I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie Hebdo

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:54 pm UTC

Yes.

1) Get off oil. No oil money means the Saudis stop funding Salafism. Iran collapses as well. And Russia. And Mexico too, which is a shame because the Mexicans are cool.
2) Ban private schools in as many western countries as possible. You want extra religious ed for your kids? That's what Sunday school is for. This would keep everyone in the same community rather than isolate them from each other, and as a bonus would finally end Jim Crow in the US (the South keeps segregation alive by having the public schools be the black schools). Like you said, the murderers were from France.
3) Establish a Kurdistan already. Not sure what this will do but I'm sympathetic to the Kurds.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby jewish_scientist » Tue May 05, 2015 6:48 am UTC

This is more about my opinion of Chatlie Hebdo than about the protests.

Free speak is not a universal right that someone can use to defend any and every piece of media. A publisher cannot simple adding a political caption to any indecent image and expect equal treatment as Dr. Suess. The Miller test is a standard in the U.S. for deciding if a piece of media is obscene. It has three parts:

1) Does the material present sexual matters in a way that violates the community's standards?
2) Is the material indecent?
3) Does the material lack significant literary, political, scientific or cultural value?

Some examples: A magazine of women in swimming suits fails the 3rd and possibly the 1st, but not the 2nd. Brave New World violates the 2nd and possible the 1st, but not the other the 3rd. Grey Anatomy (the book) fails the 2nd and possibly the 1st, but it definitely passes the 3rd. I keep writing, "...and possibly the 1st..." because the community were the material was being displayed determines what does pass and does not pass the 1st e.g. material that can be publicly displayed in Las Vegas, Nevada may be offensive to people in Atlanta, Georgia. You should know that some lawyers have criticized the Miller Test for this reason.

Indecent and obscene are italicized because they have legal definitions. Indecent material is media that depicts the reproductive organs and other things that I do not want to name. Indecent, but not obscene, material enjoys protection from the 1st Amendment a.k.a. free speech. Obscene material does not enjoy protection from the 1st Amendment. If I prove that material created by Charlie Hebdo (CH) was obscene, then they may not justify their actions as expression of freedom of the press or freedom of speech (at least in America).

DO NOT LOOK UP IMAGES FROM CHARLIE HEBDO UNLESS YOU ARE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD.

Some of the covers printed by CH were not sexual and some of the ones that were still had serious political value. However, many images that they published did not. Some of the images were simply of religious figures preforming perverse acts. There was no caption and to say that there was symbolism is a true stretch of the imagination.

The magazine's images depicted sexual acts, so it is indecent. Although someone may claim that their was some political value, the standard set by the Miller Test is serious value. These images have failed 2 of the 3 parts of the Miller Test. The 1st part is always tricky to prove, but I am confident that even some of the most lenient communities would be offended by sexual matters being displayed as they were. Some of the images printed by CH fail the Miller Test, so these images are not protected as free speech.

CH has openly stated that some of the images that they put on their covers was intended to offend a targeted group. Without protection from the 1st Amendment, I cannot think of a substantial defense for their actions.

Do I believe that the attacks on CH justified? No.
Do I believe that legal action could be taken against CH (if they were in America)? Yes.
Do I believe that actions taken by CH were morally wrong? Yes.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 05, 2015 4:54 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:CH has openly stated that some of the images that they put on their covers was intended to offend a targeted group. Without protection from the 1st Amendment, I cannot think of a substantial defense for their actions.

Do I believe that the attacks on CH justified? No.
Do I believe that legal action could be taken against CH (if they were in America)? Yes.
Do I believe that actions taken by CH were morally wrong? Yes.


Wait, so aiming to offend is automatically morally wrong?

Why?

User avatar
Forest Goose
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Forest Goose » Tue May 05, 2015 6:05 pm UTC

You seem a bit confused...

Your 2 should be: "whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,"

jewish_scientist wrote:Brave New World violates the 2nd

Grey Anatomy (the book) fails the 2nd


Would you mind backing up that these fail the quote above?

Indecent and obscene are italicized because they have legal definitions. Indecent material is media that depicts the reproductive organs and other things that I do not want to name. Indecent, but not obscene, material enjoys protection from the 1st Amendment a.k.a. free speech. Obscene material does not enjoy protection from the 1st Amendment.


That second sentence seems especially debatable, do you have a cite that any depiction of reproductive organs is indecent?

I was of the understanding that the Miller test was to determine what works could be considered obscene, you seem to be using the term as if there were some other definition in use, would you please elaborate/clarify?

If I prove that material created by Charlie Hebdo (CH) was obscene, then they may not justify their actions as expression of freedom of the press or freedom of speech (at least in America).


I was under the impression that you would need a court to rule on that, I'm not sure what you're doing: the Miller Test is not a logical/philosophical method whereby which one determines what is obscene, it is a legal test.

Some of the covers printed by CH were not sexual and some of the ones that were still had serious political value. However, many images that they published did not. Some of the images were simply of religious figures preforming perverse acts. There was no caption and to say that there was symbolism is a true stretch of the imagination.

The magazine's images depicted sexual acts, so it is indecent. Although someone may claim that their was some political value, the standard set by the Miller Test is serious value. These images have failed 2 of the 3 parts of the Miller Test. The 1st part is always tricky to prove, but I am confident that even some of the most lenient communities would be offended by sexual matters being displayed as they were. Some of the images printed by CH fail the Miller Test, so these images are not protected as free speech.

CH has openly stated that some of the images that they put on their covers was intended to offend a targeted group. Without protection from the 1st Amendment, I cannot think of a substantial defense for their actions.


The actual 1 and 3, as stated (my bolding), are:

1.) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

2.) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequate protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.

Are you claiming that, as a whole, CH appeals to prurient interests and has no redeeming literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? You seem to be referring to specific images, etc..

Do I believe that legal action could be taken against CH (if they were in America)? Yes.


I sincerely sincerely doubt that this is the case, do you have any precedent to cite to back this up?

Do I believe that actions taken by CH were morally wrong? Yes.


You certainly haven't demonstrated that - if you mean, simply, to state your opinion, then that's neat, random internet friend, but I fail to see what weight it has.
Forest Goose: A rare, but wily, form of goose; best known for dropping on unsuspecting hikers, from trees, to steal sweets.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests