Airbrush Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 As usual, the issue is moderation. Freedom of speech, yes, but up to a certain (ill-defined) point. Otherwise it becomes annoyance, insult or anything else. There is the argument that the "wicked" satire of Charlie Hebdo was RACIST against Arabs and/or Muslims. It is comparable to white people using the N word. As for satire, I grew up reading "Mad Magazine" which is critical of everyone.
imatfaal Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 As usual, the issue is moderation. Freedom of speech, yes, but up to a certain (ill-defined) point. Otherwise it becomes annoyance, insult or anything else. I cannot believe that it is the cartoonists who are being accused of a disproportionate act! 2
michel123456 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Being insulted is not an excuse for criminal violence or murder. The appropriate response to such an insult is to sue for libel or slander, not to discard the law and go on the rampage. What do I need to understand about French politics that makes murder acceptable? And, are you aware that the US and UK politicians usually get a pretty hard time in cartoons too. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=steve+bell+%22president+bush%22&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&imgil=zNw7BecTnpSPXM%253A%253BjyVEdDMW1VIsFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fpritheworld.tumblr.com%25252Fpost%25252F57004893465%25252Fbritish-cartoonist-steve-bell-on-president-george&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zNw7BecTnpSPXM%253A%252CjyVEdDMW1VIsFM%252C_&usg=__xC9U_e_InoKa7tqwGfzccK1A3HE%3D&ved=0CCwQyjc&ei=4wixVJmyDY3waNXsgLAJ#imgdii=_&imgrc=4Ppjjcn-7CSnrM%253A%3Bcqt99LnnTTr6gM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.guim.co.uk%252Fsys-images%252FGuardian%252FPix%252Fpictures%252F2003%252F04%252F10%252F4bell.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fno-pasaran.blogspot.com%252F2013%252F08%252Fus-president-depicted-year-after-year.html%3B372%3B192 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=steve+bell+%22president+obama%22&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HAmxVI2NF4qrae-ygFg&ved=0CCAQsAQ&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=steve+bell+cameron You misunderstood my comment. You must know about French politics to recognize the satirized person and to understand the point of the satire. For example I don't know UK politics very well and I don't understand why Mr Cameron is represented wearing a condom on his head.
Airbrush Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I cannot believe that it is the cartoonists who are being accused of a disproportionate act! Could you please translate this into English for those readers that don't read French?
MonDie Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 As usual, the issue is moderation. Freedom of speech, yes, but up to a certain (ill-defined) point. Otherwise it becomes annoyance, insult or anything else. Nobody had to look at the magazine AFAIK (although we're forced to look at your avatar), and might these terrorists have killed some people regardless? 1
michel123456 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I cannot believe that it is the cartoonists who are being accused of a disproportionate act! translation Believer hurt by the unbelievers Unbeliever hurt by the Believers. 1
Airbrush Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Thank you for the translation. Does anyone know if a disgusting portrayal of the Prophet is to Muslims as bad as in the USA for a white person to use the N word? They are killing people who create disgusting portrayals of the Prophet because even though they will not look at the images themself out of their piety, NO ONE should look at such images. Do moderate Muslims think it a crime for ANYONE to look at such images and get pleasure from it? I don't recall Mad magazine ever using the N word. Would Mad magazine be "tame" in comparison to Charlie Hebdo? How about "Zap" comics similar to Charlie Hebdo?
MonDie Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Most were just mundane depictions incorporating muhammad. A couple seemed intentionally provocative, but I imagine those came after the initial threats and attacks, to which their response was to ramp it up. At any rate, I don't see how those intentionally provocative cartoons would qualify as hate speech, and a reader would know that they only wanted ot provoke their attackers. Edited January 10, 2015 by MonDie 1
Royston Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Being insulted is not an excuse for criminal violence or murder. Exactly, but I disagree that there should be any legal retaliation to insults... The appropriate response to such an insult is to sue for libel or slander, not to discard the law and go on the rampage. The appropriate response is to get over it, and treat an insult for precisely what it is, a bunch of words. There should be no legal ramifications about saying something derogatory about somebody or something, unless it has a measurable effect and is proven to deliberately cause, say, the loss of a job. In any case, libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous. I think Steve Hughes says it best, when it comes to being offended.... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944 As usual, the issue is moderation. Freedom of speech, yes, but up to a certain (ill-defined) point. Otherwise it becomes annoyance, insult or anything else. But moderated speech is clearly not freedom of speech. Pretty stark contradiction there. This also shows how loony the cartoonists are. These cartoonists think having mere "police protection" will make them safe. Now..... everyone in the industry .... beware. Be discreet, but get your free speech out there, and stay alive doing it. Moving is not a big deal to cartoonists and writers, since most work in solitary at home. All you need to move is a few desks, file cabinets, PCs, printers, etc. They are not like a church, saloon, or restaurant, that needs for the public to have easy access. What is 'loony' about making pejorative statements or pictures about some mythical bullshit ? You do realise that terrorist attacks, especially of this nature are incredibly rare. People die from falling out of bed, so by your reasoning, everyone should bubble wrap themselves from head to toe through fear of dying when going to sleep. Can you not see how insane that is ? The internet and press is littered with insulting material about pretty much any subject you can throw a stick at. So what ? If someone is highly reactionary about a few words or a picture to the point of violence, it is 'they' who are in the wrong, not the person making the statement. How are we supposed to progress past scare tactics if the answer is to hide away....what a completely absurd solution. Is anyone really convinced that the issue is about so called offensive or slanderous comments and cartoons about religion, or is the supposed reasoning behind the attacks just a guise and excuse to incite hatred and violence for a much deeper seeded problem ? A problem that has become so convoluted and muddied, that I doubt that many even know (including myself) where it all stems from. Edited January 11, 2015 by Royston 4
Airbrush Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) What is 'loony' about making pejorative statements or pictures about some mythical bullshit ? You do realise that terrorist attacks, especially of this nature are incredibly rare. People die from falling out of bed, so by your reasoning, everyone should bubble wrap themselves from head to toe through fear of dying when going to sleep. Can you not see how insane that is ? Making pejorative commentary is not loony. What is loony is how secure they felt, even after the firebombing of their offices and anonymous death threats. I would have packed up, taken down my shingle, and moved to another location, and this time not put up my shingle. Either that or make a public apology. But that would be the end of their free speech. Sorry they were delusional and they have lost their ability for free speech by being dead. These kind of terrorists attacks are common in the mid-East, now France had a rude awakening. The good news is other satirical magazines will now be more careful. How often do people die falling out of bed? Anyhow that is a very amusing comparison, however exaggerated. Other than that, I agree with you. Edited January 11, 2015 by Airbrush
michel123456 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Does this crime say anything to you? Lèse-majestéhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Making pejorative commentary is not loony. What is loony is how secure they felt, even after the firebombing of their offices and anonymous death threats. I would have packed up, taken down my shingle, and moved to another location, and this time not put up my shingle. Either that or make a public apology. But that would be the end of their free speech. Sorry they were delusional and they have lost their ability for free speech by being dead. These kind of terrorists attacks are common in the mid-East, now France had a rude awakening. The good news is other satirical magazines will now be more careful. How often do people die falling out of bed? Anyhow that is a very amusing comparison, however exaggerated. Other than that, I agree with you. Do you realise that they were not the only people satirising things? Most are still going. Does this crime say anything to you? Lèse-majesté http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté Yes,it says that some people have a vastly overblown sense of their own importance. Exactly, but I disagree that there should be any legal retaliation to insults... The appropriate response is to get over it, and treat an insult for precisely what it is, a bunch of words. There should be no legal ramifications about saying something derogatory about somebody or something, unless it has a measurable effect and is proven to deliberately cause, say, the loss of a job. In any case, libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous. Then they could sue as I suggested, and they would lose their court case and end up paying the court's costs. This "libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous." isn't really true, btw. It's the outcome of the presumption of innocence of the person who was insulted.. Imagine that someone calls me a cheat (or some other such slander). I'm assumed to be innocent. So it falls to them to prove that I'm a cheat- otherwise they have slandered me. If they made the assertion recklessly or falsely, then they should answer for it. What's wrong with that?
imatfaal Posted January 11, 2015 Author Posted January 11, 2015 Let's not get into a debate on calumny laws - the law of slander, libel, and often associated breach of privacy are probably the most varying laws across jurisdictions.
michel123456 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Let's not get into a debate on calumny laws - the law of slander, libel, and often associated breach of privacy are probably the most varying laws across jurisdictions. Yes. But there are established laws that protect people (Kings & Presidents) not to be insulted because they are not simple people, they are symbols. The same way that you are not allowed to vandalize the national flag, or to put paint on ancient monuments or sculptures (although paint can be removed). That is because the sculpture is not a stone, it is a symbol. Depending on the country the punishment for the offense will vary. At my knowledge, offending the Prophet in some countries is death penalty.
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 At my knowledge, offending the Prophet in some countries is death penalty. France isn't one of those countries. If reason prevailed, the lese majesty laws and the blasphemy laws would all be scrapped.
Royston Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 This "libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous." isn't really true, btw. It's the outcome of the presumption of innocence of the person who was insulted.. Imagine that someone calls me a cheat (or some other such slander). I'm assumed to be innocent. So it falls to them to prove that I'm a cheat- otherwise they have slandered me. If they made the assertion recklessly or falsely, then they should answer for it. What's wrong with that? Yeah, sorry I should of expanded on what I meant, as it's not a particularly clear. What I meant, was that somebody accused of slander is assumed guilty, the Simon Singh case that led to the reformed defamation act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Association_v_Singh that was running for several years is a good example of this. As imatfaal said, this is OT but just wanted to clarify. If there's still something to discuss, then I guess this should be split to another thread.
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The thread is fundamentally related to free speech and I think the limits and regulation of free speech are a legitimate part of the debate. If the legitimate legal redress doesn't work then it offers some validity to those who choose to break the law (obviously, it doesn't excuse murder, but, if they criminals had restricted themselves to vandalising the offices and claimed that they did so because they had no legal option open to them, people would be more sympathetic) In the example you cite, Simon Singh was the victim of an (unsuccessful) attempt to suppress freedom of speech. (At least the chiropractic association didn't feel that shooting people was the solution) What's wrong with system? If I don't say rude things about people then I can't get sued for slander. If I say rude things then I might get sued. If I can prove that those things are true, or that I had reasonable grounds to believe that they were true, or I was clearly stating my opinion, then the law suit fails; they end up paying for suing me. If I say rude things and I can't prove that they are true then I get into trouble; but I deserve it. As I said; what's the problem? (Actually there is a big problem- you can't get legal aid for slander cases- but that's a political problem, more than a legal one). Singh said something the chiropractors didn't like. They sued. He won because what he said was fair comment. It took longer than it should, because one of the judges made a mistake, as wiki says. "The pre-trial hearing took place in February 2010 before three senior judges at the Royal Courts of Justice.[9] In April 2010, they allowed Singh's appeal, ruling that the high court judge had "erred in his approach"" It's important to note that Singh didn't win because he could prove that his allegation was true. He won because it was regarded in law as "fair comment". That is the law upholding the right to free speech. The fact that he only won because he could afford to pay is a problem, but that's an issue with the legal system in general, rather than libel law in particular.
DimaMazin Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 There were killed people, which had no relation to JesuisCharlie,too. Therefore it is just moslems hatred to any other people.
Royston Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 As I said; what's the problem? The problem, put another way, is that the burden of proof lies on the defendant, who is therefore guilty until proven innocent (this is also the case in France...the Singh case being in the UK). One of the main tenets of western law is that a defendant should be innocent until proven guilty for obvious reasons. As freedom of speech underpins libel and slander cases, and is fundamental to democracy you would hope the law that deals with such cases is not broken. It's not altogether clear that the tightening of the defamation act in the UK will tackle this problem head on. There are no such amendments for libel law in France. Also, how can you sue for slander against a prophet who's existence has no evidence whatsoever. There were killed people, which had no relation to JesuisCharlie,too. Therefore it is just moslems hatred to any other people. You mean, a handful of sociopathic Islamic fundamentalists.
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The problem, put another way, is that the burden of proof lies on the defendant, who is therefore guilty until proven innocent (this is also the case in France...the Singh case being in the UK). One of the main tenets of western law is that a defendant should be innocent until proven guilty for obvious reasons. . As I already said, it is precisely because people are innocent until proven guilty that the law is written the way it is. If I called you a murderer and spread that story all over the internet how would you feel? If you sued me for libel what would you propose? Should I be innocent of libel even though your reputation is damaged, my allegation is false, and there's no supporting evidence for it? How do you prove that you are not a murderer? Since you can't prove that how can I ever get sued for libel? There were killed people, which had no relation to JesuisCharlie,too. Therefore it is just moslems hatred to any other people. Nope, there are criminals who either didn't understand Islam, or who ignored it.
DimaMazin Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Nope, there are criminals who either didn't understand Islam, or who ignored it. Do you think in countries, where death penalty is for creation of such cartoons, people don't understand Islam or ignore it?
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Do you think in countries, where death penalty is for creation of such cartoons, people don't understand Islam or ignore it? My best guess is that they ignore it- for example they clearly ignore the bit that says "109:1 Say: O disbelievers! 109:2 I worship not that which ye worship; 109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship. 109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship. 109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." And I think that they are using a corrupted version of religion to gain political power. It's not as if they are the first to do so. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 2
Royston Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) As I already said, it is precisely because people are innocent until proven guilty that the law is written the way it is. Even though burden of proof on a defendant is in direct contradiction to this. You seem to be glossing over the wider implications and repercussions of the major flaw in libel and why it is so important that innocent until proven guilty has to be upheld as fundamental. If that tenet is contradicted, then the libel law can be abused and therefore impinges on freedom of speech. If I called you a murderer and spread that story all over the internet how would you feel? How I would feel would be entirely subjective and is therefore not (or certainly shouldn't be) solid grounds for suing. This is one reason why the defamation act was changed in 2013 i.e a requirement of serious harm, I'm sure there are clever ways of getting round this depending on the situation. You have read the wiki article on Singh, so this is an odd point to raise. This pretty much screws the rest of your points, but anyway... If you sued me for libel what would you propose? If I had grounds for suing you i.e I lost my job and I had evidence to support this, then I have a case, where the burden of proof is on me. The case is on my name being slandered, not on whether I've murdered anybody or not. Should I be innocent of libel even though your reputation is damaged, my allegation is false, and there's no supporting evidence for it? You should be innocent of libel until it was proved my reputation was damaged. If I simply stated, well John has been saying nasty things about me on the internet, and it's hurt my ickle feelings, would not or should not cut it in a court of law. How do you prove that you are not a murderer? I simply don't have to, because again, the case is on my name being slandered, not on whether I've murdered anybody or not. Since you can't prove that how can I ever get sued for libel? When there has been damage to my reputation that can be backed up by evidence. Edited January 12, 2015 by Royston
John Cuthber Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Even though burden of proof on a defendant is in direct contradiction to this. You seem to be glossing over the wider implications and repercussions of the major flaw in libel and why it is so important that innocent until proven guilty has to be upheld as fundamental. If that tenet is contradicted, then the libel law can be abused and therefore impinges on freedom of speech. How I would feel would be entirely subjective and is therefore not (or certainly shouldn't be) solid grounds for suing. This is one reason why the defamation act was changed in 2013 i.e a requirement of serious harm, I'm sure there are clever ways of getting round this depending on the situation. You have read the wiki article on Singh, so this is an odd point to raise. This pretty much screws the rest of your points, but anyway... If I had grounds for suing you i.e I lost my job and I had evidence to support this, then I have a case, where the burden of proof is on me. The case is on my name being slandered, not on whether I've murdered anybody or not. You should be innocent of libel until it was proved my reputation was damaged. If I simply stated, well John has been saying nasty things about me on the internet, and it's hurt my ickle feelings, would not or should not cut it in a court of law. I simply don't have to, because again, the case is on my name being slandered, not on whether I've murdered anybody or not. When there has been damage to my reputation that can be backed up by evidence. OK, firstly, do you realise that in the hypothetical case I outlined earlier you can't logically assume that both of us are innocent? It doesn't make sense. Either I am guilty of libel or you are guilty of murder. Assuming the innocence of one party is logically assuming the guilt of the other. To get anywhere the court has to proceed against one party or the other. So the choice is between falsely labelling someone a murderer, or falsely labelling someone a slanderer. Since murder is the more serious crime, it's better to avoid false accusation of murder than of slander. So they do. In doing so they do logically assume that the "slanderer" is guilty. "You should be innocent of libel until it was proved my reputation was damaged. If I simply stated, well John has been saying nasty things about me on the internet, and it's hurt my ickle feelings, would not or should not cut it in a court of law." I am surprised that you hold your honour so low that you don't consider an allegation of murder to damage your reputation. However, it's beside the point. The courts automatically assume it will harm you to be falsely accused of a criminal offence. How it "feels" is exactly what the jury consider when setting the award. OK, now let's look at another hypothetical case. I say that Peter Sutcliffe is a murderer. He can point out that I have accused him of a criminal offence. He can, in your world, sue me for damages If he had got his timing right he could have clearly showed the damage it caused as it would have led to his arrest and prosecution. According to you he has done enough to be able to sue me. The problem is that he is actually a murderer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe It's logically impossible for you to prove that you are not a murderer, but it is possible for me to show that he is. That's the other reason why the burden of proof lies on the alleged slanderer. If I had genuine reason to believe it then I can always present that reason as evidence and defend myself against an allegation of slander. .
Royston Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) OK, firstly, do you realise that in the hypothetical case I outlined earlier you can't logically assume that both of us are innocent? It doesn't make sense. Either I am guilty of libel or you are guilty of murder. Well of course, but I've made no such assumption. What I did state, is that there shouldn't be grounds for a trial based solely on my feelings. It is simply not substantial for bringing someone into court. With such a serious accusation, providing evidence on the damage to my reputation should be easy. So again, I think the plaintiff should hold the burden of proof, for reasons I've already stated. Freedom of speech is my main concern here. Assuming the innocence of one party is logically assuming the guilt of the other. To get anywhere the court has to proceed against one party or the other. So the choice is between falsely labelling someone a murderer, or falsely labelling someone a slanderer. I cannot prove I'm not a murderer, but there would be no evidence that I am a murderer, so the accusation would not hold water in court. I would have evidence of libel (your slanderous claims all over the internet) and any damage to my reputation (beyond just my feelings). OK, now let's look at another hypothetical case. I say that Peter Sutcliffe is a murderer. He can point out that I have accused him of a criminal offence. He can, in your world, sue me for damages If he had got his timing right he could have clearly showed the damage it caused as it would have led to his arrest and prosecution. He could sue for damages if he had yet to be tried for murder. But what led to his arrest was evidence, so any claims that it was you that led to his arrest would be easily countered. Any claims of slander would be dropped and you would (I would hope) receive compensation. This is not ideal, but it beats (IMO) having a system that can be easily abused, stifles free speech and that goes against the core principle of innocent until proven guilty. Here's a quote that pretty much sums up my thoughts... " The main "atrocity" in defamation is that it is the only civil wrong where the burden of proof is placed on the defence. In all other civil actions, claimants bear this burden – which is logical and fair, since they are the party using the process to drag others into court. The Ministry of Justice refused to make this change in the defamation bill because "proving a negative is always difficult". It's not. All the claimant has to do is to go into the witness box and aver that the story is false. If he or she survives cross-examination and any defence evidence, their case is proved on the balance of probabilities." Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/feb/25/libel-laws-speech-uk-expensive Edited January 13, 2015 by Royston
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now