[UPDATE] Charlie Hebdo targeted AGAIN

[Insaanistan]

Just to be clear, I don't believe Insaanistan is a full-blown neo-Nazi, fascist, and traitor who should be told to leave America and never come back. But declaring "free speech for me but not for thee", siding with terrorists, and telling Charlie Hebdo to STFU is definitely not a good look. Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of American values. You either support free speech all the time and uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't support it and therefore declare your opposition to the American way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it. Insaanistan must decide here and now whose side he is on. There is no middle ground.

Considering I have free speech, I have every legal right and moral right to tell the cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo to shut up. They have the legal (though not moral) right to keep this cartoon. Also, Free speech is very limited. Don’t believe me? Hop over to the US and yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Then the police will gladly arrange for your private escort to their car and you can tell them all about “freedom of speech”.

[Asle Leopolka]

Just to be clear, I don't believe Insaanistan is a full-blown neo-Nazi, fascist, and traitor who should be told to leave America and never come back. But declaring "free speech for me but not for thee", siding with terrorists, and telling Charlie Hebdo to STFU is definitely not a good look. Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of American values. You either support free speech all the time and uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't support it and therefore declare your opposition to the American way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it. Insaanistan must decide here and now whose side he is on. There is no middle ground.

Considering I have free speech, I have every legal right and moral right to tell the cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo to shut up. They have the legal (though not moral) right to keep this cartoon. Also, Free speech is very limited. Don’t believe me? Hop over to the US and yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Then the police will gladly arrange for your private escort to their car and you can tell them all about “freedom of speech”.

That's not free speech, though. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticize, critique, and yell "fuck you" to government, religion, businesses, and other institutions.

Me saying "Allah is not real and your religion is bullshit" is free speech because your feeling being hurt doesn't cause downstream problems to society. Yelling "fire" in a building that will incite panic and lead to others damaging property, physically harming themselves in the process, and calling emergency services and wasting their time is not free speech.

[Insaanistan]

Considering I have free speech, I have every legal right and moral right to tell the cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo to shut up. They have the legal (though not moral) right to keep this cartoon. Also, Free speech is very limited. Don’t believe me? Hop over to the US and yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Then the police will gladly arrange for your private escort to their car and you can tell them all about “freedom of speech”.

That's not free speech, though. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticize, critique, and yell "fuck you" to government, religion, businesses, and other institutions.

Me saying "Allah is not real and your religion is bullshit" is free speech because your feeling being hurt doesn't cause downstream problems to society. Yelling "fire" in a building that will incite panic and lead to others damaging property, physically harming themselves in the process, and calling emergency services and wasting their time is not free speech.

Saying you don’t believe in my faith is something I hear regularly. Heck, I’m 14 and people have tried to convert me to Christianity three times! However, what Charlie Hebdo did is also something I have the right to speak against. And the example I gave is literally a textbook example of why free speech is limited that I have read several times in my life and have been told about by a lawyer.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Fix is a funny way of saying "Embrace Sharia", wouldn't you say?

Islam literally forbids me from forcing shariā on anyone. But did you know that the country that has the most Islamic government is New Zealand? No, they aren’t bowing down to Muslim demands, is just Islamic law isn’t actually “Oppress women, murder all the gays, kill all the non-Muslims.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... Vei_z1BIEU

As the Qur’ân said in God’s first revelation to Muhammad (pbuh): “Read in the name of thy lord who created.”

Someone must have forgotten to tell ISIL members that, as they have been doing just that for decades now across multiple countries.

[Insaanistan]

Islam literally forbids me from forcing shariā on anyone. But did you know that the country that has the most Islamic government is New Zealand? No, they aren’t bowing down to Muslim demands, is just Islamic law isn’t actually “Oppress women, murder all the gays, kill all the non-Muslims.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... Vei_z1BIEU

As the Qur’ân said in God’s first revelation to Muhammad (pbuh): “Read in the name of thy lord who created.”

Someone must have forgotten to tell ISIL members that, as they have been doing just that for decades now across multiple countries.

Statistically, young people who join ISIS often weren’t really educated religiously at home, hence why telling them the Qur’ân says what it does not say is pretty easy. Also, Muhammad (pbuh) predicted “Islamist” terrorists and warned never to join them.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Someone must have forgotten to tell ISIL members that, as they have been doing just that for decades now across multiple countries.

Statistically, young people who join ISIS often weren’t really educated religiously at home, hence why telling them the Qur’ân says what it does not say is pretty easy. Also, Muhammad (pbuh) predicted “Islamist” terrorists and warned never to join them.

Huh...must not be a very convincing prophet if even the "True Believers" are ignoring his warnings.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Based.

I fully support this.

[Whitemore]

Statistically, young people who join ISIS often weren’t really educated religiously at home, hence why telling them the Qur’ân says what it does not say is pretty easy. Also, Muhammad (pbuh) predicted “Islamist” terrorists and warned never to join them.

Huh...must not be a very convincing prophet if even the "True Believers" are ignoring his warnings.

If you remember that every Religion has radicals who ignore some of their own Faith's Rules, then it wouldn't be as surprising.

[Insaanistan]

Statistically, young people who join ISIS often weren’t really educated religiously at home, hence why telling them the Qur’ân says what it does not say is pretty easy. Also, Muhammad (pbuh) predicted “Islamist” terrorists and warned never to join them.

Huh...must not be a very convincing prophet if even the "True Believers" are ignoring his warnings.

Pretty much no one thinks of them as true believers except ISIS members. Also, not everyone knows everything. Also, his job was to teach us Islam for us to follow. Whether we listen is up to us.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Just to be clear, I don't believe Insaanistan is a full-blown neo-Nazi, fascist, and traitor who should be told to leave America and never come back. But declaring "free speech for me but not for thee", siding with terrorists, and telling Charlie Hebdo to STFU is definitely not a good look. Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of American values. You either support free speech all the time and uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't support it and therefore declare your opposition to the American way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it. Insaanistan must decide here and now whose side he is on. There is no middle ground.

Considering I have free speech, I have every legal right and moral right to tell the cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo to shut up. They have the legal (though not moral) right to keep this cartoon. Also, Free speech is very limited. Don’t believe me? Hop over to the US and yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Then the police will gladly arrange for your private escort to their car and you can tell them all about “freedom of speech”.

You have every right to tell Charlie Hebdo to STFU by protesting about it. I have every right to disagree and call you out on your hypocrisy.

You have no idea what actual suppression of free speech entails. Alister Cogia, a Malaysian from my home state of Sarawak, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for "insulting Islam", later reduced to 6 years on appeal. He's not Muslim so sharia clearly wasn't supposed to apply to him, but the officially secular Civil Code contains a number of ridiculous laws and statutes that restrict freedom of speech, most notably the Sedition Act. Such laws have been abused by Malay-Muslim politicians pandering to a Muslim fundamentalist lynch mob to effectively enforce the Islamic blasphemy law on non-Muslims via the backdoor, something that is supposedly against Islamic principles according to some. To this day, we still don't know exactly what Cogia wrote about Islam that was so offensive and dangerous as to merit 11 years in prison. Who did he hurt other than the feelings of some fundamentalist snowflakes?

We also have Hong Kong, where I'm originally from. Here, burning the Chinese flag and "disrespecting" the Chinese national anthem are considered to be even worse than savagely beating protesters in the streets and commuters in the subway en masse with total impunity. All this over a piece of cloth, a song, and a book that was published about the extravagant lifestyle of the Chinese president and his family. This is ridiculous.

Why should hurt feelings dictate the legal outcome, or in your case, the moral validity, of a cartoon on a piece of paper that no one is being forced to look at? It seems to me that those who would riot and murder over a cartoon could've simply looked away or, you know, not sought it out in the first place. The only ones yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are the imams and clerics inciting Muslims the world over into a mindless frenzy of bloodlust, not the cartoonists.

Why should Charlie Hebdo submit to the rioters, murderers, and terrorists? Why should any of us surrender to violence designed specifically to silence us and intimidate us into submission? Why let these extremists win? And what makes you think your fellow Muslims are so dumb as not to know any better and their feelings need to be appeased? This is what liberal Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz has termed the bigotry of low expectations. Muslims should be held to the same moral standard as everyone else. Charlie Hebdo shouldn't be told to shut up. (Women shouldn't be told not to "dress provocatively".) Muslim rioters should be told not to riot. (Men should be told not to rape.) This is the rape analogy I'm referring to here.

I, for one, will NEVER surrender to hatred, bigotry, and violence borne out of hurt feelings. I stand with Charlie Hebdo against religious bigotry and intolerance.

[The Hindustani State]

I would be angry too if someone mocked our Hindu gods like Lord Ganesh, but I would not riot over it. Why Muslims are always being violent over things like this on every country?

[Punished UMN]

Just to be clear, I don't believe Insaanistan is a full-blown neo-Nazi, fascist, and traitor who should be told to leave America and never come back. But declaring "free speech for me but not for thee", siding with terrorists, and telling Charlie Hebdo to STFU is definitely not a good look. Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of American values. You either support free speech all the time and uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't support it and therefore declare your opposition to the American way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it. Insaanistan must decide here and now whose side he is on. There is no middle ground.

Charlie Hebdo does a lot more than shit on terrorists, they also shit on victims of terrorism.

[Ors Might]

Just to be clear, I don't believe Insaanistan is a full-blown neo-Nazi, fascist, and traitor who should be told to leave America and never come back. But declaring "free speech for me but not for thee", siding with terrorists, and telling Charlie Hebdo to STFU is definitely not a good look. Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of American values. You either support free speech all the time and uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't support it and therefore declare your opposition to the American way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it. Insaanistan must decide here and now whose side he is on. There is no middle ground.

Charlie Hebdo does a lot more than shit on terrorists, they also shit on victims of terrorism.

Indeed, they’re a rag that can be, at times, complete cunts. That doesn’t really change anything about the situation.

[State of Turelisa]

That's not free speech, though. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticize, critique, and yell "fuck you" to government, religion, businesses, and other institutions. Me saying "Allah is not real and your religion is bullshit" is free speech because your feeling being hurt doesn't cause downstream problems to society. Yelling "fire" in a building that will incite panic and lead to others damaging property, physically harming themselves in the process, and calling emergency services and wasting their time is not free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to abuse individuals, and it doesn't justify disrespectful behaviour.

[Insaanistan]

I would be angry too if someone mocked our Hindu gods like Lord Ganesh, but I would not riot over it. Why Muslims are always being violent over things like this on every country?

Why do you Hindutva terrorists lynch Indian Muslims for wearing Islamic caps or turbans, eating beef or not saying Jai Sri Ram? Why did Modi take citizenship from millions people (almost all of whom were Muslims) in India, then make a law giving all the non-Muslims citizenship again?

[Ors Might]

That's not free speech, though. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticize, critique, and yell "fuck you" to government, religion, businesses, and other institutions. Me saying "Allah is not real and your religion is bullshit" is free speech because your feeling being hurt doesn't cause downstream problems to society. Yelling "fire" in a building that will incite panic and lead to others damaging property, physically harming themselves in the process, and calling emergency services and wasting their time is not free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to abuse individuals, and it doesn't justify disrespectful behaviour.

Insulting someone’s religion in a comic does not constitute abuse and disrespectful behavior is bot inherently wrong.

[Jedi Council]

That's not free speech, though. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticize, critique, and yell "fuck you" to government, religion, businesses, and other institutions. Me saying "Allah is not real and your religion is bullshit" is free speech because your feeling being hurt doesn't cause downstream problems to society. Yelling "fire" in a building that will incite panic and lead to others damaging property, physically harming themselves in the process, and calling emergency services and wasting their time is not free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to abuse individuals, and it doesn't justify disrespectful behaviour.

Disrespectful behaviour is not a reason for censorship. And being offended by something is not automatically abuse.

[State of Turelisa]

Freedom of speech does not include the right to abuse individuals, and it doesn't justify disrespectful behaviour.

Disrespectful behaviour is not a reason for censorship. And being offended by something is not automatically abuse.

I'm not advocating censorship of criticism of religion. I'm advocating criticism of religion. True criticism is engendered by respect.
What I'm not for is rude, disrespectful and abusive treatment of religions and their adherents and people in general.

[Numerous Currencies]

Charlie Hebdo is one of the many reasons why I started the Elite Region of Global Command, and later, Genua, the first openly declared Islamophobe region of NS. Islam is an intolerant religion with at best medieval virtues. Of course, commies, the bosom friends of ISIS adherents, have taken over my first region .
Commies are also equally to blame for the gross intolerance of Muslims and their disregard for free speech when it comes to their religion. Commies the world over prop up Islamist regimes and feed their monstrous desire for Kafir heads.
I fully agree with the opening post.

[Jedi Council]

Disrespectful behaviour is not a reason for censorship. And being offended by something is not automatically abuse.

I'm not advocating censorship of criticism of religion. I'm advocating criticism of religion. True criticism is engendered by respect.
What I'm not for is rude, disrespectful and abusive treatment of religions and their adherents and people in general.

Again, you do not have to be rude or disrespectful. But you cannot stop others from being rude or disrespectful, if that is how they want to frame their critique.

Likewise, rude, or disrespectful things are not automatically abusive. Elsewise retail employees would be the most abused demographic on earth.

[Insaanistan]

Charlie Hebdo is the one reason why I started the Elite Region of Global Command, and later, Genua, the first openly declared Islamophobe region of NS. Of course, commies, the bosom friends of ISIS adherents, have taken over my region .
Commies are also equally to blame for the gross intolerance of Muslims and their disregard for free speech when it comes to their religion. Commies the world over prop up Islamist regimes and feed their monstrous desire for Kafir heads.
I fully agree with the opening post.

Actually, Muslims are incredibly tolerant. I, for example, tolerate being called a suicide bomber, ISIS member, devil worshipper etc.. The problem isn’t Muslims. The problem is you blaming the acts of a couple thousand on 1.9-2.25 billion.

[Jedi Council]

Charlie Hebdo is the one reason why I started the Elite Region of Global Command, and later, Genua, the first openly declared Islamophobe region of NS. Of course, commies, the bosom friends of ISIS adherents, have taken over my region .
Commies are also equally to blame for the gross intolerance of Muslims and their disregard for free speech when it comes to their religion. Commies the world over prop up Islamist regimes and feed their monstrous desire for Kafir heads.
I fully agree with the opening post.

Actually, Muslims are incredibly tolerant. I, for example, tolerate being called a suicide bomber, ISIS member, devil worshipper etc.. The problem isn’t Muslims. The problem is you blaming the acts of a couple thousand on 1.9-2.25 billion.

I mean, the statement "muslims are tolerant" as if that's an inherent trait is incorrect, just as saying "Americans are tolerant" or any other broad generalization is so often wrong.

You can be a tolerant muslim. You can be tolerant because you are a muslim. But that does not mean muslims are inherently tolerant, no more nor no less than any other religion or creed.

[Insaanistan]

Actually, Muslims are incredibly tolerant. I, for example, tolerate being called a suicide bomber, ISIS member, devil worshipper etc.. The problem isn’t Muslims. The problem is you blaming the acts of a couple thousand on 1.9-2.25 billion.

I mean, the statement "muslims are tolerant" as if that's an inherent trait is incorrect, just as saying "Americans are tolerant" or any other broad generalization is so often wrong.

You can be a tolerant muslim. You can be tolerant because you are a muslim. But that does not mean muslims are inherently tolerant, no more nor no less than any other religion or creed.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but what you to realize is unlike being American, tolerance is something a Muslim must have

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Quran 2:256)

[Asle Leopolka]

Disrespectful behaviour is not a reason for censorship. And being offended by something is not automatically abuse.

I'm not advocating censorship of criticism of religion. I'm advocating criticism of religion. True criticism is engendered by respect.
What I'm not for is rude, disrespectful and abusive treatment of religions and their adherents and people in general.

That was the point - that is freedom of speech, whether you like it or not.

[Jedi Council]

I mean, the statement "muslims are tolerant" as if that's an inherent trait is incorrect, just as saying "Americans are tolerant" or any other broad generalization is so often wrong.

You can be a tolerant muslim. You can be tolerant because you are a muslim. But that does not mean muslims are inherently tolerant, no more nor no less than any other religion or creed.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but what you to realize is unlike being American, tolerance is something a Muslim must have

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Quran 2:256)

Evidently, there are far too many who fail to live up to these ideals, just like in most other religions.