Charlie Hebdo prints "offensive" images - again

[Calladan]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/charlie-h ... s-6696745/

Apparently the magazine that was the target of terror attacks a few years ago for printing "satirical" images of a religious icon (The Prophet Mohammed) has now gone after another target - Theresa May and the victims of the London Bridge terror attack.

So while apparently freedom of speech extends to mocking one of the most sacred and revered figures in a religion that quite a few people dislike and hate, a lot of people don't think it extends to mocking the Prime Minister of Britain and victims of terror attacks because the response to this has been almost universally negative (based on the comments in the article at least).

For me, if you are going to allow religious figures to be mocked - figures that clearly mean a great deal to hundreds of millions of people all over the world - then I would say anyone is fair game. And while it might not be to your taste, you really have very little right to complain or demand for action to be taken. (And - to be fair - they don't appear to be doing that, but still). I would say Theresa May is fair game, although I would also say victims of terror are not, but that is just my view - maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't think they should apologise, given that they didn't apologise for their cartoons in the previous instance.

Has Charlie gone too far? Should they apologise to London? To May?

[Neo Balka]

Buisness as usual for the Magazine.

What the brits going to do, have the RAF bomb them?

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's interesting to see the opinion of Charlie Hebdo morph from "they're heroes of comedy and satire" to "they're a bunch of assholes who happened to piss off the wrong people once". It's almost like they're completely tasteless.

[Great Nepal]

I've not seen anyone calling for legal action against the paper merely criticizing its depiction; the paper's depiction was offensive but they have full right to print it - criticizing the paper for printing an offensive content and defending freedom of press/speech aren't mutually exclusive positions. Indeed people have the right to complain about printing offensive content as the paper has to print them - problem with the Mohammed depiction wasn't that it was criticized by Muslims but the fact that someone engaged in act of violence due to it.

[Thanatttynia]

This is their thing. I don't find much of what they do (in particular these images) funny but the point is they take the piss out of everything, no matter how sacred - Muhammad or victims of terrorism. Those who defended their depiction of Muhammad after they were attacked in 2015 shouldn't find any distinction here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Isn't that their whole schtick? Just kinda being assholes?

Doesn't really bother me, more power to em.

[Thermodolia]

Isn't that their whole schtick? Just kinda being assholes?

Doesn't really bother me, more power to em.

Yup that's their entire thing

[Nova Stephania]

I don't see anything in the cartoon that implies it is mocking the victims of the attack. To me at least it quite clearly seems to be mocking our government (represented by its leader) and our policy of multiculturalism (pretty much explicitly stated), but while I disagree with the message and don't personally find it amusing I also don't see anything to be particularly offended by. If it were depicting bodies strewn across London Bridge or something that would be completely different.

Edit: One important point I didn't address was my agreement with other posters who say "if it's offensive so what?" I certainly wouldn't advocate any action against them if it were.

[Conserative Morality]

It's interesting to see the opinion of Charlie Hebdo morph from "they're heroes of comedy and satire" to "they're a bunch of assholes who happened to piss off the wrong people once". It's almost like they're completely tasteless.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A hero is only ever a hero in the moment and in the memory.

[Donut section]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/charlie-hebdo-beheads-theresa-may-and-mocks-london-bridge-terror-victims-6696745/

Apparently the magazine that was the target of terror attacks a few years ago for printing "satirical" images of a religious icon (The Prophet Mohammed) has now gone after another target - Theresa May and the victims of the London Bridge terror attack.

So while apparently freedom of speech extends to mocking one of the most sacred and revered figures in a religion that quite a few people dislike and hate, a lot of people don't think it extends to mocking the Prime Minister of Britain and victims of terror attacks because the response to this has been almost universally negative (based on the comments in the article at least).

For me, if you are going to allow religious figures to be mocked - figures that clearly mean a great deal to hundreds of millions of people all over the world - then I would say anyone is fair game. And while it might not be to your taste, you really have very little right to complain or demand for action to be taken. (And - to be fair - they don't appear to be doing that, but still). I would say Theresa May is fair game, although I would also say victims of terror are not, but that is just my view - maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't think they should apologise, given that they didn't apologise for their cartoons in the previous instance.

Has Charlie gone too far? Should they apologise to London? To May?

Print what they want, everyone is fair game.

[Risottia]

It's interesting to see the opinion of Charlie Hebdo morph from "they're heroes of comedy and satire" to "they're a bunch of assholes who happened to piss off the wrong people once". It's almost like they're completely tasteless.

They also took potshots at the victims of the Italian quakes.

So fucking what. Cry me a river, if you don't like their humour just don't buy their product.

[Greed and Death]

This is their thing. I don't find much of what they do (in particular these images) funny but the point is they take the piss out of everything, no matter how sacred - Muhammad or victims of terrorism. Those who defended their depiction of Muhammad after they were attacked in 2015 shouldn't find any distinction here.

You can defend something as a matter of free speech but object to it as a trashy use of free speech.

The Muhammad cartoon as well as other images fits this description.

[Greed and Death]

It's interesting to see the opinion of Charlie Hebdo morph from "they're heroes of comedy and satire" to "they're a bunch of assholes who happened to piss off the wrong people once". It's almost like they're completely tasteless.

They also took potshots at the victims of the Italian quakes.

So fucking what. Cry me a river, if you don't like their humour just don't buy their product.

I am sure we could come to terms with the Mafia, after all isn't the name from "Morte Alla Francia, Italia Avanti".

[USS Monitor]

People do have a right to complain. Freedom of speech allows publication of offensive cartoons, but it also allows people the right to complain about said cartoons.

I don't think the cartoonists or publishers should be punished. Charlie Hebdo can apologize or not, as they see fit.

[Frank Zipper]

I don't care. Never even seen a copy of the magazine.

[Philjia]

Charlie Hebdo largely publishes crass rubbish that in an insult to the fine art of the satirical cartoon.

They just shouldn't be shot for it.

[Chestaan]

They're assholes. What they are doing is legal, but that doesn't mean that they are any less assholes and it definitely doesn't mean that reasonable people aren't allowed call them out for the cunts they are. People seem to forget that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

[Sovaal]

Ok, and how is this news worthy?

[Chestaan]

Perhaps in response someone could create a cartoon mocking the Charlie Hebdo massacre victims? Only a joke afterall...

[Olerand]

If they have violated the law, then they will be taken to court. Otherwise, that's freedom of expression.

Theresa May shouldn't send hitmen to kill what's left of them, that much is an assured no-no.

[Risottia]

They also took potshots at the victims of the Italian quakes.

So fucking what. Cry me a river, if you don't like their humour just don't buy their product.

I am sure we could come to terms with the Mafia, after all isn't the name from "Morte Alla Francia, Italia Avanti".

(that's actually a myth)

[Risottia]

They're assholes. What they are doing is legal, but that doesn't mean that they are any less assholes and it definitely doesn't mean that reasonable people aren't allowed call them out for the cunts they are. People seem to forget that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

That said I don't see CH complaining back.

Most likely they will just publish more comics about May and that will be it.

[USS Monitor]

Perhaps in response someone could create a cartoon mocking the Charlie Hebdo massacre victims? Only a joke afterall...

They'd probably accept, "It was a joke," as an excuse.

[Olerand]

They're assholes. What they are doing is legal, but that doesn't mean that they are any less assholes and it definitely doesn't mean that reasonable people aren't allowed call them out for the cunts they are. People seem to forget that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

That said I don't see CH complaining back.

Most likely they will just publish more comics about May and that will be it.

When has anyone even objected to when people just don't *like* CH?

People objected when people were defending their slaughter (if not plainly, then by making pathetic excuses). Quite a difference.

[Lady Scylla]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/charlie-hebdo-beheads-theresa-may-and-mocks-london-bridge-terror-victims-6696745/

Apparently the magazine that was the target of terror attacks a few years ago for printing "satirical" images of a religious icon (The Prophet Mohammed) has now gone after another target - Theresa May and the victims of the London Bridge terror attack.

So while apparently freedom of speech extends to mocking one of the most sacred and revered figures in a religion that quite a few people dislike and hate, a lot of people don't think it extends to mocking the Prime Minister of Britain and victims of terror attacks because the response to this has been almost universally negative (based on the comments in the article at least).

For me, if you are going to allow religious figures to be mocked - figures that clearly mean a great deal to hundreds of millions of people all over the world - then I would say anyone is fair game. And while it might not be to your taste, you really have very little right to complain or demand for action to be taken. (And - to be fair - they don't appear to be doing that, but still). I would say Theresa May is fair game, although I would also say victims of terror are not, but that is just my view - maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't think they should apologise, given that they didn't apologise for their cartoons in the previous instance.

Has Charlie gone too far? Should they apologise to London? To May?

Offensive and distasteful, but let them print it if they want.