Terror Attack in Paris, January 7, 2014

Brumby said:

The law will pursue to the fullest extend possible irresponsible behaviour like yelling "fire" if there is no such cause. That is how a lawful society is meant to operate. When people start to take actions into their own hands like burning churches in protest that is lawlessness in action. You have a strange way of making a point of what is meant to follow the law.

Click to expand...

And you didn't understand anything. The terrorists don't care about the law. When they start killing people they can reach that you can do nothing about, how many vulnerable people in other places have to die until you bother to think about it? Like you'll be going after those in Niger who burned down those churches and killed those people? No. Watch what happens to all the other people who don't live in ivory castles. You can't be everywhere.

Brumby said:

The law will pursue to the fullest extend possible irresponsible behaviour like yelling "fire" if there is no such cause. That is how a lawful society is meant to operate. When people start to take actions into their own hands like burning churches in protest that is lawlessness in action. You have a strange way of making a point of what is meant to follow the law.

Click to expand...

So why are things like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater against the law in the first place? Its because doing so has a high probability of resulting in the serious injury and/or death of other people. Cause and effect.

The question to ask is, was it foreseeable that the publication of a deliberately offensive cartoon towards Muhammad would result in violent protests and deaths?

If you think back to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, then the answer should have been depressingly obvious as over 200 people died ultimately in protests that ensued.

The people at Jyllands-Posten could at least claim to not have been able to foresee such terrible consequences to the publication of the cartoons. Charlie Hebdo has not such defense.

Ultimately, they chose their 'freedom' to be annoying and arrogant and spiteful for the sake of being so over other people's lives, and I will hold them at least partially responsible for every death and injury that ensues whether they are in Muslim countries or, and I sincerely hope not, western countries if there is another attack in retaliation.

plawolf said:

So why are things like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater against the law in the first place? Its because doing so has a high probability of resulting in the serious injury and/or death of other people. Cause and effect.

The question to ask is, was it foreseeable that the publication of a deliberately offensive cartoon towards Muhammad would result in violent protests and deaths?

If you think back to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, then the answer should have been depressingly obvious as over 200 people died ultimately in protests that ensued.

The people at Jyllands-Posten could at least claim to not have been able to foresee such terrible consequences to the publication of the cartoons. Charlie Hebdo has not such defense.

Ultimately, they chose their 'freedom' to be annoying and arrogant and spiteful for the sake of being so over other people's lives, and I will hold them at least partially responsible for every death and injury that ensues whether they are in Muslim countries or, and I sincerely hope not, western countries if there is another attack in retaliation.

Click to expand...

In a lawful society, there are obligations and protection accorded to each member of that society. If a law is broken then there are consequences - that is the cause and effect. When there is conflict of systems across international lines, then my simplistic view is to each its own. We don't impose on another's jurisdiction and the expectation is mutual. Each member of society should have the liberty to make choices within the boundary of its law. Charlie Hebdo makes fun of all religion including Christianity. As a Christian I don't like it but we learn to ignore it. Ultimately it is not the action of others but our reaction that matters and that is where responsibility lies. Being offended in my view is not an excuse no matter how you try to cut it.

AssassinsMace said:

And you didn't understand anything. The terrorists don't care about the law. When they start killing people they can reach that you can do nothing about, how many vulnerable people in other places have to die until you bother to think about it? Like you'll be going after those in Niger who burned down those churches and killed those people? No. Watch what happens to all the other people who don't live in ivory castles. You can't be everywhere.

Click to expand...

Terrorists don't run out of reasons to conduct themselves the way they do. If not cartoons there will be something else. IMHO it is incredibly naive to think that appeasement will somehow make the attacks go away. It just changes targets depending on reason selection and there are plenty to choose from because we are dealing with competing values.

Brumby said:

In a lawful society, there are obligations and protection accorded to each member of that society. If a law is broken then there are consequences - that is the cause and effect. When there is conflict of systems across international lines, then my simplistic view is to each its own. We don't impose on another's jurisdiction and the expectation is mutual.

Click to expand...

You are right, that is a very simplistic view. Should one country's laws only take into account the impact within said countries own territorial and legal boundaries irrespective of the harm done to others? Thankfully, few countries take such a selfish view, and most impose legal restrictions on their citizen's actions, even abroad.

If we dispense with the niceties if purely legal theory and look at reality on the ground, your view falls apart even further.

Do you think for a nanosecond that western governments would be swayed by your 'don't impose on another's juristiction' expectation if anyone was doing anything to deliberately and/or recklessly put their citizens' lives at risk, even if said activity is perfectly legal in the host country? Ever heard of renditions and drone strikes? One does not even have to wonder what the reaction would be if a Muslim country renditioned the survivors of Charlie Hedbo and/or levelled their offices with a Hellfire or Paveway.

Each member of society should have the liberty to make choices within the boundary of its law.

Click to expand...

The arguement isn't and never have been about whether people should follow the law or not, but rather whether the law should limit free speech to protect people from harm when free speech is abused.

Charlie Hebdo makes fun of all religion including Christianity. As a Christian I don't like it but we learn to ignore it.

Click to expand...

Well that's comparing apples to oranges, since there is no prohibition in Christianity in terms of using pictorial depictions as there is in Sunni Islam.

People all over the world have criticised, mocked and cursed Islamic beliefs and the Islamic prophets in print without causing people to loose their lives. Muslims are not any more or less easily offended as Christians, Jews or any other religious followers as many mainstream western commentators and media outlets have tried to imply.

The overwhelming majority take a similar view towards criticism and literary attacks as you do, so long as it doesn't violate a cornerstone of their faith.

The law have made exceptions before to tailor for religious beliefs, would it be going too far to just simply say, don't draw pictures of Islamic prophets?

Ultimately it is not the action of others but our reaction that matters and that is where responsibility lies. Being offended in my view is not an excuse no matter how you try to cut it.

Click to expand...

Again, an extremely simplistic and narrow view, even from a purely legalistic point of view.

Going back to the 'fire' example, by your reasoning, the death and injury that ensues would be the responsibility of the panicked people rushing to get out rather than on the person who shouted 'fire'.

This is not to excuse rioting or arsen by any means, it is merely pointing out that as unfair and illogical it may seem to you or I, these are the realities of the world we live in. It is as pointless debating the reasonableness of Sunni Muslims' reaction to people making insulting pictures of Muhammad as it is to argue about how a panicked crowd should behave in a confined space.

And to be frank, in terms of the Muslim reaction, the west has got it easy, terrorism and all.

Muslims are only rioting in Muslim lands because their governents are all either too weak or too beholdened to the west to do anything about these cartoons. So the people vent their rage impotently on each other.

If the Muslim countries had western levels of wealth, power and democracy, they would be imposing sanctions and/or sending carriers to the French coast right now.

I suppose that's the thing that I, as an atheist neutral observer, find most distasteful - the west's trampling of Muslim values and beliefs seems too much like bullying for my taste. The views and feelings of Muslims are simply not even a factor to be considered in any of the debates I have seen on the matter. Its all only about western rights and freedoms. Because the Muslim world is too weak for its views to matter apparently.

That is the illogic of might=right, and that is not how the world should be run.

plawolf said:

So why are things like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater against the law in the first place? Its because doing so has a high probability of resulting in the serious injury and/or death of other people. Cause and effect.

The question to ask is, was it foreseeable that the publication of a deliberately offensive cartoon towards Muhammad would result in violent protests and deaths?

If you think back to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, then the answer should have been depressingly obvious as over 200 people died ultimately in protests that ensued.

The people at Jyllands-Posten could at least claim to not have been able to foresee such terrible consequences to the publication of the cartoons. Charlie Hebdo has not such defense.

Ultimately, they chose their 'freedom' to be annoying and arrogant and spiteful for the sake of being so over other people's lives, and I will hold them at least partially responsible for every death and injury that ensues whether they are in Muslim countries or, and I sincerely hope not, western countries if there is another attack in retaliation.

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech certainly has its boundaries. I agree that there should be a line between satire or criticism, and being deliberately offensive. Of course such a line would be difficult to define and maintain, and is bound to receive lots of controversy, and it could be misused, but it is nonetheless necessary to keep such a line. I do agree that Charlie Hebdo crossed this line in some of their work.

However, I think it is important to draw this line based on principles of social tolerance, mutual respect, and common sense, things that would benefit society as a whole. It must not be based on the simple logic of cause and effect, as that would reward groups that are intolerant and punish those who're more tolerant. We need to stop things because it is blatantly disrespectful and wrong, not because it might result in social disturbance or attract terrorist attacks. If we only do it to minimize trouble, then a lot of society's progress would not have happened, as many of the values we take for granted today were initially radical ideas heavily opposed by a lot of people. It's a matter of principle and it's crucial.

Brumby said:

Terrorists don't run out of reasons to conduct themselves the way they do. If not cartoons there will be something else.

Click to expand...

Indeed. In places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, girls can be subject to terror attacks because they go to school. So I guess the solution is to lock them in the kitchen and tell them to be good little housewives when they grow up!

Freedom of press and speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. ONLY when one lives in an island by themselves there is no need for rules other than survival, but when you add another human being onto the island, it's a whole new ball game.

I think there are a few interesting issues that had been brought up including :
(i) To what extend a limit be placed on free speech (including press);
(ii) Subjective morality in society; and
(iii) Reconciling competing value systems

Whilst I am happy to express my views on them and engage in a debate of ideas concerning such issues, this is fundamentally a thread on the Paris attack. Although there are already a few posts on such issues without any clamping down by the moderators, I would like to get clearance that we can continue with such discussions before I engage further to ensure we are in compliance.

plawolf said:

You are right, that is a very simplistic view. Should one country's laws only take into account the impact within said countries own territorial and legal boundaries irrespective of the harm done to others? Thankfully, few countries take such a selfish view, and most impose legal restrictions on their citizen's actions, even abroad.

Click to expand...

I would just take the first item as it is a lengthy and substantial discussion pending feedback from the moderators.

There are 2 distinct issues that you are talking about and that is intra/inter legal jurisdictional overview of lawful behaviour or otherwise. These 2 issues are then subject yet again to 2 different angles, legal and moral consideration.
Conduct within sovereign borders
Any behaviour is subject to the laws of the country and any infringement is subject to the laws. If anyone is offended outside of that country, there is clear demarcation of legal jurisdiction and responsibilities. When it comes to the moral perspective I think there will be as many opinions as there are people with opinions.
Conduct outside sovereign borders
Any behaviour is subject to the laws of the country of visit and moral perspective becomes secondary
The main question really is whether we should be morally bound to a certain course because someone else who shares a different world view is offended and more importantly whether any goodwill would and should be reciprocated. Goodwill is after all a two way street and is normally earned and not demanded. For example, those non Muslim living in a Muslim country.

Using the Paris attack as an example. A French citizen draws a cartoon which is deemed offensive. That French person is killed because another person finds it offensive. I believe both from a legal and moral perspective it would be interesting to make a case to justify the action. I welcome anyone to make that attempt. Let’s expand that across jurisdiction. Say someone in a Muslim country is offended and kills another French citizen in that country in retaliation. Similarly I would invite anyone to make a case to justify it, both legally and morally.
The issue that is most problematic is whether the French man should be bound by a moral compass in drawing the cartoon and if there is a moral compass who decides what compass should be adopted and that is the issue of subjective morality.