
Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo - greenvaio
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/charlie-hebdo-staff-publish-next-week-1m-print-run
======
NotGoogle
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."

------
themartorana
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.

~~~
blazespin
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.

~~~
rlucas
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressive)

~~~
blazespin
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.

~~~
krschultz
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.

~~~
blazespin
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.

------
junto
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.

~~~
sho_hn
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.

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

Yet it protects your rights to have bad manners.

~~~
sho_hn
> 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.

~~~
dmix
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.

------
moultano
"Je suis Charlie" is on the homepage of
[https://www.google.fr/](https://www.google.fr/)

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Not for me (UK)

~~~
id
You probably need to set the language to French.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
That was it; thanks.

------
samstave
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.

~~~
pm90
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.

~~~
boracay
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.

------
JumpCrisscross
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...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/france-google)

~~~
Ensorceled
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.

------
andyjohnson0
The Guardian has announced that they are donating £100k to Charlie Hebdo [1].

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

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

------
xster
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.

------
chvid
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.

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

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

~~~
garrettgrimsley
C'mon, its easy!

[http://a54.idata.over-
blog.com/3/88/02/15/2010-101112/charli...](http://a54.idata.over-
blog.com/3/88/02/15/2010-101112/charlie_hebdo_c_est_dur_d_etre_aime_par_des_cons_cabu.jpg)

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

~~~
facepalm
Not sure if that is wise :-/

~~~
garrettgrimsley
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!

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-
donating...](http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-
donating-300-000-to-charlie-hebdo?cid=cm_gglchr_nw_cdn_dt_ag_101224), which
points to this.

------
ck2
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.

~~~
Ensorceled
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.

~~~
ck2
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.

------
nakedrobot2
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.

~~~
sho_hn
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.

------
zirkonit
Je suis Charlie.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
"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-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/we-
are-not-all-charlie-hebdo-attack/384319/)

~~~
tjradcliffe
Je suis Charlie:
[http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704](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.

------
happyscrappy
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.

------
mkawia
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...](http://i.kinja-
img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
Wj8pQ_7T--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/tdc5t2tmvpkfpovubygc.jpg)

here is black Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira [http://i.kinja-
img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2Ea5CAgX...](http://i.kinja-
img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
2Ea5CAgX--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/q2ydp3x50xtcektdwz2n.jpg)

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

~~~
Oletros
> But they are racist

And you're lying

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

~~~
molyss
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)

~~~
mkawia
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.

~~~
Gmo
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 ...

~~~
Torgo
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.

