
Je Suis Charlie - drallison
http://charliehebdo.fr
======
hyp0
_" Je n'ai pas peur des représailles. Je n'ai pas de gosses, pas de femme, pas
de voiture, pas de crédit. ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère
mourir debout que vivre à genoux."_ \- Charb, one of the murdered satirists

"I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no mortgage.
It surely is a bit dramatic but I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my
knees" \- translation from
[http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2rmgra/these_two_carto...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2rmgra/these_two_cartoonists_for_french_magazine_charle/cnh9haw)

~~~
baby
note that everyone is quoting Charb on this, sometimes just quoting the "I'd
rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" that is actually him quoting
someone else:

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata)

~~~
julie1
weired in my old greek lessons it was already said to be the motto of Athen.
[http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3824](http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3824)

Maybe Zappata went to school and studied the story of Athen?

~~~
burkaman
Did you mean to link to a different page? That one doesn't have anything like
the Zapata quote.

~~~
majestic1211
There is not the Zappata quote, but it still seems relevant :

"Finally, for the Homeric hero, aretê consisted of a set of qualities
clustered around the readiness to fight a beautiful war and die a beautiful
death."

"preferring to die in their own land rather than live to dwell in that of
others"

------
gouggoug
Some context for people wondering what this is about.

Wednesday 7th, at 11am, 3 people entered "Charlie Hebdo" a very well known
French satirical newspaper and shot 12 people with kalashnikov. Charlie Hebdo
is also known, for their caricatures of the prophet Mahomet.

"Je Suis Charlie" means, "I Am Charlie" and is a message of support to the
newspaper.

This is obviously a very short sum-up.

~~~
jknz
People are going in the streets to support the newspaper in France and other
European cities, a map is available here: [http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-
divers/carte-interactive-tous...](http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/carte-
interactive-tous-les-rassemblements-en-soutien-a-charlie-
hebdo-07-01-2015-4426667.php)

A noticeable fact is how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to
make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.

~~~
aragot
> how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam
> between these few barbarians and a whole religion

Although it would be nice, from a PR standpoint, if some French Muslim
organizations could condemn those events, becuase I don't know what most
Muslims think about Charlie Hebdo. Have they? I have searched Google News for
that and didn't find links, so please post if there are some. Or they may just
not be sufficiently organized for PR.

~~~
jknz
The president of the UOIF [1], the collective of all the French muslim
organizations, is invited to speak at 8pm on France 2 (the national TV
channel). Source:
[https://twitter.com/UOIF/status/552891285900894209](https://twitter.com/UOIF/status/552891285900894209)

[1]: [http://www.uoif-online.com/](http://www.uoif-online.com/)

~~~
InclinedPlane
See also:

[http://www.uoif-online.com/communiques/horrible-attaque-
au-s...](http://www.uoif-online.com/communiques/horrible-attaque-au-siege-
charlie-hebdo/)

 _[ "The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these
horrible murders."](translated)_

------
krig
This is horrible, and we as a society need to somehow make this kind of thing
not happen. I have no idea what that means in practice, though. It seems
everything that has been tried so far has only escalated the hatred and
strengthened the extremists.

Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major
terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian
norwegian.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)

But it's hard not to get swept up in it right now. I too want to _do
something_. The question is, what? How is freedom of speech best defended in
the face of unreasonable people who have no limits to what they are prepared
to do?

~~~
daeken
> How is freedom of speech best defended in the face of unreasonable people
> who have no limits to what they are prepared to do?

By everyone continuing to utilize their freedom of speech. It's really that
simple. The only way to lose is to not make use of your freedom.

~~~
aaronem
Being murdered for what you say seems like, if not precisely losing, then
being at least removed from the board.

~~~
daeken
People being murdered is a shame, but the only way that it can stifle freedom
of speech is if we let it. Obviously the person(s) murdered lose their ability
to exercise that freedom when they're murdered, but the point is to continue
pushing forward as a whole. Doing that requires us to all decide to continue
to utilize our freedom.

~~~
lhnz
As long as the number of people that choose to exercise their freedom of
expression does not fall you are right.

Let's just hope that people do not begin to follow extremist muslim law out of
fear for their lives.

~~~
meapix
There is no muslim (extremist or not) law that encourages these acts, research
it. You can tweak any law to do exactly as you wanted to do and that's what
those people are doing. The last thing I know about a war (if we put this as a
kind of war) is don't cut trees, don't kill non-armed soldier, women, children
or old people but they keep beheading people on national television.

------
tokenadult
Posted on my Facebook wall immediately. Thanks for sharing the link. Earlier
today, I was searching for news stories about the shooting incident in Paris
that would actually show the cartoons published by _Charlie Hebdo_ to
establish context for how cowardly and despicable the shooting was. Most
English-language press outlets are not showing the cartoons. A comment on one
news site pointed out that Spanish-language media are generally not being so
gutless today, so I linked a slideshow from _El Pais_ [1] on my Facebook wall
so that my friends could see that the shooting is all about suppressing free
speech.

[1]
[http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/01/07/album/1420632020_829679....](http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/01/07/album/1420632020_829679.html#1420632020_829679_1420645001)

~~~
happyscrappy
The appropriate response is print blasphemous cartoons in every paper in the
free world. Do they think they can kill everyone?

~~~
klibertp
Dunno, but they sure as hell will _try_...

------
sarciszewski
My belief is that, when something like this happens, we need a strong show of
solidarity with the victim.

If you are (or know) a journalist, please consider publishing some of the
Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons, unredacted and uncensored, in your coverage
of this story.

Terrorists may be able to kill some of us, but they can't kill all of us.

~~~
sarciszewski
Looks like I'm not alone in this belief:

[https://twitter.com/MadAxes/status/552814382338826240](https://twitter.com/MadAxes/status/552814382338826240)

------
robteix
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if
they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it,
being provocative.

~~~
Torgo
Sally Kohn of CNN: "It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be
against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo"

Totally disregarding that machine-gunning to death 11 people because you're
offended, which is what just happened, is a gross violation of free speech in
addition to being a human tragedy. By bringing this up right now, how could
this be interpreted any other way than believing these tragedies wouldn't
happen if those people weren't so darn disrespectful of Muslims.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Sally Kohn is actually right in what you quoted, even if not in where you
think she's going with it.

I believe in free speech, including the right to insult other people's faith
traditions. (Other people feel free to insult my faith traditions, and do so
on a semi-regular basis. I respond with speech, not with bullets or bombs.)

On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting
other people's faith traditions to be a virtue.

What's more, we live in a world where violent extremists exist. That's
reality. They shouldn't exist, but this is not an ideal world. They're out
there. When you choose to deliberately insult the cherished beliefs of violent
extremists, in the real world you have to know that you are likely to cause
some consequences. (Let me be very clear here. The violent extremists are
morally responsible for the violent reaction. But when you push their buttons,
you have to know that their buttons are hot-wired to their trigger fingers.)

Now, you may conclude that it's worth it to demonstrate that these people
really _are_ violent extremists. That's your choice. I'm not saying that
you're wrong. But you'd better think it through before you do it, because the
way the world actually works, you may receive some consequences.

~~~
venomsnake
The people that died today were a warriors. In a war that I am not sure you
even realize is waging. The war for the freedom of the human mind. Humor,
satire, mockery - they all help society to see through haze.

Because nothing should be sacrosanct. The moment we say that even a single
thing is ... then everything that suits the powers that be will be.

~~~
Shivetya
because this is not just about freedom of speech, it is about freedom of
religion, the freedom to live your life as you so choose in any shape or form
that does not negatively impact others.

these people do not believe in any self determination.

------
creamyhorror
BBC coverage: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-30710883](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883)

I am outraged at the enormity of the murders, but I can't see a simple
solution given the significant presence of extremists. Their brazen acts know
no limits; what then are governments to do? In my country, Singapore (which
has a significant Muslim population), we have a relative lack of incidents or
conflict, but the government also maintains tight control that probably
wouldn't be feasible in Europe (clarification: meaning that mosques and
madrasahs are regulated and overseen by an Islamic Council that is part of
government).

 _[edited]_

~~~
happyscrappy
Are you implying that you need to have tight control of citizens if you have a
significant Muslim population? Somehow the US doesn't have this problem within
the Muslim community.

~~~
icebraining
_Somehow the US doesn 't have this problem within the Muslim community._

Really? What about the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2010 Times Square car
bombing attempt and the Boston Marathon bombings?

Also, the US certainly keeps a close - often oppressive - watch over its
Muslim community. This American Life had an episode about it:
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/471](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/471)

(See also the AP prize-winning investigation that TAL mentions on the NYPD
probes into the city's mosques)

~~~
ceejayoz
> Really? What about the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2010 Times Square car
> bombing attempt and the Boston Marathon bombings?

If three incidents in five years is a problem, the US has a problem with
_every_ community. Timothy McVeigh killed more than all of those attacks
combined.

------
mercer
My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as
here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and
these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here.

I really, really hope that people from different muslim communities speak up
as well. In past incidents there was a lot of silence, usually prompted by
fear (I suspect). I understand if they don't, but I hope they do.

~~~
pierrec
Agreed. The potential backlash against innocent French and European Muslims is
one of the scariest things in these events. France is full of closeted (and
not-so-closeted) islamophobic fascists, and this attack of violence against
words is almost guaranteed to cause some of them to unite and multiply their
aggressiveness and stupidity. It is not a good day for the Muslim world.

~~~
vixen99
Perhaps this is the reason and I can't understand what the problem is myself.

[http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/01/what-if-these-lone-
wolves-w...](http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/01/what-if-these-lone-wolves-
werent-moderate-muslims/)

~~~
meapix
The christianity's history is not clean either.

------
jknz
For some context, the wikipedia page is still updated every few minutes

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)

------
meapix
I'm a muslim and I found most of cartoons by Charlie Hebdo funny, however the
cartoon about the prophet didn't upset me at all but was not funny. It did
however trigger something: this is how people actually see this religion, a
bomb on a prophet's head. The reality is what makes something funny or not.

Should this be the end of making funny of anything or raising questions/ideas,
no. However a journalist's job is not to upset people but to cross the line
then come back and bring some people with him/her: convince.

All my condolences to those affected by this tragedy from Ottawa, Canada.

~~~
vixen99
It's not a journalist's job to upset people? What a strange opinion and who do
you suppose should judge?

~~~
meapix
it is still an opinion (you know free speech). I assume in a civilized world,
when you make a statement that upset somebody, you apologize. Something like
[http://xkcd.com/814](http://xkcd.com/814)

------
questerzen
Attacks in two of my home cities (Paris and Sydney) in recent weeks affecting
people I am closely connected to. It is truly heartbreaking. It makes me very
proud that in both cities, people refuse to accept these actions as anything
but the actions of inexcusable murderers; and in both cases people have made
use of the internet to share a positive message of hope and solidarity (Je
Suis Charlie / IllRideWithYou). When I grew up in London during the IRA
bombings, no such channel existed and the message was a very negative one
issued by the government and echoed by the broadcast media. What a difference
it makes that the general population now have a channel to direct the way
these actions are viewed, communicated and reflected back to the perpetrators.
Yes, now we ARE all Charlie.

------
rurban
It might be an unpopular opinion, but "I am not Charlie".

Even as atheist, some of those Mohammed caricatures are not funny or satire,
they are simply over the line. Not just juvenile, silly or stupid. In most
other countries they would be forbidden. E.g. this one from 2010, who caused
the stir and death threat. [http://torstenh.de/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/CH8.jpg](http://torstenh.de/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/CH8.jpg) France has a different liberal, explicit
anti-clerical and anti-censorship tradition. The US and scandanavian countries
also. But elsewhere it would be illegal.

Compare them to similar Jesus caricatures, e.g. [http://www.zensur-
archiv.de/index.php?title=Satire](http://www.zensur-
archiv.de/index.php?title=Satire)

It's a fine line and in some cases german Titanic covers were allowed. "Ein
Strafverfahren wurde von der Frankfurter Staatsanwaltschaft mit dem Verweis
auf die "Satire" und deren Mittel der "Verzerrung" und Übertreibung"
abgelehnt. (Sdt. 24./25.4.2010)"

The legal situation in Germany and Austria: § 5 explicitly states to respect
the religious beliefs of the population. In addition to the insults of
religious faiths (§ 166 para. 1 of the Criminal Code).

Anybody who explicitly agrees with Charlie Hebdo and posts images will
probably fall under these paragraphs in those countries.

~~~
chernevik
Yeah, well, hate speech laws are themselves a pretty bad idea. Today it's "say
nothing blasphemous about the Prophet" and then it's "say nothing blasphemous
about the leading scholars".

The cartoon controversy was started by Jyllands-Posten not because they wanted
to offend Muslims, but because they believed that discourse about Islam and
its role in society was being constrained by self-censorship and fear. Their
purpose was to open that discourse by re-establishing the right of free
speech. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html)

The effort might have been dismissed as a juvenile stunt and an unnecessary
provocation if the response had been a lot of angry criticism. The violence
that has instead followed demonstrates the validity of their concern, and the
necessity of their provocation.

------
_cipher_
Nice. While Philae landed in a comet after a ~10 year trip, some people still
killing each other because they believe/insulted an imaginary god. _sigh_

Don't get me wrong. Almost every big religion did the same (crusaders
anyone?). But for me, this kind of behavior (regardless the religion), leads
me to believe that these people are Uruk-Hai in human form.

2015 and instead of chosing to actually educate people, that sh*t keeps
happenning.

------
ankurpatel
Can someone explain what this is suppose to mean? I know there were attacks in
Paris.

~~~
manticore_alpha
"We are Charlie"

Your EQ is low, isn't it?

~~~
Raphmedia
It's actually "I" and not "We".

------
random123456
Throw-away account for obvious reasons:

The problem with fanatics is just that: they're illogically fanatical about
their beliefs. They're blindly driven by an ideology and can't be reasoned
with, much less asked to sit at a table to discuss their grievances and
concerns.

It bears noticing that while "Charlie" spoke out for the right of freedom of
expression, he did so in a culture where that was only permissible within a
context that the French found suitable [0]. While crazy and murderous acts are
impossible to excuse--and should be condemned--it's hard to understand why
people are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. That's what
chickens do.

We are all Charlie, but apparently only if we choose to fully assimilate and
not carry on with any religious or traditional customs others might find
offensive.

0 - [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-28106900](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900)

------
kbarre123
There's nothing to discuss, really. I'm not going to convince you. You're not
going to convince me. Steve's not going to convince Akbar, and Akbar's not
going to convince Omkar. Nobody's ever read an internet comment and thought,
"Holy shit, @deeznutz420 is right. My religion IS a total crock of shit! Well
I'll be..." What happened is terrible. It'll happen again, and no amount of
pontificating or "nation-building" or foreign aide is going to change the fact
that some people hate other people because they're different because their
parents raised them to be that way. This is not a religious thing, it's a
human thing. Whites in the US killed black people all the time, not too long
ago mind you, simply because they were different. And they worshipped the same
freaking god!

~~~
tach4n
> "Holy shit, @deeznutz420 is right. My religion IS a total crock of shit!

Actually that happens all the time - the reverse happens too of course.

------
fbhat
I'm a muslim and here's my perspective on what happened in Paris.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an absolute travesty. My heart goes out to the
cartoonists, columnists, editors, policemen, and other innocent victims.

Absolute freedom of speech is a human right. From Paris to Riyadh, anyone is
free to draw and publish cartoons of the Prophet and any aspect of Islam that
they disagree with. Not only should critical discourse be tolerated, it should
be welcomed, for it leads to introspection and self-betterment.

I believe that a majority of muslims living in the west would agree with me.
Many might have been offended by the cartoons, but one does not choose to live
in a free society if they can't handle opposing points of view. Unfortunately,
this doesn't come through in the statements of muslim "representativates" on
TV who are quick to condone acts of violence but seem hesitant to
categorically dismiss the ideological basis for the violence (i.e. the
cartoons shouldn't have been published). This is probably because their jobs
depend on carefully towing a line between religious ideology and political
correctness.

Again, I don't think the cartoons are an issue for msot muslims in the west. I
suspect the motivation behind the gruesome attacks in Paris might have been to
make them a bigger issue, with the ultimate objective of sowing internal
discord and recruiting more troublemakers. Perhaps the perpetrators play upon
the expectation that the public discourse will inevitably drift to "why are
muslims violent and dangerous and opposed to cartoons of the prophet?". Young
mulsims will inevitably face this discourse in schools, in the press, on TV,
and may eventually start to believe it and feel isolated. This might mold them
into targets for further brainwashing and recruitment.

I think that we, as a society, need to get a lot better at understanding these
criminal motivations. Forcefully reacting to these acts of violence is simply
not enough. If we fail to control the discourse, I'm afraid such violence is
likely to continue.

------
fra
There is a gathering in SF being organized on Facebook. Tonight, 7pm in front
of the French consulate.

[https://www.facebook.com/events/1562482893969481/?pnref=stor...](https://www.facebook.com/events/1562482893969481/?pnref=story)

#JeSuisCharlie

------
Techbrunch
I hope they are not gonna use this as an excuse to pass new laws to increase
surveillance.

~~~
mekoka
They might. But you do know that new laws usually come with a shield and a
sword. More often than none, a few more laws also means a few less liberties.
That's usually how terrorism wins.

------
chasealias
I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees. As quoted in Liberation
Theologies in North America and Europe‎ (1979) by Gerald H. Anderson and
Thomas F. Stransky, p. 281; this is sometimes misattributed to the more modern
revolutionary, Che Guevara, and to "La Pasionaria" Dolores Ibárruri,
especially in Spain, where she popularized it in her famous speeches during
the Spanish Civil War, to José Martí, and to Aeschylus who is credited with a
similar declaration in Prometheus Bound: "For it would be better to die once
and for all than to suffer pain for all one's life." The phrase "better that
we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees" was spoken by
François-Noël Gracchus Babeuf in his defence of the Conspiracy of Equals in
April 1797. In French it read, 'Ne vaut-il pas mieux emporter la glorie de
n'avoir pas survecu a la servitude?' but transliterated this bears no
resemblance whatever to the quote under discussion. see: The Defense of
Gracchus Babeuf Before the High Court of Vendome (1967), edited and translated
by John Anthony Scott, p. 88 and p. 90, n. 12. Spanish variants: ¡Prefiero
morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado! I'd prefer to die standing, than
to live always on my knees. As quoted in Operación Cobra : historia de una
gesta romántica (1988) by Alvaro Pablo Ortiz and Oscar Lara, p. 29 Variant
translations: Men of the South! It is better to die on your feet than to live
on your knees! With an extension, as quoted in Timeless Mexico (1944) by
Hudson Strode, p. 259 I would rather die standing than live on my knees! It is
better to die on your feet than to live on your knees! I prefer to die
standing than to live forever kneeling. Prefer death on your feet to living on
your knees. La tierra es de quien la trabaja con sus manos. The land belongs
to those who work it with their hands. Quoted as a slogan of the
revolutionaries in Shirt-Sleeve Diplomat (1947) Vol. 5, p. 199, by Josephus
Daniels, and specifically attributed to Zapata by Ángel Zúñiga in 1998, as
quoted in Mexican Social Movements and the Transition to Democracy (2005), by
John Stolle-McAllister Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything
other than flocks of slaves for tyranny. Remarks in regard to Pancho Villa, as
quoted in The Unknown Lore of Amexem's Indigenous People : An Aboriginal
Treatise (2008) by Noble Timothy Myers-El, p. 158

------
baby
I believe these are papers you can print to show irl.

There are meetings everywhere in France right now and people are displaying
those printed papers.

on Facebook everybody is changing their profile picture to this image.

------
osehgol
I dont think this discussion belongs here, just read the Economist article and
be done with it. It makes an excellent point for Islamist to modernize and
"the others" to realize all Abrahamic religions had taboos
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/01/johnson-
blas...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/01/johnson-blasphemy)

------
eumenides1
I disagree with actually all the comics. I don't think anybody is "charlie" in
those comics. Everyone is saying they are "charlie", but nobody is "charlie"
because none of those comics are depicting the prophet mohammed as charlie
clearly would have.

------
chasealias
Matt Sullivan ✔ @sullduggery Follow "An assault on democracy": Thursday
@guardian front page with former Le Monde editor Natalie Nougayrède
#CharlieHebdo

------
baby
By the way here's a picture of the demonstration in Lyon:

[http://i.imgur.com/VPzOGTt.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/VPzOGTt.jpg)

------
Thiz
Never a better time to bring back the guillotine.

~~~
fra
Nope! L'amour plus fort que la haine. [http://madvilletimes.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/charlie-...](http://madvilletimes.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-cover.jpg)

------
discardorama
308 points in 2 hours and 121 comments... and listed at #24. Ranked below
stories like:

    
    
        2.  121 points, 3 hours ago ,  26 comments  
        3.  69 points , 2 hours ago ,  22 comments  
        5.  138 points, 4 hours ago ,  33 comments
        8.  80 points , 4 hours ago ,  28 comments
        9.  46 points , 3 hours ago ,  10 comments
        10. 56 points , 3 hours ago ,  19 comments
    

Looks like it's being flagged left and right. Why? What if, instead of
Charlie, it was some Internet startup? Freedom of speech is important to _all_
of us.

Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Communists...." comes to mind:
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller)

~~~
boracay
I'll upvote something that actually discusses how this effects our freedom
rather than just some "let's all be upset". As far as I know western
politicians have been far more effective at undermining our freedom and
increasing extremism than the terrorists could ever have been on their own.

~~~
TillE
The Juan Cole article is easily the best thing I've read so far, but I still
don't think HN would produce any useful discussion about it.

[http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-
sa...](http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-
satirists.html)

------
_almosnow
I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make
fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know,
but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or
shouldn't) it has its limits?

There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just
because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected
under 'free speech'? How about people who sign NDA's? How come it would be
heavily criticized (and probably illegal) for a newspaper to start running
weekly cartoons where they make fun of the black population in America,
depicting them with the all the token representations and slurs that are now
widely accepted as 'racist'?

I really want to know what's different, what's permissible, what isn't. Are
there some written rules about this or is it just the result of how things are
perceived by the majority of the public (i.e. what we like vs what we don't)?

Disclaimer:

I'm not muslim, I don't sympathise with their religion and neither I'm trying
to condone what happened. I made up an example with black people because
that's a very sensitive and controversial issue in the US, but the intent is
not to spark controversy around racism and the likes. I'm probably going to be
downvoted into oblivion but I want to know if at least I get an intelligent
point of view to these issues.

~~~
sehr
(No snark intended), just google it. For example the Wikipedia page for free
speech in the US is pretty detailed, and covers a lot of the legislation
regarding it.

Lots of people have asked and answered this type of question over the years,
and most of it's been documented!

~~~
_almosnow
I see, when it comes down to the jurisdiction of the US the exceptions are
clear enough. I see that Charlie Hebdo would have been in a lot of legal
trouble if they were based on the US then. I don't know why I've tought that
the law would be very similar in most of the world but it isn't, or apparently
in France they were allowed to stay in business (although for what I've been
reading they had been fined a few times regarding issues that violate the
scope of freedom of speech).

~~~
schoen
The U.S. legal system is known as _more_ tolerant of offensive speech than any
European jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure where you're getting the inference
that such speech is less protected in the U.S. than in France.

~~~
_almosnow
Because they've been operating for such a long time. If it were illegal they
would have shut it down already.

------
lotsofmangos
محمد السباحة

