[Ignitionnet]

*Sigh* This is why I generally keep this guy on ignore...

Last set of responses, you can knock yourself out afterwards, I will not derail this thread further with disagreements of opinions it deals with way bigger issues.

Originally Posted by martyh

Then you are wrong ,that is not and never has been the purpose of free speech or a free press

Fortunately I didn't say that. I merely said that the free press and free speech should have the right to cause offence and to antagonise, not that it is their purpose. The purpose of Charlie Hebdo was to make people laugh through satire and given the number of staff they had they were obviously succeeding.

Originally Posted by martyh

oh i do apologise ,are we getting offended ,well guess what ,given your insistance on our right to free speech .......tough.... deal with it

I am indeed somewhat offended by the comparison and have said I think it was low but at no time have or will I question your right to make it or react beyond to say what I already have.

Originally Posted by martyh

and how will they feel if next week some more of their staff get shot .It's not solidarity it's stupid and completely unnecessary.

I am very, very glad that many publications, both online and offline, disagreed with your attitude and reprinted some of the cartoons. It was important both in solidarity and in expressing that freedom of the press should not be cowed by threats of violence.

Originally Posted by martyh

You are completely missing the point .you can of course criticise or mock a religion no one has ever said any different ,what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult especially knowing the likely outcome to people you are responsible for and your utter failure to understand that simple concept is what makes you and those with your attitude part of the problem.

I will requote and deal in parts:

Originally Posted by martyh

what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult

So apparently the free press, media, art, etc, must not set out to deliberately cause offence or insult. Gotcha, Chief. That leaves things pretty sterile given that there will be those who take offense or insult at pretty much anything.

Unsure if this applies just to religion but merely questioning a certain religion caused offence, so that pretty much leaves that one absolutely unquestionable, and makes any kind of critique impossible.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

Originally Posted by martyh

especially knowing the likely outcome to people you are responsible for

So it seems also that by exercising the right, set down in law, to cause offence the media gets what they have coming.

In short the media in this vision have to steer clear of anything that may cause offence, distress, or insult, which in the case of the religion in question and a number of its followers is pretty much any criticism, questioning, or doubt regarding Mohammed and their holy texts, both because it shouldn't be done, full stop, and because the reaction may be violent.