To wish our press made a stand for enlightenment values....

[Babycham1979]

....and all published the cartoons of Mohammed on their front covers tomorrow.

The right to freedom of expression and to cause offence are fundamental principles that underpin European values and liberal western democracy; surely the only response to the Charlie Hebdo shootings is for our society to make a stand against this kind of fascist terrorism and show that we can't be cowed by bullying.

Some people may be offended, but that's the price you pay for reaping the benefits of living in a modern, liberal, secular society. If our media bows down to this kind of violence, surely the nut-jobs have won? Self-imposed censorship is still censorship.

[SugarOnTop]

i think there is a difference between 'freedom of expression/speech' and deliberately ignorant and antagonistic behavior. personal responsibility for our actions also goes hand in hand with using our human right to freedom of speech and expression.

i am in no way defending the despicable actions of the terrorists....but we have to ask ourselves why do we allow the deliberate antagonisation of a certain volatile group and then expect there to be no consequences for those actions? quote from the Guardian newspaper " Dependably provocative and indiscriminately rude, the magazine had come to embody freedom of expression by targeting Islam with its politically incorrect brand of satire. Moments before the attack, a cartoon depicting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (Isis), was posted on its Twitter account. The magazine’s cover this week features Michel Houellebecq’s provocative new novel, Submission, which imagines France being ruled by a Muslim president."

where is the 'journalism' in that?

if we make a mockery of freedom of speech and expression and bastardise its essence and quality - why then do we expect those with a lower moral compass and twisted ideology to have respect for us and our way of life?

i would go so far as to say that this magazine/newspaper was deliberately provoking the terrorists into taking action. their desire was granted and now innocent people have paid the price for it too.

[RandomNPC]

^ Supreme bit of victim blaming there. You mean if we don't antagonise the nasty men they might go away? I don't think so. They're members of a psychotic death cult. They hate liberal democracy, and anything else invented in the last 1300 years frankly.

[ToomanyChristmasPresents]

Charlie Hebdo mocked all groups. They didn't specifically pick on Islam. Harsh satire has been part of the political debate for centuries in the West. It's not possible to have a healthy democracy without a free press.
I worry that if the press doesn't push back, and governments don't support and protect them to do so; we will see some seriously bad outcomes. Far right parties already have too much traction. An insipid response to thrilling a will make things worse.

[ToomanyChristmasPresents]

Thrilling = the killings

[Ubik1]

My god Sugar listen to yourself.

They drew some satirical cartoons. That's it. And they were executed fir it.

Civilised people write a letter, give interviews maybe even protest outside the offices of a publication they don't like. That is democracy.

They don't pick up an ak-47 and massacre people.

This is an attack on our values -freedom of speech and expression.

[Ubik1]

But it's telling that our press prefer to show a police officer begging for his life in front of a terrorist than the offending cartoons.

I wonder why they made that decision.

[saoirse31]

completely disagree with sugar on top. Freedom of speech is vitally important. yesterday's attack was an attack on it.

[TheCrimsonQueen]

Completely agree. Much respect to the German Newspaper who published the pictures.

[HeartsTrumpDiamonds]

I love that Berliner Zeitung front page. Would that our press had followed suit.

Freedoms erode if they are not exercised.

[simontowers2]

Cut through the rambling sugar and essentially you are saying they were asking for it, are you not? You really should go hang your head in shame. It was inevitable that there would be some apologists for these thugs on mumsnet. We either have freedom of speech or we dont. All this crap about responsibility is just typical liberal nonsense; its a way of attempting to stop people saying things you dont agree with.

[ToomanyChristmasPresents]

Agree Hearts. Really disappointed that our press was too frightened to do so. Shows this group is profiting from their vile acts.

[MuttersDarkly]

SugarOnTop

Satire has played a significant, possibly essential role, in moving us as a species forward. Cartoonists in particular have an important role because their work offers a high level of ease of engagement, requires a low level of tenacity to note the message and does not require literacy thus making it accessible to an enormous audience.

You have reduced that to "provoking" terrorists into cold blooded murder and deemed it evidence of justification for some of the blood spilled.

I have spent much of my waking time reflecting and talking to my son. I think we forget the extent to which the creative arts have contributed to our evolution as humans. I am rethinking my leaning towards encouraging my son to focus on something "useful" for his future studies because in retrospect I believe my definition of "useful" has become restrictive to the point of being deeply flawed.

Rather than blame the fallen for the atrocity they have suffered I think instead we need to consider on the contribution they and their ilk have made in our societies, past and present, be grateful and be part of protecting the values they played a role in establishing.

[Carrierpenguin]

Yanbu. I don't use Facebook really but I did log on to change my profile photo to 'je suis charlie'

[MuttersDarkly]

edit

"does not require a particularly high level of literacy"

[ghostland]

Totally agree. They should reprint the original cartoons but I think this one also makes the point fantastically;

i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/08/247EBEC100000578-0-image-m-30_1420691226133.jpg

[ghostland]

This is the drawing that I thought made a fantastic point;

[ouryve]

It's possible to disagree with the actions of the terrorists without agreeing with the opinions and actions of the journalists, cartoonists and others that they killed. Take Godfrey Bloom, for example. He has every right to express opinions that demonstrate that his a sexist, racist, goady fucker and I have every right to express the opinion that he's a sexist, racist, goady fucker. Seeking him out and gunning him down for that wouldn't be right, though and recognising the sheer wrongness of such a response to his expression of views does not make me even start to condone those views.

So newspapers have every right to condemn the actions of the terrorists without wanting to publish the views expressed by the victims. There is no hypocrisy there.

[writtenguarantee]

i think there is a difference between 'freedom of expression/speech' and deliberately ignorant and antagonistic behavior. personal responsibility for our actions also goes hand in hand with using our human right to freedom of speech and expression.

of course there is personal responsibility and consequences. if someone says something that offends someone else or that is plain silly, the offended can respond and the appropriate response is satire, a well written piece, mockery, or simply ignoring the offender and not buying their goods. That's the way it's supposed to work. Shooting people is not an acceptable consequence.

i am in no way defending the despicable actions of the terrorists....but we have to ask ourselves why do we allow the deliberate antagonisation of a certain volatile group and then expect there to be no consequences for those actions?

The consequences for your actions (if your actions are satire) should be limited to what I wrote above.

As to why we allow satire, it's because it is absolutely a critical part of free speech. As someone else pointed out, it has made huge contributions to our debates. A concrete example (possibly not strictly satire, but close enough) is how the work of Stetson Kennedy helped to bring down the KKK in America. it is a critical form of expression.

What happens if people were offended not by depictions of muhammed, but any denial that islam is the true religion? Can we not discuss that then? Where does it end? you have the right to be offended and you have the right to bin any newspaper you disagree with, and you have the right to respond to anything in print with print. it's how the free exchange of ideas work.

[MuttersDarkly]

So newspapers have every right to condemn the actions of the terrorists without wanting to publish the views expressed by the victims. There is no hypocrisy there.

I don't disagree with that. However since '89 (or maybe earlier, it's just that '89 is the earliest point of my awareness) I think there is a question mark over to what extent the above may be used (at least to some degree) as a fig leaf for motivations that are more accurately described as fear of reprisals.

In the example you gave I think it is possible that there would be reprints of a sexist/racist cartoon, if for nothing else to illustrate what the spark was.

There have been almighty great rows over cartoons in the past, in similar sorts of numbers do those reporting the row generally chose taste boundary and avoid using the original image to illustrate what the spark was , or do they tend to re-print the cartoon alongside reports about the fall out ?

[Nancy66]

I really applaud the German newspaper that published all the cartoons.

However if an editor in this country made that call then, fact is, he or she would be endangering the lives of their staff.

[MishMooshAndMogwai]

I've tried to write this 3 times now and it keeps deleting! Try again....

I read on a thread yesterday that British papers wouldn't be publishing original cartoons as they 'have a responsibility towards the safety of their staff'.

I feel, that while this may be cowardly wise, there have been many wonderful drawings produced in tribute over the last 24 hours that couldve taken the place of the originals on the front pages with possibly less risk.

Anything, I feel, is better than using shocking images of the event, the killers and their victims as it happened which is what they want. They want to shock, they want to scare and they'll see the use of these images as glorifying the even and adding to their success.

[MishMooshAndMogwai]

This is exactly what I mean- I whole heartedly applaud the independent for having the balls to use this image.

[Nancy66]

newspapers have a duty to report the news - regardless of whether that panders to terrorists or not. Should media outlets just not have covered 911?

not wanting your staff to be murdered is hardly cowardly.

[writtenguarantee]

not wanting your staff to be murdered is hardly cowardly.

indeed. if they all did it, however, there won't be a target. but I don't think it's cowardly, it actually expresses something bad about islam, not them.

[NetballHoop]

Well done to the Independent! Other papers should have have run similar front pages.