Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Charlie Hebdo Plans to Publish Its Next Issue On Schedule, With an Expanded Print Run

Defiance in the face of murder.

|

Even though 10 of its staffers were slaughtered yesterday, the satirical Paris paper Charlie Hebdo plans to publish its next issue on schedule—and with a bigger print run:

New Republic fans, meanwhile, still have to wait til February.

Charlie Hebdo will publish next Wednesday to defiantly show that "stupidity will not win," columnist Patrick Pelloux told Agence France-Presse, adding that the remaining staff will soon meet….

Richard Malka, the newspaper's lawyer, was reported by Le Figaro as saying one million copies will be printed instead of the usual 60,000. The edition will have just eight pages, however, half of the 16 previously.

Mr Pelloux said the publication would have to be put together outside Charlie Hebdo's headquarters which were not accessible following the massacre, AFP reported.

Here's what it says on Hebdo's homepage right now, as filtered through Google Translate:

Click the image to see the original French.

NEXT: A Feminist Video Game Anita Sarkeesian Would Hate?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good for them. The exact proper response, but brave nonetheless.

    1. Indeed. They have far more guts than the pussies at Comedy Central do, just to give one example.

  2. I’ve noticed a bizarre argument among leftists on this subject where they whine that white men mocking Islam is ‘punching down.’ This term has appeared on literally a dozen left-wing blogs I’ve read, including the particularly egregious anti-Matt Welch article published on Balloon Juice.

    It seems to me that when a tiny, 150 pound cartoonist mocks people with automatic weapons and a willingness to slaughter their opponents, he isn’t the one ‘punching down.’

    1. Yeah, I was griping about that in an earlier thread. “Don’t punch down” just means “Don’t criticize anyone I designate as uncriticizable.”

    2. Until today I only heard the term “punch down” in the context of baking bread.

      1. Bread? I had only used the term previously to describe boxing matches with Canadian geese on the banks of the creek down by the convent’s grape vines.

    3. You don’t understand: white men have power so they are racist. Muslims don’t have power so they can’t be racist. Well exactly white men become “powerless” is anyone’s guess.

      Personally I liked this better in the original German…

    4. Doesn’t that mean to target someone below your fighting weight? So really, on one level, those “dozen” lefty blogs you read (which is troubling btw) are saying that white men are so superior to muslims that all we’re doing is bullying the retarded kid.

      1. The term was used at Hooded Utilitarian, Talking Points Memo, Balloon Juice, Feministing, Buzzfeed, and this random fucking blog:

        http://cloggie.org/wissewords2…..lie-hebdo/

        I’ve seen it in several other places. You can literally Google ‘Charlie Hebdo punching down’ and scroll through the results finding a large number of examples.

        Here’s another one from the always horrible Free Thought Blogs:

        http://freethoughtblogs.com/te…..lie-hebdo/

        “Here’s a problem with #jesuischarlie: Charlie Hebdo, from what I can gather, was a publication that produced and distributed vile, racist material in the guise of satire. Unlike any satire worth the name, it punched down at already-marginalised minorities in an environment that just encouraged an intensification of preexisting anti-Muslim sentiment.”

        WAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAH! Rich white atheist throws a fit when people criticize a religion! WAAAAAH!

      2. The “porn star” from the other thread made this explicit: Privileged white men have agency, but others do not. That is why the reaction of the terrorists was “understandable”, in the same way that it is understandable for a dog to bite someone abusing it. She basically said as much in the comments to her article. So I guess when progressives say something like “racism is dehumanizing”, they don’t just mean that it treats people as sub-human, but actually makes them so.

        1. It’s *everyone else* who is racist.

    5. Note how quickly that this new meme of theirs seems to be spreading, and they just started using it (as far as I know). Their hive-mind interaction is quite amazing to watch. It’s like the Borg.

      1. So you’re saying we need to recruit aliens from fluid space to fight them?

        1. Using Voyager references is punching down to Episiarch. He doesn’t understand that show.

          1. All I need to understand is Jeri Ryan.

            1. So progressives would be hot if they could be liberated from the collective?

              Also, she seems to have aged very well.

              1. Actually you may be on to something. I may have liberated a few from the G-20 protests a few years back. Good times.

          2. Nobody understands that show, other than 7 of 9 in her jumpsuit.

            1. What’s not to understand? Some stupid captain gets half her crew killed and the other half stranded on the other side of the Galaxy, they give the terrorists uniforms, and everyone lives happily ever after.

            2. Do you really need to understand anything else?

        2. No, just the Traveler. He can rape them.

          1. Will they travel to warp 10 and turn into salamanders first?

      2. Note how quickly that this new meme of theirs seems to be spreading

        The phrase has been around for a while. It’s the old rule of thumb that it’s better to aim satire at the powerful, not the powerless.

        I don’t think that’s an objectionable idea at all. It’s just that in the last week, as the term suddenly made the leap to clich? status, the phrase has been wielded by people with confused ideas about where power is located and where Charlie Hebdo has typically aimed its satire.

        1. “I don’t think that’s an objectionable idea at all. It’s just that in the last week, as the term suddenly made the leap to clich? status, the phrase has been wielded by people with confused ideas about where power is located and where Charlie Hebdo has typically aimed its satire.”

          Not only that, but none of these people actually oppose ‘punching down.’ When John Stewart makes fun of random rednecks, who is in a position of power and who isn’t? Yet these people never criticize Stewart for ‘punching down’ at people vastly less powerful than himself.

        2. I guess my point was that it wasn’t a term that (again, as far as I know) you would have seen being used in pretty much any sense by these SJWs/commentators/what have you. But then, within a day, as Irish pointed out, it has been used a shitload of times.

          We see this all the time; it’s like a form of decentralized marching orders or groupthink. They all start coalescing into the same basic theme about something in record time.

          1. It goes hand in hand with the “privilege” meme they have been pushing. If you are privileged, then you can’t have a voice in the conversation. They argue that everyone slots into a hierarchy of oppression and that racism or bigotry only flows downward.

            1. The greatest thing ever was at Occupy Wall Street when they literally listed every conceivable group by how marginalized they are and you were allowed to talk first if you were the greatest victim.

              So white heterosexual men went last and I suppose an African American female pansexual albino quadriplegic would have first go.

              The question then becomes a bit confusing. Who’s more oppressed, a black man or an Asian woman? What if you’re a white male heterosexual but you’re also sexually attracted to trees and are only 4’11”?

            2. It’s kind of amazing the amount of time and energy these people spend trying to philosophically justify telling people they don’t like to shut the fuck up and that they don’t get to talk.

              1. It’s kind of amazing the amount of time and energy these people spend trying to philosophically justify telling people they don’t like to shut the fuck up and that they don’t get to talk.

                That is awesome Epi. I am stealing it.

                1. Thanks, steal away!

              2. It’s kind of amazing the amount of time and energy these people spend trying to philosophically justify telling people they don’t like to shut the fuck up and that they don’t get to talk.

                They are terrified of debate. They no longer seek a dialectic; they want to broadcast and never have to hear any negative in reply.

                Even logic and basic rhetoric have been deemed elitist and discarded.

                1. Even logic and basic rhetoric have been deemed elitist and discarded.

                  The “free speech doesn’t insulate you from the consequences of your speech!” line is telling. No shit it doesn’t. Who says it does?

        3. Ok, I get that. But ordinary American folk like me wouldn’t have heard of this satire rag until this week. So you’re saying they do other stuff than just punch M-dawg (PBUH)?

        4. The phrase has been around for a while. It’s the old rule of thumb that it’s better to aim satire at the powerful, not the powerless.

          I don’t think that’s an objectionable idea at all.

          Honestly, I disagree. To my thinking, the standard for whether an idea or a set of people is worth satirizing is whether it or they are, on some level, silly, And there’s nothing inherent in powerful or powerless that exempts one from being silly.

    6. There are a billion Muslims out there. Is it possible to be “punching down” when you mock a group with 1300 years of history and a billion living members?

      Not that it is fair to suggest that Muslims share a single, unified religion, but I’m sure that is the generalization made by the whiners. Mocking anyone who identifies as Muslim would be “punching down.”

      Of course, the cartoon is directed at extremist Islamists, many of whom do have a lot of power, and are using it to do things that would make most white men sick.

      1. Of course you mean real power, violence.

    7. Yeah the “punching down” thing has also made my FB feed w.r.t. Charlie Hebdo. The usual “well of course this was a completely inexcusable crime and tragedy BUT…”.

      The current thread ends with quoting this gem:

      In an unequal world, satire that “mocks everyone equally” ends up serving the powerful.

      ? Saladin Ahmed (@saladinahmed) January 8, 2015

      [removed][removed]

      1. The powerful? You mean like 1.5 billion people that can use the violence of government to go after anyone that hurts their feelings about their imaginary sky friend?

  3. So, France, how are multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and gun control working out for you these days?

    1. We could be asking the same question of the US. And let’s not call it 3rd world immigration because that lumps relatively civilized immigrants in with Muslim immigrants. I read somewhere that only a TINY MINORITY of their Muslims are fundamentalists supportive of violence.

  4. A while back when Colbert finally went off the air, there was a thread on Reddit talking about how brave Colbert was to mock Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner. The sheer facepalmery of that statement was ridiculous; this only serves to highlight that further. This is what bravery looks like, with respect to speech.

  5. That’s a pretty good “fuck you,” right in their eye.

    1. Absolutely, totally perfect, and totally ballsy. And man I hope they have good security now.

      1. Yeah, I’d be arming the staff now.

        Problem is, they can’t live there 24×7. So yeah, even ballsier.

  6. Multiple people have linked to this already, but this particular segment has freaked me out a little so I feel the need to highlight it.

    The principle of guilty until proven innocent may seem a bit harsh to some, but it makes sense when you consider how severe the crime of hate speech is ? it is a crime that simply cannot be tolerated in a democracy.

    1. The world will be better off when the person who wrote that is dead.

    2. Although most libertarians agreed that it should always be illegal to offend or insult ethnic minorities, a few ultra-libertarians believed that ONLY inciting hatred should be illegal rather than merely offending or insulting ethnic minorities. This was seen as recklessly removing all limitations on “freedom of speech” at the expense of vulnerable ethnic minorities, and many people warned that race riots and even genocide could potentially occur as a result.

      Is the word libertarian being co-opted like liberal was now? What in the bloody hell?

      1. That stupid fuck of a writer finished off with this gem…

        We need to fight against all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideals, and protect civil rights for all. Otherwise, we are truly no better than Nazi Germany was. TC mark

        So a lack of speech censorship is like killing tens of millions of people. Makes sense…

        1. You misunderstand. They want to one-up Nazi Germany.

      2. C’mon. Satire.

    3. Pretty sure that’s satire.

      1. It used to be.

        1. LOL

          “The user who took the /r/Eric_Garner subreddit is prominent Reddit neo-Nazi /u/European88, who regularly calls for violence and genocide (including against children).”

          Yes, genocide usually is carried out against children.

          That’s what makes it genocide.

    4. Do DOS attacks violate free speech? Just curious.

      1. I don’t think MS-DOS would make a particularly potent weapon.

      2. I would say so, but indirectly. It really is more of a property crime as a DOS is preventing the purchaser of server space from using it. It’s kind of like parking in front of someone’s driveway.

    5. Like any sensible person, I am a strong believer in the unalienable right to freedom of speech and I understand that defending freedom of speech is the most important when it’s speech that many people do not want to hear (like, for example, pro-LGBT speech in Russia). Freedom of speech is the core of any democratic society, and it’s important that freedom of speech be strongly respected and upheld. Censorship in all of its forms is something that must always be fiercely opposed. But

      Thankfully, the comments are slamming her.

    6. techdirt convinced it’s satire.

      https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=tanya+cohen

      because this absolutely is satire, and it does a brilliant job absolutely mocking those who are attacking free speech at every turn.

      Again, it starts out subtly, with garden-variety stupidity around free speech:

      1. One would hope, but Cohen has posted elsewhere (as noted above) and has a twitter account as well. If it is satire, it’s well done.

    7. No doubt at all, obviously satire. Many have been trolled.

  7. Given the obvious threats to their lives, I wonder if French authorities would allow any of the employees to carry a firearm for protection purposes.

    In theory at least, France does allow concealed carry.

    1. I don’t believe self-defense is a valid reason though. Unless you’re a politician, only they get to utilize the full range of measures to protect themselves.

      1. True, self defense in and of itself is not sufficient in most of Europe, but documented threats to your life sometimes are considered sufficient.

        1. Czech Republic and Finland don’t even require a reason as I recall. There’s a few bastions of liberty hidden away in Europe.

          1. Czech concealed carry is Shall Issue I think, or very close to Shall Issue

            Finland has no such provisions, that being said Finish laws regarding possession are some of the better ones in Europe.

  8. if American publications have any guts, they’ll print and distribute Charlie too.

  9. I’m always shocked to be reminded that the class that likes to think of itself as intellectual (not to be confused with the intellectual class, mind you) is totally, utterly, hostile to free speech. They can dress up their idiocy in whatever lazy pseudo-Marxist drivel they like, but the fact is that they want to shut up the people they don’t like. There’s no way around that fact. These people are scum of the highest order.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.