disagree with religion in order to believe that parody should be protected speech.

Free speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. It doesn't imply a right to disclose any and all information about about any person or organization that you may have access to, or to make extreme threats, or to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. Just because a literal interpretation of the phrase "free speech" might imply such a meaning to you, that's not how the term is conventionally used or interpreted.

You're merely making my point for me. You have just said exactly what I have said. That you're not allowed to say whatever you want to say.

And so there are many people who are saying that what Charlie Hebdo is doing is the equivalent of hate speech or some other form of speech which is not protected.

What we should be saying is what this speech is and why it's not hate speech and why we should be willing to go to war over it, because nobody is willing to go war over "free speech" which does not really exist.

>In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S.

What efforts have been made to reduce free speech?

There are constant and ongoing efforts by groups and individuals to restrict the freedom of speech in America as practiced by others. Timely examples are the "ag-gag" bills being pushed by corporations and the servants in the government to cover-up the abuse of animals at corporate facilities:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farmin...

There are many other efforts like this but aimed at all sorts of "causes."

That would be a dangerous precedent but would eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no chance for the types of speech restrictions common in Europe to be passed in the US. Nazi literature and offensive speech are bad but freedom of speech is mostly needed for speech you do not like.

Why are the efforts in the hands of the U.S.A.? It feels odd, especially when the U.S.A. could very quickly take a policy on censorship.

I don't think the efforts are in the hands of the US particularly. It's pretty much global.

I am not sure where you are getting your info on the US but it would be extremely difficult to enact a policy of censorship. It is political suicide to even suggest it and would need a constitutional amendment.

I know it would be inflammatory, but I can think of an extremely provocative Google doodle "cartoon" that would put the cat amongst the pigions and make a statement about Google's position on free speech in this particular matter.

If a cartoon puts Google employees in a position where they could be targeted by threats or violence, it would be an awful move.

Agree. Charlie Hebdo was a small shop. Everyone understood what was happening and had visibility into what was going to be done. Charlie Hebdo could take risks with its team because they were so close to each other. Google's senior management taking that decision on behalf of its vast and global team may be less tenable.

There's already an Isis message published to their followers to find and kill staff of another Silicon Valley tech giant for percieved slights. So the threat wouldn't be new, but taking a stand publicly would.

It would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention.

You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". You are suggesting that free speech should not be exercised if there is any threat or violence. That is not free speech.

> You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation".

It's not "giving in" when you would never do something like that in the first place (without the threat of violence). It's just continuing to not do it.

Free speech doesn't require antagonizing anyone. I don't advocate censoring ourselves out of fear, but I wouldn't defend sticking our tongues out at a bully, even if we're on the moral high ground. We would be better served by expressing ourselves in ways that promote understanding other cultures, not widening the divide between them.

Google's homepage isn't a satire magazine, and this would affect users who had no hand in these events. I don't think an escalation of adversity like that would be productive.

The right to free speech doesn't justify bad manners.

> The right to free speech doesn't justify bad manners.

Yet it protects your rights to have bad manners.

> Yet it protects your rights to have bad manners.

Absolutely.

Here's my idle thoughts, more broadly: I'm not a Muslim. I'm very wary of a breakdown in empathy towards Muslims. There's 1.5 billion of them on our planet, and any outcome other than figuring out how to continue to live together on it seems bleak and undesirable. It's easier to have a dialog with someone (even to the point of changing their minds) if you can be bothered to think a little about how their upbringing and the parameters of their situation affect them, and how those find expression in their lives - what drives their decisions, how they wind up ranking and navigating the same basic human desires we share.

Putting that cartoon on Google's homepage, to me, would be giving up on that, being lazy and picking sides. It's admitting defeat by deciding the world is simpler to act in if we don't bother to understand it.

It also makes it harder for people in bridging positions to function as a channel for this dialog. The bilinguals, the overseas students, that interact with friends and family, that try to explain but end up having to justify cold shoulders.

Check out some indie student music from Arabic countries some time. There's some on YouTube with English translations. Notice all the grappling with their own religion they do, or with gender roles in their society. These aren't dumb, unaware people.

Heck, they're even capable and appreciative of good satire.

Great response. It takes a strong person to be empathetic and rational in these situations and not just seek out revenge by whatever (even non-violent) means.

But I guess people will always look to the easy and emotional options. Which explains a lot of the 'how' in the 'how we got to this point' question - on both sides.

I've read two responses to these events that nicely cover this question from what amount to opposite sides, although the distance between them is small:

1) Ross Douthat in the NYT, saying "In this sense, many of the Western voices criticizing the editors of Hebdo have had things exactly backward: Whether it’s the Obama White House or Time Magazine in the past or the Financial Times and (God help us) the Catholic League today, they’ve criticized the paper for provoking violence by being needlessly offensive and 'inflammatory' (Jay Carney’s phrase), when the reality is that it’s precisely the violence that justifies the inflammatory content." http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we...

2) This piece by Juan Cole: "Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination." http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-sa...

While I appreciate what Cole is saying, I come down on Douthat's side. When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... secondary.

So I personally think that "escalating" by making more fun of murderous nutjobs is a pretty good move to make, even if it will be offensive to some less murderous people, because making fun of and belittling hateful murderers is more important to me just now than not giving offense: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704

That said, I'm just as happy for Google to stay on the side of good taste. There are sound business reasons for doing so, and they have absolutely no obligation to piss off 20% of the world's population, even granted that almost 100% of that 20% are as peaceful as anyone else. It shouldn't be fear that stops them, but good business sense.

“When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... secondary.”

Of course that is secondary. That much is obvious. It is a pointless distraction to even argue about that and it’s very questionable to even put the murder and the content even into the same context. That just does not compute. Those are emphatically and obviously not two sides of some issue or some bullshit like that.

However, I personally would make the editorial decision to not republish the cartoons because I find them to be in bad taste and quite racist and that’s that (that’s my quick and dirty assessment of them – I do not have to make those editorial decisions so I didn’t research this issue exhaustively and I could very well be wrong; please take this as my provisional opinion and just run with the hypothetical here). That would be the reason for me personally to decide that way, definitely not the murder.

How is free speech defended by me publishing something I do not like? That’s just a very confusing stance on this.

"Je suis Charlie" is on the homepage of https://www.google.fr/

Not for me (UK)

You probably need to set the language to French.

That was it; thanks.

Are you actually going to google.fr or google.co.uk?

There is also a black ribbon on some other Google homepages. The black ribbon has been displayed in the light of similar events before.

Je suis Charlie: https://www.google.com/images/hpp/jesuischarlie68x68.png

Black ribbon: https://www.google.com/images/icons/hpcg/ribbon-black_68.png

Wonderful.

What a tragedy. While there are many tragedies happening recently, it's great to see how the world reacted to this, but still underscores how poorly the world reacts to other incidents like the recent slaughter of 2,000 people in Africa by Boko Haram.

The "world" as most people on HN define it consists of the more stabilized parts of the Earth, perhaps because the participants in both HN and media come from those parts. So, I'll hazard a guess that the "world" cares more about French editors being slaughtered because it brings the violence uncomfortably close to home. Also, perhaps more people of the "world" can relate to the French editors than poor African villagers.

It's a sad state to be sure. Until we have some kind of common ground, it is harder to feel empathy. I will admit that I was much more shocked by this attack than the slaughter that you mention, which I even now know little about.

People don't really care about fighting extremism, they just want to be right.

The whole things is just a charade. Not because we suddenly want to stand up for free speech and civil rights. But because we are so terribly afraid of being just as wrong as the extremists. That we would know of, if not instigated, the terrible faith of hundreds of thousands of muslims in the last decade and didn't really do anything about it.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. As I get older, I get pretty depressed about certain aspects of the state of the world. I have three kids, and I want them to experience the wonderment and beauty of the world that I saw growing up.

France has been a Google v. the traditional press ground zero for some time [1]. One hopes the press will react to Google's gracious move positively. I expect denouncements.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/france-goo...

I would be incredibly shocked and surprised if the French press had anything negative at all to say about this. This seems to be a time of solidarity in the French press and they'll be welcoming any and all support.

The Guardian has announced that they are donating £100k to Charlie Hebdo [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/553298181568884737

You can also subscribe to the magazine in the US through Amazon, although it's $186.25 a year: http://amzn.to/17n94Hc

I think we all agree that this support is very heartwarming and meaningful but also makes one think who's donating to all the drone strike victims for whom not only freedom of expression but freedom is existence is continually threatened?

I agree that empathy is obviously not a zero sum game but find that it's also unfortunate that the media's subtle nudge on public sentiment is tipping an already unbalanced situation into more unbalance.

Google could of course also put one of Charlie's "controversial" cartoons on its front page. The one with Mohammed crying and saying "it is hard to be loved by idiots" seems relevant.

No?

This is how censorship works: the threat of violence already limits what even the biggest and strongest "champion of free speech" can do.

Why don't you start by posting it on your Twitter stream?

Because I am not Charlie. I don't have that courage.

C'mon, its easy!

http://a54.idata.over-blog.com/3/88/02/15/2010-101112/charli...

Note: please direct all death threats to my uni email.

Not sure if that is wise :-/

Ah yea, good point. Use garrettgrimsley@gmail. The uni email notifies me each time I get an email from an address on my spam list, which soundly defeats the purpose of the spam list!

Url changed from http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-donating..., which points to this.

No-one deserves death or prison for speech/art.

That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world.

I don't get the point of satire. It just makes people who already agree pat themselves on the back and the people you are mocking will double down to spite you. It's not intellectually clever, it is just bullying in another form.

You want people to change without war, then you need dialog. Satire is not dialog, it is a one-way street.

Some people are swayed by rational argument and some are not.

Some people are swayed by emotional argument and some are not.

Some people are swayed by satire and some are not.

Satire, it general, is not intended for the people being satirized, it's intended to enlighten the audience about the true nature of those being satirized.

This satire, in particular, was meant to illustrate to the French audience that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Islam already knows that it is not.

Just because you, personally, seem confused by satire to the point of bewilderment and anger doesn't mean satire is not an effective tool in convincing others on important topics and issues.

See how we are having a conversation and you are trying to convince me of something?

I have to believe that is the best way to make the world work eventually, or at least get people to stop killing each other.

If I was to then start calling you names or mocking what you hold dear, the outcome is guaranteed to end badly.

Now if you are saying satire is the way give the non-deep thinking third-parties cartoons like people read the funny-pages, I still do not see how that solves anything. If the cartoon is what it takes to make them grasp something then you are not dealing with something rational.

There's good satire. Religious even ,it can even be blasphemous and it will all be a non religious person being non religious-sy.

But inciting people and/or depicting people as terrorist only ends up bad and nothing's good ever comes out of it .

> That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world.

Nothing is sacred,that's the positive change to the world. Everybody will have, sooner or later, to acknowledge the fact that religions are no different from fairy tails.

If we are going to dismember religions, let's first start with the largest that has done the most damage across the entire world. Then we can work our way down the list.

and which one would it be? islam and christianity are pretty much on part when it comes to body count.Do you think muslims converted whole parts of the world peacefully?

Interesting figure. In Google-land, why $300K and not $1M?

I don't want to say that it's not a lot of money, I'm just wondering how someone arrived at this sum.

You can ask that question about any sum, making the answer "why not 300K?"

It's €250,000 ($296,000).

As I understood the article's implication here, the objective is to help the magazine accomplish it's impending much larger print run and cover expenses related to that, so perhaps the sum was negotiated along practical rather than symbolic concerns. Which would make sense since it's the easiest to explain and justify.

Possibly some combination of taxes and internal company policy? ie, they have $x they donate per year, and can get a $y tax write off for donating to a company/non-profit(?) in another country, so they donate $300,000.

Probably:

"We were given a budget of $2m in this department ("innovative press" etc). We want to fund this other N projects in 2015, what can we give to Charlie?"

I think it's to cover the costs of Charlie printing a million copies of the next edition rather than the usual 60,000.

Charlie Hebdo was going under. They'd already made a call for donation in November.

It's not Google directly. Google finance a fund for press innovation (IIRC, that was set up to settle some trial). This found decide to match the 250,000 euros donate by some french press association to arrive to a total of 500,000 euros. (Can't find the article I read this afternoon right now. I'll edit when I found the source.)

The money is needed to be able to print 1 million issues of Charlie Hebdo for next week instead of the usual 60,000. To publish, whatever happened/happens.

Je suis Charlie.

translation: "I'm Charlie"

And the slogan of solidarity to the victims of the tragedy, for the unaware.

None of you are Charlie. You did not stand up to firebombs and death threats and keep on working.

You're not Charlie, sorry. And neither am I.

Perhaps you don't understand what solidarity means. You don't literally have to be the same as the person in order to believe in what they stood for.

Clearly you've never seen Spartacus

Thanks, I am the unaware!

Nous sommes tous Charlie

"We are not all Charlie. Much of Europe, which, as a political entity, is not fully grappling with the totalitarian madness of Islamism, is not Charlie. Certainly much of journalism is not Charlie. Any outlet that censors Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of fear of Islamist reprisal is not Charlie. To publish the cartoons now is a necessary, but only moderately brave, act. Please remember: Even after Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011, it continued to publish rude and funny satires mocking the essential ridiculousness of the Islamist worldview. That represented a genuine display of bravery. CNN, the Associated Press, and the many other media organizations that are cowering before the threat of totalitarian violence represent something other than bravery."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/we-...

Je suis Charlie: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704

If you're not, too bad. But all you have to do is stand up. You can do it whenever you want, however you want, but you can always do it.

Islamists are consistently in the running for stupidest worldwide, they are their own worst enemy. They seriously could not be more damaging to their cause. Pretending that these acts have nothing to do with Islam will be the death of the left and The National Front are now electable.

It's awful what happened to them . But they are racist/bigot cartoonists . Imagine if someone attacked Rush Limbaugh it would be bad for freedom of speech but it won't change that he's a bad person like these cartoonist.

Here are those girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wj8pQ_7T...

here is black Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2Ea5CAgX...

Freedom of speech and all that stuff ,but these people are awful

> But they are racist

And you're lying

If you can categorically say they didn't draw those cartoons ie a black person as a monkey , Then yes I'd wrong .

The symbol on the left is the logo of Front national and the text says something in the lines of "Racist Assembly". I don't speak French but I think you might be missing something, sir.

They did this cartoon to denounce the way the French Minister of Justice was mocked in some conservative demonstrations around marriage equality and access to assisted procreative technologies as a monkey. People were shouting "Taubira (the minister's name), eat your banana" at these demonstrations, and this cartoon denounces that. The name is even a wordplay on the name of the French main far-right party.

I can categorically say that you're cherry picking images and omitting context. Basically, trolling.

Can you guess what the word "raciste" in that image means?

The drawing is a reference to a nationalist leader comparing a black minister to a monkey. There's a reference to the "rassemblement bleu marine", coined in reference to current nationalist leader marine le pen, transformed into a gathering of racists through charlie's game on words. Also the logo at the right bottom of the picture is that of the nationalist party

As always, taking writings or caricatures out of context is not only lying but also potentially dangerous. Charlie is not racist, nor violent. Please use some critical thinking before calling people or institutions racist (or any other adjective)

I think this one of those let's agree to disagree moment .

I know of that context and I still drawing a black person as a monkey is racist.

Charlie Hebdo is notoriously against the Front National and Marine Le Pen and has made tons of satire against them.

It's totally wrong to say they would do any caricature to support any of their theses.

This is misinformation and lack of context that have you talking here ...

And a muddle of confirmation bias added to sunk cost fallacy for refusing to admit one's first assumption is incorrect.

In the USA this is called "hipster racism" where you re-use racist slurs or caricatures to make a point about racism. But some feel that this is still unacceptable because the propagation of the racist imagery still hurts. I am not black but I suspect a black person may still take offense to the imagery of a black person as a monkey.

All black persons look like monkeys, said a crazy fascist french politician.

By writing "All black persons look like monkeys", can I be qualified as a racist myself ? My point is that the only to write about racism is also to define it, and to write the ideas it "defends". The same way, the only to draw about racism is to actually draw racism. The context is what makes the difference between a racist drawing something racist and someone drawing racism to criticize it. Forgetting, or missing or removing the context is exactly what extremists do. I'm deeply troubled by the fact that you (or anyone) would so quickly consider to "agree to disagree" in such a sensitive and important issue, to be honest.

I would definitely agree that monkey part of the drawing is racist, but the context should be enough to convince you that the drawing itself is not. The drawing can be shocking, but that's a whole different issue that has nothing to do with the alleged racism of its author, only to do with the sensitivity of the reader (you and I, here). Shocking is one of the definitions of charlie hebdo

Poe's law in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Well... Considering the word racist is thrown around so easily it's debatable when it can be applied to whom.

What we do know is that they were purposely offensive, even in the fact of possible threats.

That means they maybe lacked judgement or respect or other things.

Orthogonal to that, we have the ideal expectation that one should be able to write/draw absolutely everything without being punished with violence.

Of course, that should apply to speech no matter what the issue and, sometimes, it seems that "freedom of speech" or its prosecution is decided based on who the governments consider the enemy.

Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increas...

So, blame the victim?

Nobody here is suggesting they deserved getting murdered (or that they had it coming). The pushback is against the voices turning them into heroes or champions of free speech. They're not. They're people with stupid racist opinions who nonetheless had every right to voice those opinions.

We must condemn the murderers but we don't need to endorse or ally ourselves with the publication. Most people who repeat the "We are charlie" slogan are probably not aware of the publication's racist history.

I suppose that you will provide proof of that racism don't you?

It's not necessary to agree with 100% of a publication to sympathize with one of their positions. It is not necessary to disclaim all their past transgressions (as distasteful as they may be) before supporting them in the wake of this massacre.

You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."

Thank you for saying this. I agree. I don't agree with violence against the Westboro Baptist Church for the "God Hates F*s" protests at military funerals, but if they were attacked I'm not going to go so far as to say, "I am the WBC". It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda.

All one needs to do is enter "Charlie Hebdo" in Google Image Search. It is offensive stuff, and pushes beyond the limits (at least my limits) of parody/common decency. I would be ashamed to publish it or have my name on the masthead. I am against violence. I am for freedom of expression. It does not follow that I am for Charlie Hebdo.

Um, there's a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo and the Westboro Baptist Church.

To try to repair your analogy, what if the Westboro Baptist Church were to demonstrate a lot of redeeming qualities like actively opposing right-wing reactionaries, crazy leftist social graft, and (of course) radical religions? What if they were to spend most of their time exposing issues that seriously deserve ridicule, and God Hates F@s was an occasional anomaly, a result of pushing the limits too far? (I never read CH so I don't know how anomalous it is. I do know this though: google image search can be pure selection bias and is definitely not a good way to get a feel for the magazine as a whole)

I personally dislike like Charlie Hebdo the same way I dislike like Benny Hill. The occasional mild laugh just isn't worth the tedium and distaste. (and this goes for other BDs like Fluide Glacial, L'Écho, the whole style)

So, I'm not for Charlie Hebdo either, but I'm very happy to see the outpouring of support. It's clear what people mean when they say je suis charlie -- no need to parse and overanalyze it.

It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda.

Who exactly are you talking about?

No. I was trying to approach this in a more, let's say, egalitarian put-myself-in-others-position way, considering why we (the western world) react more strongly to this horrific event and ignore others.

But I find it really tough to write about it and usually refrain so (long talks are better because one can moderate the speech and clear misunderstandings right away).

Your answer that accuses/asks me if I'm blaming the victim showcases this.

I very clearly wrote

    Orthogonal to that

to showcase that I was pointing facts and that they didn't justify violence against them in any way and that everyone should have the right to speak without fear of violence (in all subjects, not just religious satires, which is why I posed the Glenn Greenwald article I felt relevant, did you read it?).

They can be racist (not saying they are since, as I said, it's a heavily politicized word that loses meaning easily) and that doesn't make them acceptable targets. The same goes for Neo Nazis, KKK members, people who say we Iran should be bombed, people who say USA should be bombed (funnily enough, these people might get prosecuted and jailed, see article), etc.

I might have written more than it's prudent and might have been all over the place. I'm sorry, it's late.

If something feels off, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification.

> And you're lying

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, even when somebody says something false.

They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed. They criticized and made fun of misbehaviors in religious practices (like fanatics, people using their power, etc.). They had lawiers of North Africa origins (even though atheists) when they went to court because of drawings with Mahomet.

They most certainly used racist caricatures on a consistent basis. Of course it's tragic (and completely unacceptable) when people use violence to silence speech, but let's not whitewash Charlie Hebdo's islamophobic tendencies.

For a more detailed argument see for instance this article:

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-char...

That article is nonsensical.

Someone calling racism this:

"Even in a fresh-off-the-press, glowing BBC profile of Charb, Hebdo’s murdered editor, he comes across as a racist asshole.

Charb had strongly defended Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he told the Associated Press in 2012, after the magazine’s offices had been fire-bombed.

“I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Koranic law.” "

is someone that doesn't know anything about racism

And the "welfare queens" quote is really funny

>They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed.

I'm guessing you didn't really check carefully. They do mock Islam (and Judaism), and also publish flat-out racist cartoons. They're not mutually exclusive. They publish a lot of offensive cartoons, like the one linked to by the OP depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens. They should be free to do that without getting murdered by fanatics.

> and also publish flat-out racist cartoons

Then it will be easy to provide proof of that, isn't?

The one with the racist stereotype caricatures of pregnant women enslaved by Boko Haram saying "don't touch our welfare" seems pretty racist to me (the lame French play on words about child-benefits/wefare is revoltingly callous and mean-spirited). The huge-nosed Jews they feature with discussing Jews are completely racist as well.

Perhaps you lack the context of that image but it is not racist, the contrary, they are criticising Boko Haram AND the French right wing anti immigrant.

And now you will say that when they parody the rural French they are also racists.

And the Jews?

Are you aware that they use stereotypes to make the parody?

Perhaps also you will find racist the caricature of Le Pen as a pig

>Are you aware that they use stereotypes to make the parody?

Yes, I see what they are doing. It's actually very common to use racist stereotypes in parody and satire. It's also still totally racist to draw huge nosed Jews (and huge-lipped black people). Drawing huge-nosed Jews in the context of criticizing Jews might be parody, but it's not some subtle ironic parody of right-wing ignorance, it's just a crass racist joke.

Yes, and drawing pictures of Spanish as toreros is racists, and drawing pictures of French as cheese eaters is racist.

Everything is racist in some minds even if the people drawing those pictures are part of Non Racist organisations.

I did not had to check anything as I had read the newspaper. They do not mock the religions themselves but the way people practice their religion.

> But they are racist/bigot cartoonists .

Even if this would be true, this is still no excuse for killing peoples. In no way there could be any excuse for such a awful terror act.

yeah ,I phrased that wrongly .

Acceptable responses include:

  - laughter
  - eye rolling
  - calling them assholes
  - shunning people that enjoy the toons
  - holding a protest and claiming they'll all go to hell
  - etc

Unacceptable responses include:

  - shouting religious slogans while executing cartoonists

Given that freedom of speech is paramount, I think that the only way this is relevant is that it makes "je suis Charlie" a questionable slogan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com