Charlie Hebdo and the Onion

"VincentMalamute-Kim" (VincentMalamute-Kim) 09/02/2020 at 12:32 • Filed to: None

1

8

News today that the killers are finally going to trial.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The recent post about the resurfaced Onion cartoon from 2015 didn’t understand the context. Maybe discussion in the comments led to understanding but I didn’t read the later comments.

I initially found the cartoon shocking and distasteful as many here did. But I’d forgotten the context until another Oppo reminded me. The Onion wasn’t trying to be funny. It was making an important statement in support of freedom and democracy and against extremism and fundamentalism.

I really didn’t need to see the graphic detail in the cartoon but I support the cartoon and the Onion in publishing it. Children seeing it or not. Discussion of the dangers of extremism would be good for them too.

ranwhenparked > VincentMalamute-Kim 09/02/2020 at 12:55

1

Probably OK now, with everyone's attention distracted by COVID and the global economic depression, terror groups might not be able to mobilize as much around it this time as they did originally. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > VincentMalamute-Kim 09/02/2020 at 12:56

0

Unfortunately, for freedom to prevail, we often have to defend the indefensible.

VincentMalamute-Kim > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/02/2020 at 12:59

2

I agree with your overall sentiment. I disagree with “indefensible”. The cartoon was s hocking, distasteful but I think it was defensible.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > VincentMalamute-Kim 09/02/2020 at 13:50

0

Neo- Nazis get freedom of speech, too...

fintail > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/02/2020 at 14:17

2

Hell, these days they get a lot more than that.

VincentMalamute-Kim > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/02/2020 at 14:28

1

OK, I see what you meant in your original comment.

hmm... if they publish their opinions on private platforms, then those platforms are free to censor them if they disagree. Or they’re free to publish their opinions and we’re free to say their views are abhorrent.

And Germany outlaws Nazis and their symbols and opinions.

Some gray here.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > VincentMalamute-Kim 09/02/2020 at 14:47

0

Since Twitter & Facebook are the new “town square” it is complicated. Public vs. private places. When it comes down to it, there is no “public” internet. It’s all owned and/or transmitted by someone with the power to control speech, if they so desire. But once you start controlling some speech, where do you stop? That’s Facebook’s problem right now. They just want to be a platform, with no liability or moral obligation. But the public no longer accept that, so now they’re in the business of deciding what they will allow and what they won’t, and what’s truthful and what’s not. It’s an impossible game of cat and mouse.

As for Germany:

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-hate-speech-netzdg-facebook-youtube-google-twitter-free-speech/

VincentMalamute-Kim > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 09/02/2020 at 18:00

1

Twitter has taken out low hanging fruit - obviously non-factual and conspiracy tweets. Facebook could at least do that. “ What’s truthful and what’s not” - you can at least remove posts about Pizza-gate and Q-anon.

One can always raise a slippery slope argument of where do you stop. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to put a limit somewhere.

I agree with you and the P olitico article. It’s not easy. As I said, l ot s of gray. But you should try.