Charlie Hebdo Massacre

145 Intellectuals Agree: Dead Cartoonists Aren’t Worthy of Free-Speech Award if Their Murderers Come From a Disadvantaged Minority

Charlie Hebdo's posthumous critics pen an authoritarian anti-speech manifesto

|

Teju Cole. ||| The Lavin Agency
The Lavin Agency

Sunday brought the story of six members of PEN America, citing impressively asinine and ill-informed arguments, protesting that a free-speech organization was giving a courage-in-free-speech award to Charlie Hebdo, the French cartoon newspaper that was massacred for its courageous free speech. Now comes the chaser: A full 145 members of PEN, including some of the original refuseniks (and some other names you might recognize, such as Joyce Carol Oates), have attached their name to a remarkable document that encapsulates as well as anything I have seen the sick cloud that hangs over the Enlightenment idea of free speech.

Francine Prose. ||| WritersVoice.net
WritersVoice.net

"We do not believe in censoring expression," the 145 write, ominously. (Strange, how no actual champion of free speech I've ever encountered has felt the need to issue such a disclaimer.) "However, there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression."

The Nation's Katha Pollitt, in a marvelous rejoinder, isolates the pathogens in that paragraph:

Well, sure, but excuse me: violates the acceptable? The acceptable what? And don't we need writing and artwork that pushes the boundary of what the acceptable is?

The real mission statement of the anti-Charlie faction, though, comes next:

In the aftermath of the attacks, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were characterized as satire and "equal opportunity offense," and the magazine seems to be entirely sincere in its anarchic expressions of principled disdain toward organized religion. But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect.

Bolding mine, though please don't zoom past the cavalcade of passive tense voice and scare-quotes and weasel words just prior, which manage to simultaneously cast a smirking aspersion on Charlie Hebdo defenders, while paying grudging tribute to the discomfiting fact that said defenders actually had more than a nodding, Google-enabled familiarity with the publication under dispute. It would be awkward for 145 alleged intellectuals to sign off on a document that made such easily disprovable assertions as signatory Francine Prose's comment to Pollitt that "It's a racist publication. Let's not beat about the bush," so better to holster the race card and instead pivot to an insane new free-speech concept: Even if you are truly equal in offending every segment of society, you are still guilty, because some segments are worse off than others.

You don't need an active imagination to see how this New Rule will immediately be broken. An acidic Nick Cohen (whose revulsion at the literary ambush of Charlie Hebdo's dead staffers left him wondering "whether it was worth staying on the middle-class left"), put it plainly:

Let me dispense with their bullshit about biting your tongues out of respect for marginalised and excluded. If this were true, left intellectuals and media would watch what they said about the working class supporters of the Tea Party, French NF and Ukip.

(The fact that the National Front was Charlie Hebdo's biggest target of satire remains stubbornly uncited in the voluminous garbology surrounding the newspaper.)

Set aside the hypocrisy for a moment, and just think about the practicality of pre-calibrating your speech based on the comparative unequal status of the broad demographic group that the narrow target of your satire may or may not belong to. Doesn't sound like a particularly freeing exercise, even if you (like Charlie Hebdo did) focus primarily on people who hold power.

Such a wretched manifesto would be empty without some gratuitous authoritarianism, so:

Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.

Charlie Hebdo satirized the Islamic radicals who tried to have them killed. Eventually, the latter group succeeded. So in which direction, again, do these inequities apply?

As for the misapplied punching-up/punching-down meme underlying all this, The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, who speaks French and has lived in France, put it well:

Few groups in recent French history have been more passionately "minoritarian"—more marginalized or on the outs with the political establishment, more vitriolic in their mockery of power, more courageous in ridiculing people of far greater influence and power. They were always punching up at idols and authorities. 

We're not done musting. From the 145:

To the section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France's various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

Aaaaaaaaaand scene. No, silly person who actually might speak French and/or have some familiarity with Charlie Hebdo, your assertions that it was an anti-racist newspaper that fought for a Palestinian state and against American hegemony and for the rights of Muslim immigrants in France is not just WRONG but INADMISSABLE, because really what those disreputable dead people wanted to do was to extend the French/American colonialism that they, uh, opposed constantly.

This is embarrassing on a basic level of cognition, let alone morality. People who care deeply about global free speech won't soon forget that a collection of prestigious American authors chose the occasion of a mass murder to advocate illiberal principles and slander the dead.

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.

290 responses to “145 Intellectuals Agree: Dead Cartoonists Aren’t Worthy of Free-Speech Award if Their Murderers Come From a Disadvantaged Minority

  1. “Free speech is wonderful so long as none of it causes any discomfort!”
    PEN

    1. You misread, PEN is the good guy here. The 6 dissenters and their 139 asshole cohorts are the people saying that.

      1. Sorry. I’ll read again…

        1. Another thing we should certainly read again is the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          This assault on free speech was brought pursuant to a complaint filed by several academics teaching at New York University and elsewhere, who considered that certain forms of criticism and mockery were… unacceptable. Consult their extraordinary trial testimony, and the judge’s declaration that the defendant’s “criminal intent ? brought you a parody over the line.” And let’s not forget the prosecution’s argument that the defendant is a “menace because he “knows how to twist language, stir up controversy.” Not a single “intellectual” has publicly spoken out against this highly publicized prosecution which took place right in the cultural capital of America. The pattern here is clear, and the document signed by 145 PEN members is merely one more sign of the times.

      2. Nope, I was right the first time:
        “A full 145 members of PEN, including some of the original refuseniks (and some other names you might recognize, such as Joyce Carol Oates), have attached their name to a remarkable document that encapsulates as well as anything I have seen the sick cloud that hangs over the Englightment idea of free speech.”

        1. I don’t know what percentage the 145 makes of PEN, but KiteFlyer’s point was that the organization of PEN has chosen to honor the Charlie Hebdo dead. It’s this subset of members who are ‘canceling their subscriptions’ in protest, and using the opportunity to do some social signaling.

          Someone at PEN is (are) the good guys.

          1. My understanding is 145 is a pretty small proportion, but yes, the ADMINISTRATION of PEN (let’s go with that?) are doing the right thing.

            1. Yep, it’s a pretty big organization.
              http://www.pen.org/current-members

              1. And the rest are silent?
                Sorry, fail.

                1. Apparently many of ‘the rest’ are NOT silent… viz: http://www.pen.org/blog/pen-co…..ournalists …

                  It appears that PEN America does favor freedom of expression, but the 145-or-so are folks who believe that it’s not PC to consider saying ANYTHING that MIGHT offend Anyone, Anywhere, Any time!

                  It looks to me as if the 145 are the minority, and maybe their place should be just in front of the line of candidates, replacing “first, kill all the lawyers…”

                  imnsho.

                  1. 145-or-so are folks who believe that it’s not PC to consider saying ANYTHING that MIGHT offend Anyone a favored group in the proggie tribe, Anywhere, Any time!

                2. I’m a member of PEN. We are not silent. Art Spiegelman, Azar Nafisi, Neil Gaiman and many others have stood with honoring Charlie Hebdo. There are over 4,000 members, and at present about 200 have signed on, that’s about 5%.

                  This is my take at the Express Tribune: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/st…..age-award/

                3. On the night of the gala, 800 members of PEN American Center showed up to see Charlie Hebdo (and others) get an award. The dinner was $1,250 per plate. Charlie Hebdo’s two representatives got thunderous applause.

                  Eight hundred attendees outnumber the approximately 200 dissidents who dislike the award. I wouldn’t say that PEN American Center failed.

              2. thats not a very big group

            2. “My understanding is 145 is a pretty small proportion, but yes, the ADMINISTRATION of PEN (let’s go with that?) are doing the right thing.”

              Could be, but I see nothing in the article which makes or supports that claim.
              If you, as the admin of some organization, allow X members to claim to speak for that organization without demur, you have given over the right to speak for that organization.

              1. They’re not claiming to speak for the organization, they are stating their opposition to the organization’s decision. If an organization that supports freedom of expression tells them they can’t express themselves, they’re as bad as the 145.

                1. Krokko|5.1.15 @ 1:17AM|#
                  “If an organization that supports freedom of expression tells them they can’t express themselves, they’re as bad as the 145.”

                  Who said anything about preventing anyone from stating an opinion?
                  BUT, let’s say the NAACP just got some new members who are also KKK members. The NAACP wishes to promote tolerance and fellowship; does that extend to tolerating KKK members?
                  Nope. It is not the NAACP’s job to accept hate, nor is it PEN’s job to accept member who do NOT promote free speech.
                  PEN in no way can stop them from making fools of themselves, but it can easily become a nest of fools by not tossing them out on their asses.

                  1. Nope. It is not the NAACP’s job to accept hate, nor is it PEN’s job to accept member who do NOT promote free speech.
                    PEN in no way can stop them from making fools of themselves, but it can easily become a nest of fools by not tossing them out on their asses.

                    Sort of. The NAACP is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. They’re not a free-speech-based organization. So they retain members who want to… advance the mission.

                    If you’re a free-speech organization, punishing dissenters is… difficult to do.

                    I mean, I get it, the dissenters are essentially dithering on the mission with their: You can’t say mean things about people who are an oppressed minority*

                    *A really weird thing to say, really. Are Africans a minority in Africa? Are Hispanics a minority in Mexico? I don’t even know what the hell these people are talking about.

                    1. “If you’re a free-speech organization, punishing dissenters is… difficult to do.”

                      What?!
                      Denying membership in an organization to those who do not promote the aims of that organization is in no way “punishing” anyone; if you are an organization devoted to free speech, you do not accept member who are not devoted to that.
                      I think what you mean is that PEN is worried that some socially prominent members would get tossed out on their asses and the remaining PEN members wouldn’t get to go to the galas and parties. And that’s true; got principles or not?
                      The 145, and anyone who chooses to do so, are welcome to promote limited speech as much as they wish, but if they remain members of the organization promoting free speech, that organization is now tainted by accepting them. The organization now promotes free speech, “but”.
                      So, no, it has now yielded to its social signaling function rather than its stated aims, and I return to my original comment:
                      “Free speech is wonderful so long as none of it causes any discomfort!”
                      PEN

                    2. So, no, it has now yielded to its social signaling function rather than its stated aims, and I return to my original comment:
                      “Free speech is wonderful so long as none of it causes any discomfort!”
                      PEN

                      I don’t know if there’s any evidence that PEN has backed away from it’s honoring of the Charlie Hebdo survivors.

                    3. I think this is the most I’ve ever seen Sevo talk.

                    4. If you’re a free-speech organization, punishing dissenters is… difficult to do.

                      Not at all, if you actually take “free speech” at its original meaning: “government shall make no law…”. Private organizations are, of course, free to toss out whoever they want; that, too, is an essential part of “free speech”. In fact, it’s what makes “free speech” work as part of a real-world society.

                  2. “The NAACP wishes to promote tolerance and fellowship; ”

                    Perhaps in some alternate universe.

                    1. Suthenboy|5.1.15 @ 3:39PM|#
                      “The NAACP wishes to promote tolerance and fellowship; ”

                      OK, I was using hyperbole, but the point stands.

                    2. … reminds me of Jesse Jackson, Sr.’s …. what was it? “Rainbow Coalition”?
                      If you like a one-color ‘rainbow’….

              2. You’re totally right. PEN’s board should have placed some kind of extrajudicial gag order on every one of their members, to keep them from voicing their disagreement with any decision they make. Just as any self-respecting free-speech advocacy group would do.

                Totally makes sense.

                1. Veillantif|5.1.15 @ 2:02PM|#
                  “You’re totally right. PEN’s board should have placed some kind of extrajudicial gag order[…]”

                  Pretty much an ignoramus, are you?
                  Any private organization promoting free speech has the ability to accept or reject membership depending on the members’ adherence to the goals.
                  Now, I’m hoping that sunk in, but given your ignorant example, I have my doubts.

          2. OK, one more time…
            Still see nothing that supports that view. How about a pull quote?

            1. So it should come as little surprise that the organization chose this year to honor in its annual gala what few surviving members there are of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical newspaper that criticized violent Islamic radicals (in addition to fundamentalists of every stripe), for which it was firebombed and eventually massacred.

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..-of-free-s

              1. OK, I see where there seems to be some conflict.
                Now, if PEN wants to be the hero here (and I’d love it if they do), tell those who are presuming to speak for PEN that they are no longer associated with PEN in any way shape or form.
                Right now, they presume to represent at least some portion of PEN and that has to stop for PEN not to be tarred with that brush.

                1. Now, if PEN wants to be the hero here (and I’d love it if they do), tell those who are presuming to speak for PEN that they are no longer associated with PEN in any way shape or form.

                  I would hope that PEN would take the higher ground and honor its commitment to free speech and let the dissenters speak– in an ironic twist that the 145 would probably never even get.

                  1. “I would hope that PEN would take the higher ground and honor its commitment to free speech and let the dissenters speak–”

                    Absolutely let them speak! And make sure the world knows that those who hold such views have been run out of town on a rail from PEN!
                    No one holding such views deserves to be a member of an organization promoting free speech.

                    1. PEN already gave an award to the survivors. Doesn’t that pretty clearly demonstrate where they, as an organization, come down on this?

                    2. LynchPin1477|5.1.15 @ 9:03AM|#
                      “PEN already gave an award to the survivors. Doesn’t that pretty clearly demonstrate where they, as an organization, come down on this?”

                      Not if, at the same time, they accept the membership of those who do not support free speech.
                      To whom am I supposed to listen?

                  2. PEN could take this as an opportunity to note that not all minorities are deserving of special treatment.

                    Particularly those small minorities that are flat out wrong.

            2. The handful of writers this article is criticizing are mad precisely because the organization PEN is going to give them an award for courage.

              “protesting that a free-speech organization was giving a courage-in-free-speech award to Charlie Hebdo”

              That ‘free-speech organization’ is PEN.

              1. See above; Welsh’s article doesn’t make that clear and anyone not getting clarification from you and Paul are probably not better at sorting it out than I am.
                Sorry for the misunderstanding, but if PEN wants to be clear, they/it should be: Throw the miscreants out, now, and make noise about it!

            3. Here you go:

              http://www.theguardian.com/boo…..-pen-award

              1. PEN issues award to Charlie Hebdo
              2. Some members of PEN protest the award

              1. “1. PEN issues award to Charlie Hebdo
                2. Some members of PEN protest the award”

                Those members remain members.
                Now, which message takes precedence?

                1. Those members remain members.

                  You’re being an idiot.

          3. PEN has 3,300 members, so this group of 145 represents less than 5%.

    2. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. And since I’m not feeling generous this evening:
    “cavalcade of passive tense”
    I bleeve that’s passive “voice”, not “tense”.
    You’re welcome.

    1. Thanks. Saved me the trouble.

    2. Thanks.

  3. But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect.

    And you know how this works, right? This is the ‘rational basis’ test for the progressive. Society will never be equal– as long as there is injustice anywhere, there’s injustice everywhere– so therefore this or that group requires special dispensation and consideration in our moral relativism test.

    1. and consideration in our moral relativism test.

      I don’t get it. What does “moral relativism” have to do with this?

  4. “whether it was worth staying on the middle-class left”

    ?!

  5. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

    They’re talking about The Prophet Joseph Smith here, right?

  6. “a nodding, Google-enabled familiarity with the publication under dispute”

    Here’s the best part: they really don’t have this. A commenter at the Intercept found this little exchange:
    Tweet to signer Keith Gessen: Serious question: have you even once flipped through an issue of Charlie Hebdo?
    Keith Gessen: No. Nor would my French be up to it if I did. This is more about PEN than it is about Charlie, and I know lots abt PEN. 🙂

    I make no claim about knowing a single thing about Charlie Hebdo before January 7th of this year; if I had come across them in previous drawing Mohammad scandals the name didn’t stick. But a few blog reads (namely from actual French people), a few thinkpieces explaining “problematic” cartoons in their proper context (the excellent http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com is a nice rundown), a Wikipedia run about the magazine’s history. Boom. That’s all you need. This could be a 20-minute mission.

    But of course, that’s not what’s going on. It’s the vague possibility that a minority is offended and knowing that SJW Twitter is mad about this and It’s Not Satire Unless You’re Punching Up And I Define This As Not Punching Up Which Is Good Enough For Me so to hell with cultural context or the political positions of the magazine or objective reality.

    It’s absolutely stunning and revolting. History will look on these people the same way that they do the scolds who got mad at Salman Rushdie for having the nerve to get a death sentence from religious maniacs.

    1. These 145 don’t care. They got an opportunity to social-signal with a ribbon on it. There’s no way they were going to let this go to waste.

      1. Yep. This kind of contextless outrage (this is #CancelColbert-esque in terms of “understanding satire”, no doubt about it) has been annoying to me for awhile, but seeing it on this scale is unusually pathetic and depressing.

        1. We’re going through a kind of 90s PC resurgence. I hope to remain in my basement until it’s over.

          1. Eh, while we’re not out of the hole yet I feel like it was actually worse last year. At least now there’s a pushback whenever the latest nothingburger scandal comes up.

            1. Can we at least get a sequel to PCU out of this?

      2. In this case, it’s not the fact that they were signalling that’s the problem. It’s WHAT they were signalling.

      3. Recall that the 145 are authors and 97% are relatively anonymous (ie lack huge fanbase). I read a fair amount; I’d heard of 3-4 of 145 before this little tempest. There’s no writer on on there whom i enjoy or respect. (Sorry if I overlooked someone insanely great. Corrections welcome + appreciated).

        Right now (2011-2015) low & mid-level authors are screwed if 200-250 angry SJW’s jump on amazon and call their books….take your pick: racist, rape apologist, misogynist, islamophobe, homophobe, xenophobe, troubling, right wing, sarah palin, kkk, blah blah blah, whatever, whatever. If one of these writers becomes someone progressives stop pretending to read in trendy urban coffee shops, he’ll will be teaching middle school English in Connecticut by August. No normal folks buy and read these books.

        I’d guess fewer than 20 signatories know or care anything about the issue. 100+ are just scrambling to be on the “right” side of the SJW twitterwave.

        #chickenshitlosers

        1. “he’ll will be teaching middle school English in Connecticut by August.

          NO… NOT DETROIT!!

    2. History will look on these people the same way that they do the scolds who got mad at Salman Rushdie for having the nerve to get a death sentence from religious maniacs

      Were that I could share your optimism. History is written by the winners and the cultural trends right now don’t appear very promising that enlightenment virtues will win in the end.

    3. Because someone, or a group of someones, who are a minority, or have been oppressed, or whatever, does not at all equate to them being virtuous. If we truly judge ALL by the quality of their character, and their words and deeds, then of course we will find some in the minority communities who are despicable. It’s worth pointing out these kind of people, regardless of where they may be found.

  7. If this were true, left intellectuals and media would watch what they said about the working class supporters of the Tea Party, French NF and Ukip.

    But a lot / most of them are white. And an unemployed, orphaned, crack-addicted white single mother is more privileged than a millionaire person of color.

    -Anti-racist

    1. Oops, I fucked up. An anti-racist wouldn’t have qualified; he or she would have just said But they’re all white.

    2. You know, I’ve actually had these sort of people say just this to me.

      On a certain level, I think it’s a psychological phenomenon. If you can get people to contend one or two absolutely absurd things in the name of a movement, you’ve got them. They’ll buy just about anything the movement offers up without question and there’s no limit to the idiocy. Hence “You are number six” or “There are five lights”.

    3. Well, it’s true in a sense, just not the one you parody.

      She would be privileged because she was unemployed, orphaned, crack-addicted, and a single mother. Because she is entitled to the millionaire’s money, not because she is white.

  8. PEN needs to punch back twice as hard and tell all these pussies to go to hell.

    They should also tell them to never come back.

    I also wish that every time these “sensible” free speech arguments open their mouths to talk, that someone will shout them down.

    These assholes can bow down to evil, but don’t expect anyone to respect their pussified views on free speech.

    They need to go. the. Fuck. to. Hell.

    1. I agree. They should ban them from being a member of PEN again unless they retract their support for the statement.

      If they want to go form their own separate “free speech” organization, they can go right ahead and do that.

      1. HazelMeade|5.1.15 @ 9:03AM|#
        “I agree. They should ban them from being a member of PEN again unless they retract their support for the statement.”

        Exactly. If PEN is promoting free speech, any member who does not do so forfeits membership. Go start a ‘free speech, but’ club; you’ll find many adherents.

  9. “a remarkable document that encapsulates as well as anything I have seen the sick cloud that hangs over the Englightment idea of free speech.”

    Anyone else having a hard time reading this last part of the sentence?

    The ghost of Tim Cavanaugh’s pen has either infected Matt’s writing or my head.

  10. The enlightenment? Seriously? Those are just the dusty old ideas of a bunch of rich white men.

  11. Charlie Hebdo, the French cartoon newspaper that was massacred for its courageous free speech.

    What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous? If I walk down a street in Harlem at 2 AM shouting racial slurs and insults, do I get an award for my courageous free speech too?

    How sad to see Mr Welch joining the blithering morons who think the act of getting killed makes you a hero.

    1. “What part of bigotedly mocking a minority”

      They didn’t do this.

    2. If I walk down a street in Harlem at 2 AM shouting racial slurs and insults

      Really, really shitty analogy. An analogy so shitty, it’s an insult to things that are shitty.

      But it’s always nice to hear from people who like to outsource their violence.

      Carry on.

      1. How is it a shitty analogy? If cartoonists get an award for insulting people to the point where they get murdered over it, why shouldn’t I get an award for insulting people in that example?

        1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:30AM|#
          “How is it a shitty analogy”

          And ignoramus like you wouldn’t have a clue.
          Fuck off.

          1. He is an idiot. He can’t even spell ‘Porky’ correctly.

        2. “insulting people to the point where they get murdered over it”

          Even assuming your earlier assertion was true (it isn’t), they weren’t murdered over theoretical anger they inspired via their depiction of French Muslims, or Muslims as people. They were murdered for blasphemy and their depiction of the Prophet Mohammad.

          1. I don’t know if you are familiar with the troll who now uses Porque Pig as a handle. He is famous for being not real bright, but more than willing to argue from sophistry, misdirection, and outright lies.
            You are welcome to engage him, but when he pulls his standard sleight of hand, don’t be surprised.

            1. Ah, I am a visitor here. Poe’d.

          2. Insulting Mohammed is insulting a person who reveres him.

            If you insist on being a prig, change my example to walking down the street in Harlem insulting Martin Luther King.

            1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:45AM|#
              “Insulting Mohammed is insulting a person who reveres him.”

              And the asshole known as Tulpa thinks that means something. ‘Cause Tulpa ain’t real bright.

            2. So anyone who’s “insulted” The Prophet Joseph Smith deserves death?

              1. No.

                Please point to the text where I said someone deserved death.

                1. What about all the proggy scum who regularly insult Christianity, it’s sacraments, and Jesus on an ongoing basis in everyday conversation? Which is nearly 100% of prgoressivekind?

                  And they do deserve death. Not for their blasphemy. But for their ongoing ceaseless zealous efforts to remove all individual liberties and enslave mankind to another Stalinist regime. If not death, then extradition to some ‘worker’s paradise like Venezuela.

                  1. What about all the proggy scum who regularly insult Christianity, it’s sacraments, and Jesus on an ongoing basis in everyday conversation?

                    I think they’re jerks for doing so. Just like I think Charlie Hebdo was a bunch of jerks.

                    Sorry, was that supposed to be a “gotcha” question?

                    Not even gonna touch the second half of what you said, which I seriously doubt Jesus would approve of either.

            3. A person that reveres Muhammad is kind of insulting.

        3. How is it a shitty analogy? If cartoonists get an award for insulting people to the point where they get murdered over it, why shouldn’t I get an award for insulting people in that example?

          What Charlie Hebdo did was more akin to say, what Jon Stewart might do in lampooning the religious right over any topic like gay marriage, or abortion. Or what Matt Stone and Trey Parker did with their musical “The Book of Mormon” (which the left found hilarious!).

          Charlie Hebdo did not, in any way shape or form, hurl simple racial insults.

          And even if they had (which they didn’t) they certainly didn’t publish these insults from a newspaper in a muslim country.

          If a group from the 700 Club walked into the production offices of The Daily Show and murdered the writers in a hail of bullets, we’d be considering them heroes too.

          We’d also be condemning the 700 Club and not shrugging it off with a what-can-you-expect attitude.

          1. If a group from the 700 Club walked into the production offices of The Daily Show and murdered the writers in a hail of bullets, we’d be considering them heroes too.

            In that case, I’d have to give credit for this foolishness at least being consistent. Whether a deed is heroic depends only on the deed itself, not whether one is killed for it. If they’d be heroes after being killed they are heroes right now… and calling them heroes right now is patently ridiculous.

            We’d also be condemning the 700 Club and not shrugging it off with a what-can-you-expect attitude.

            Where have I shrugged off the murders? I’ve explicitly stated that the cartoonists shouldn’t have been forcibly interfered with. Oh wait, by Welch’s logic, explicitly stating one’s support for free speech implies that one does not in fact support free speech.

            1. Whether a deed is heroic depends only on the deed itself, not whether one is killed for it. If they’d be heroes after being killed they are heroes right now… and calling them heroes right now is patently ridiculous.

              I think that criticizing Islam (an intensely illiberal religion and culture) is certainly brave given recent context. The value of that– or whether or not it’s an heroic feat is certainly subjective.

              Was Molly Norris a “hero”? She got on Anwar al-Awlaki’s personal hit-list. To me, that kind of makes her a hero.

              1. Oh come on. You’re more likely to die because you drive a car than because you criticize Islam.

                Yeah, I’m a flerking hero every time I shift into second gear.

                1. Please go take a drive then.

                2. False analogy. They were clearly in the crosshairs of French radical Muslims. You’re making it sound like the same thing as me saying Islamic is a filthy animal religion and that Muhammed was a schizophrenic pederast anonymously here.

                  Not even close to the same thing or the same risk level. You’re like Bo Cara if he got double brain damaged after his pre-existing brain damage. With a side of oxygen deprivation.

                  1. Risk isn’t what defines a hero. Jaywalking is risky but not heroic.

                    It’s a subjective term, so it’s possible given the context you could call Charlie Hebdo heroic, but it’s not because they got killed. It’s pretty funny that Porque Pig is making this valid point and everyone’s just piling on him for it.

                    The definition of hero I am seeing in this thread would define dead American soldiers who fought/murdered in Iraq as heroic just because they got killed doing it and were doing it for freedom or whatever.

                    1. It’s pretty funny that Porque Pig is making this valid point and everyone’s just piling on him for it.

                      Welcome to the fun house mirror of Rationalization.com.

                3. “Oh come on. You’re more likely to die because you drive a car than because you criticize Islam.”

                  Unless you are a magazine that has been the target of previous violent attacks for criticizing Islam. In that case your chances go up considerably dontcha think? Therein lies the heroism. It wasn’t in publishing their ideas originally but continuing to do so in the face of direict credible threats to their life.

          2. You’d be considering whom heros? Daily Show producers, 700 Club producers, or what? Doesn’t make either group heros AFAICT.

        4. IT WAS A FUCKING CARTOON.

          They chose to be insulted by it. The cartoon in of itself did not do it. THEY DECIDED – AS FREE MORAL AGENTS – TO MURDER. They could have easily turned the other cheek. You know, whenever NYT publishes a horrid hit piece on Christianity or someone pisses on Christ – was that ‘artist’ killed? Remind me.

          What we have here is an act from insecure cowards who committed a crime on the grounds they were religiously insulted. If you think this is acceptable then…

          You’re pathetic, ignorant, immoral, sad excuse of a human being.

          1. Forget it, Rufus. It’s Tulpa-derp.

            His shit is refined to about 99.9% purity. There’s no way you could cut through that much self-absorbed and twat-coated irrationality and not arrive at the other side driven to the brink of madness..

    3. TUUUUUULLLLLLPPPPPPAAAAA

    4. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:15AM|#
      “What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?”

      Tulpa, fuck you with the most ugly rusty piece of stuff in the barnyard. Twice.
      There isn’t a single comment you’ve made here over the last year or so that’s worthy of more than whats on the tissue after you wipe your ass.
      Fuck off, you slimy piece of crap.

      1. People who think this way think they possess a moral compass but they really don’t.

        They miss the entire fricken point.

    5. So, what your saying is, someone isn’t allowed to criticize or ridicule beliefs if those bellies happen to be held by an ‘ethnic minority’? In that case, I think we would all be better off if you went and stuck a light bulb up your asshole, and I must be right because I’m a pacific islander.

    6. What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?

      The ridiculous comparisons that some people try to make to justify their idiotic oppressive beliefs is astounding. You might as well have said that Charlie Hedbo raped Islam.

    7. “What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?”

      I’ll quote Matt for a response: “This is embarrassing on a basic level of cognition, let alone morality”.

      1. I don’t know what I did to misapply my comment, but when I typed

        “What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?”

        I’ll quote Matt for a response: “This is embarrassing on a basic level of cognition, let alone morality”.

        – I typed it in response to something ‘Pig wrote.

    8. What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?

      The part where the adherents of said religion vow to kill anyone who mocks them, and you do it anyway.

      1. There are scads of people who mock Islam every day in the West, and what, a dozen have been killed for it in the past 5 years? Seriously, driving a car is more likely to result in one’s death. Am I a hero for doing that?

        Not to mention that courage is more than just doing something you know is dangerous. It has to be done for a good purpose.

        1. Tulpa: The intellectual tapeworm of H&R.

          His screeching imbecility and objective reality imperviousness thrives on your intelligence.

    9. If I walk down a street in Harlem at 2 AM shouting racial slurs and insults, do I get an award for my courageous free speech too?

      No, because you’d just be an asshole. The black or hispanic people living in Harlem haven’t done anything to warrant being insulted in that way. But even if they hypothetically did something worthy of ridicule, it’s pretty hard for me to think of reason that shouting “nigger” would be an appropriate response. Again, that would just be an dick move.

      The cartoonists didn’t just print “towel head” in big letters. They mocked a belief and reaction to that belief (that it is blasphemous and worthy of violence to depict Muhammad). And I don’t really have a problem with Muslims judging depictions of Muhammad as sinful. Whatever. But I have big problem with the idea that it’s OK to use violence or the threat of violence to enforce that belief on others. That is worthy of ridicule, and given the risks involved, it is heroic to do so.

      1. The black or hispanic people living in Harlem haven’t done anything to warrant being insulted in that way.

        A lot more white people in this century have been killed by blacks and Hispanics than by Muslims. Of course that’s not enough to justify insults to their entire race/ethnicity, but then neither are the crimes of relatively few Muslim terrorists enough to justify insults to Islam.

        Hebdo did not merely “depict Mohammed”. They depicted him in a very insulting manner. Don’t confuse this with the Jyllands-Posten attacks of a few years ago.

        And I don’t really have a problem with Muslims judging depictions of Muhammad as sinful. Whatever. But I have big problem with the idea that it’s OK to use violence or the threat of violence to enforce that belief on others.

        Of course it’s not OK to use violence to force others to abide by one’s beliefs. Nobody in the “intellectuals” group, nor myself, is saying it is OK. In fact, I’m probably one of the few people here who thinks the murderers should be executed.

        given the risks involved, it is heroic to do so.

        Doing something dangerous (which insulting Islam is not, since scads of people do it every day and it’s a huge, years-long story when a few of them get killed) is not necessarily heroic. Sometimes it’s just stupid.

        1. Are you really this obtuse?

          1. For a long time, I was curious whether it was stupidity or mendacity. It is now obvious that the answer is “yes”.

        2. Your statement – Of course it’s not OK to use violence to force others to abide by one’s beliefs. Nobody in the “intellectuals” group, nor myself, is saying it is OK. In fact, I’m probably one of the few people here who thinks the murderers should be executed.

          Least you don’t include yourself with intellectuals, you have that pegged.

        3. “Don’t confuse this with the Jyllands-Posten attacks of a few years ago.”

          So publishing cartoons is an “attack”?

          Yet the murderous outrage (and actual attacks) in retaliation, is not worthy of opposition, ridicule, etc.?

          Consider me trolled, but how do you look in the mirror?

          1. By “attacks”, I was referring to the acts of violence by Muslims against Jyllands-Posten and Danish things in general.

        4. Tulpa let me put it very simple for you MURDER IS FUCKING WRONG. Got it? I don’t care if a worshiper of a Martian god murders somebody for calling that worshiper crazy, murder for any reason is wrong. And these Islamic, fundamentalist shit bags murdered people, I don’t fucking care if they were offended or blasphemed against, they murdered people so go suck a dick you fucking freak piece of shit and stop hiding behind a new handle like a retard you god damn coward.

    10. You insult what deserves to be insulted, whether it comes from a minority or the majority.

    11. If I walk down a street in Harlem at 2 AM shouting racial slurs and insults, do I get an award for my courageous free speech too?

      No, but traveling to ISIS-controlled territory and standing up at one of the stonings of homosexuals and adulterers justified by Islam and shouting “you are all murderers”, now that would be courageous. Walking through 1930 Berlin and insulting Nazis and the German master race would have been courageous too.

      What part of bigotedly mocking a minority is courageous?

      Depends on the minority and what’s being mocked.

  12. Fuck these people. That is all.

  13. Fuck.these.people with a broken broomstick.

  14. “We do not believe in censoring expression,” the 145 write, ominously. (Strange, how no actual champion of free speech I’ve ever encountered has felt the need to issue such a disclaimer.)

    They presumably feel the need to issue the disclaimer because of goofballs who conflate criticizing the cartoonists with countenancing their murders. Like Mr. Welch, for example.

    “I disapprove of what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Voltaire’s distinction seems hopelessly lost on today’s Reason.

    1. I mean, this is the EXACT SAME BS the Left pulls, where a laudable statement by an opponent is twisted to mean its opposite and actually used to attack that opponent. How shameful to see it deployed here.

      1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:26AM|#
        “I mean,”

        I mean, you’re a slimy, ignorant piece of shit who needs to find somewhere else to spew your stupidity.

    2. “I disapprove of what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Voltaire’s distinction seems hopelessly lost on today’s Reason.

      You shouldn’t “do” any more analogies. You’re really… really awful at it.

      The 145 would never fight to the death for anyone’s right to say anything of which they disapprove. They’ve made that abundantly clear.

      1. They’ve made that abundantly clear.

        How so?

        Was it the part where they said they oppose censorship of free speech?

        1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:34AM|#
          “How so?”

          Why, look there! Shitbag is confused!

        2. No, it’s the part where the won’t defend the memories of people who died pursuing it. And the part where they imply that speech isn’t ‘free’ when the target of your speech isn’t quite as equal as you.

          They’ve created, by their own words, a definition of free speech containing various qualifications that they’ve invented out of whole cloth.

          1. No, it’s the part where the won’t defend the memories of people who died pursuing it.

            Not so. They died engaging in what they thought were riskless insults against a hated minority. Excuse me for not defending that memory. They shouldn’t have been murdered (obviously) but that doesn’t warrant a hagiography.

            And the part where they imply that speech isn’t ‘free’ when the target of your speech isn’t quite as equal as you.

            Where is that part? Speaking of inventing out of whole cloth.

            1. And the part where they imply that speech isn’t ‘free’ when the target of your speech isn’t quite as equal as you.

              Where is that part? Speaking of inventing out of whole cloth.

              I’m beginning to think you didn’t read the article:

              Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.

              You can sugar-coat this any way you want (I’m quite sure you will). But this is pretty explicit in that it recommends chilling, tempering, changing, biting one’s tongue when speaking about those who are perceived by the progressosphere to be less equal (read: a little more equal) than everyone else.

              1. I figured that’s the part you’re referring to, but it doesn’t say anything remotely close to “speech isn’t ‘free’ when the target of your speech isn’t quite as equal as you.” Or “chilling, tempering, changing, biting one’s tongue when speaking” for that matter. It’s saying that satirizing a powerless minority is pretty assholish.

                If the “intellectuals'” statement is really so horrid (as you claim, “pretty explicit”), why do you feel it necessary to keep re-wording it? Just let it stand on its own.

            2. what they thought were riskless insults

              Yeah, those body guards they hired were obviously just there as a fashion statement. Total coincidence.

              1. So are bank tellers heroes too? And Mayor Bloomberg?

      2. And that’s not even the point. Very few people would actually fight to the death for freedom of speech. No, anonymously complaining on blog comment sections doesn’t count.

        The point is that support for free speech does not require that one refrain from criticizing the speech.

        1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 1:39AM|#
          “And that’s not even the point.”

          Says an ignoramus who hasn’t found ‘the point’ for years!]
          Fuck off.

    3. Oh my God. You really are an idiot. The group here have you pegged right.

    4. Members of a free speech organization should not be making that judgement about CH.
      Yes, it’s a vile leftist rag that also happened to ridicule Islam.
      They continued to be true to their mission even after death threats and vandalism from Islam. That is heroic, and worthy of a free speech award, and members of the organization have no business attaching SJW values to the award, any more than the political right should prevent them for insulting right-wing causes.
      There were heroic NAZI’s who risked their lives for their fellow soldiers as well.
      Myself, I wouldn’t give them any awards, because they are vile commies at heart, but that’s just my private observation, and has no real bearing on freedom of speech. PEN is not about economic freedom.

  15. “But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect.”

    What if Islamic nations are poor (unequal) BECAUSE of failings within their own ideology?

    Is it so hard to think that perhaps it is secularism in Christian nations that make them so unequally rich? The fact that medieval Islamic states which tended to be more relatively secular then the modern ones of today and were in more equal footing with the western world would imply this has some basis in fact.

    1. This. Islamic nations are poor, not because of the history of colonialism or whatever bullshit the left is spouting, but because of their own sick religious fanaticism.
      It’s time people started saying it.

  16. “The Englightment [sic] idea of free speech”

    French Enlightenment figures and their support for free speech:

    https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/417/

    1. “2. The following are deemed suspects:

      “1? those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty;”…

      1. Indeed. I’d like to be able to look out of my window and see an “Enlightened” corpse swinging from every lamppost.

    2. Took me a while, but thanks.

  17. I only recognize 2 of the writers on that list – Joyce Carol Oates, who is a good writer; and Eve Ensler, the quality of whose writing I cannot judge because I haven’t had (and don’t intend to have) the privilege of watching her opus, The Vagina Monologues.

  18. Shorter Retard Manifesto: If only Charlie Hebdo had criticized legitimate targets like Christians or capitalists!

    1. If they only did that, they’d still be alive.

      -jcr

  19. Oh my lord this article

    The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik, who speaks French and has lived in France, put it well:

    Argumentum ad francophonum? Seriously? What in Yahu-Wahu’s name does his ability to speak French have anything to do with this?

    really what those disreputable dead people wanted to do was to extend the French/American colonialism

    Nobody said this. You’re sophistrically twisting words again. What Charlie Hebdo did quite explicitly want to do was destroy Islam in France. Lest Mr Welch self-righteously accuse me of “slandering the dead”, I give you the dead’s own words:

    link

    “We have to carry on until Islam has been rendered as banal as Catholicism.” Those were the words two years ago of St?phane Charbonnier, the cartoonist known as Charb who was also the editor of the weekly.

    On Wednesday he was one of the 12 (including two policemen caught up in the attack) shot to death while holding an editorial meeting.

    Of course they have attempted this by noncoercive means, and thus should not be forcibly interfered with, but let’s not sugar-coat what the purpose of their Mohammed cartoons was.

    1. Argumentum ad francophonum? Seriously? What in Yahu-Wahu’s name does his ability to speak French have anything to do with this?

      Because it has been shown that non-French speaking critics of Hebdo seem to misunderstand the context of the Hebdo cartoons- and other satirical articles it’s penned.

      The American Progresso-sphere sees insulting drawings of The Prophet Joseph Smith Muhammed (said with all the implied respect and reverence that western media seems to give it for reasons I can’t fathom) and all they can muster is a one-dimensional argument about RACISM!

      Pro-tip: one not need be a “minority” to believe in the Koranic sky-God.

      1. Because it has been shown that non-French speaking critics of Hebdo seem to misunderstand the context of the Hebdo cartoons- and other satirical articles it’s penned.

        Where has this been shown? Show me how the context makes a drawing of naked Mohammed talking about 100 lashes not insulting to Muslims.

        1. Where has this been shown? Show me how the context makes a drawing of naked Mohammed talking about 100 lashes not insulting to Muslims.

          So I guess your position is that The Future Must Not Belong to Those who Slander the Prophet of Islam?

      2. (said with all the implied respect and reverence that western media seems to give it for reasons I can’t fathom)

        Muslims are non-white, non-Christian and oppressed so the progs, who ridicule religious belief when coming from the Religious Right, make an exception/

    2. Half of France is Catholic dipshit. Making Islam as banal as Catholocism doesn’t equal destroying Iskam in France. Words have meanings.

      1. To be precise, half of France checks a box on a census form next to “Catholique”. But for all intents and purposes, Catholicism has been destroyed there.

        1. Catholicism has been destroyed there.

          Well then let’s find out who did it and shoot up their offices!

          1. Didn’t a theatre get bombed for showing the Last Temptation of Christ? I doubt these people bashed Scorsese for that.

          2. And now you’re trying to imply that I countenance the murders.

            You’re full of the sophistry tricks today.

            1. You’re full of the sophistry tricks today.

              Epic projection. All you post is sophistry. You don’t even believe the imbecility you post, you just get off being a prick.

              1. ^THIS^.

                Hence not worthy of engaging.

                1. Let’s wake him up and tell him that!

              2. All you post is sophistry.

                Weak. If you’re going to accuse me of sophistry, point to the rhetorical tricks I’m using. As I pointed out Paul’s attempt to steal a base above.

        2. Ah yes, the destruction of something to which half the populace voluntarily identifies as. You see that all the time.

          1. Religion is an odd thing. How many of the people checking the box are actually following the Catholic faith (even in its current heavily watered down version) as opposed to just identifying with the label they grew up with?

    3. What Charlie Hebdo did quite explicitly want to do was destroy Islam in France.

      What the fuck is wrong with that? They want to destroy ALL organized religion.

      Islam is supposed to get an exemption because they’re full of minorities?

      1. No. I think insulting someone’s religion for the sole purpose of insulting it, is wrong regardless of which religion is targeted. It is, however, especially nasty when it’s a minority religion (and TBH Christianity is a minority religion at this point too).

        Again, I am not justifying the murders. Indeed I am probably one of the few people on this thread who supports executing the murderers.

        1. No. I think insulting someone’s religion for the sole purpose of insulting it, is wrong regardless of which religion is targeted.

          The purpose of insulting other people’s religions is to get them to break through their air of moral superiority; to get them to realize that while they may think their moral and religious choices deserve respect, others disagree. To a lot of people, religion is social signaling, just like progressivism, and they adopt and flaunt religion for status. The best way to break through that and get them to change is to make it clear that the signaling isn’t working and that one doesn’t respect them for their religious choices.

          And both Christians and Muslims have a long history of insulting others. Or what do you think all those conservative Christian denouncements of others as immoral, wanton, “not fully human”, etc. amount to?

        2. I think insulting someone’s religion for the sole purpose of insulting it, is wrong regardless of which religion is targeted.

          What about sub-saharan animists who mutilate Albinos for luck and castrate young baby boys with a stone knife to bring fertility? You can’t criticize that religion. And oh my goodness it’s practiced by minorities. All ideas are equally deserving of respect ehhhh Piglet?

          1. What about sub-saharan animists who mutilate Albinos for luck and castrate young baby boys with a stone knife to bring fertility?

            I would condemn the mutilations and support the forcible prevention of those mutilations. That’s not about insulting religion, it’s about protecting rights.

            Nothing Charlie Hebdo did could be construed as protecting rights.

            BTW, if you have an issue with religions that require ritually cutting off parts of baby boys with knives, you don’t have to go to sub-Saharan Africa to find something to condemn.

            1. I would condemn the mutilations and support the forcible prevention of those mutilations. That’s not about insulting religion, it’s about protecting rights.

              Those mutilations are central to their belief system you monster.

              Nothing Charlie Hebdo did could be construed as protecting rights.

              Why would it need to be construed as ‘protecting rights’? They’re a fucking magazine.

              BTW, if you have an issue with religions that require ritually cutting off parts of baby boys with knives, you don’t have to go to sub-Saharan Africa to find something to condemn.

              You’re the one claiming that all ideas are created equal.

        3. So you think that the religion that 1/4 the world’s population belongs to is a minority. The one that 3/4 of Americans and around half of Europeans identify with is a minority.

          Sure, not very many are probably actively practicing but you’d be hard pressed to find me an adult in the U.S. or Europe that doesn’t know who David, Solomon, Jesus, and Paul were or what role their characters played.

          I’ll up the ante and say that you’d be hard pressed to find me someone that couldn’t name Jesus by multiple names (Immanuel, King of Kings, Lamb, Prince of Peace, etc), didn’t know the story of David and Goliath, didn’t know that the disciples were fisherman, etc.

          That doesn’t sound like a minority, that sounds like dominance.

        4. Why are minorities so special and above rebuke? Why do you think that a minority can’t be made fun of even when it deserves to be? Why can errors not be pointed out in a minority’s culture/belief system?

        5. There’s brain dead and Tulpa brain dead, it’s like watching the Bokren as a cat whiffing at a scratching post. Pretty funny for the most part, still worthy of derision like most progthought.

  20. Why does Welch have no empathy for the killers and see how their actions are understandable?

  21. People who care deeply about global free speech

    All five of them?

  22. Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo have a sad.

  23. And I’m sure Welch will ignore Glenn Greenwald’s view on this controversy.

  24. Can someone explain Amy Schumer? Is it because she’s a fat woman?

    1. She’s the new face of affirmative action comedy central.

      Why, did Amy Schumer sign the manifesto?

  25. Consensus!
    Punching Down Denialists!

  26. Don’t say “intellectuals”, when you mean “sniveling cowards.”

    -jcr

  27. You meant “Pseudo-Intellectuals,” didn’t you? Because these folks may be able to write good stories, but they’re obviously incapable of critical thinking.

  28. These people don’t really have a point. What constitutes the “oppressed” and those who “oppress” them aren’t always set in stone, and may intersect among, gender, racial, and cultural lines.

    In 1950’s America, an Asian man is probably under the thumb of a white majority, racist society. But in his own home, he might mistreats his “picture bride” wife and subject her to a lot of patriarchal BS. Meanwhile imperial Japan is wrecking havoc in Manchuria, Korea, Philippines, etc.

    If a American cartoonist int that era drew a ape like Japanese soldier raping a white woman, the reaction of a Chinese or Korean reader’s reaction wouldn’t be “OMG a racist depiction of Asians” Because it would be a satire of a dominant figure who’s oppressing them right now.

    I’m sure there’s a small minority of Muslims who absolutely (but secretly) DETEST Islam and its Sharia laws. They would burn every Koran and convert to Christianity just out of spite. For this minority, Charlie Hebdo’s sacrilegious humor would feel empowering and refreshing.

    Radical Islam IS an oppressive figure that’s akin to imperialist Europe. It all depends on the victim. The left is very kin on deconstructing gender and racial identity, but insist on sticking with “conservative” definition of racism.

    1. I never bought the idea that opposing any particular religion, justifiably or not, is racist.

      There are large numbers of Muslims of every race. Here in the West, we may imagine an Arab-looking person when we hear the word Muslim, but what about the fact that the most populous Islamic nation is Indonesia? Or how about the fact that there are something like a hundred million Muslims in China? Yes, that’s a small minority of Chinese, but it’s still more than the entire population of most European countries. Then there are the Muslims in countries like Bosnia, Albania and Chechnya, who look like any other Eastern European (i.e, white).

      Also keep in mind that, in some quarters, there is also a racism going on within Muslim countries. Take Sudan, for example. The people in power there are Arabs and they have long oppressed and abused black people who live in Sudan, despite those black people being their fellow Muslims.

      But I guess you never let facts get in the way of a political narrative.

    2. But in his own home, he might mistreats his “picture bride” wife and subject her to a lot of patriarchal BS.

      You obviously have no idea how Japanese households work…

      1. I suggest you google “picture brides”

  29. I has a confused.

    Now, I’m quick to jump on the ‘maybe we’re not *entirely* blameless in all this muslim violence’ bandwagon but . . .

    Muslims are *not* a disadvantage minority.

    1. Within France they are.

      1. Yet decidedly less disadvantaged than they when they’re a majority back home. Moreover, France has the highest Muslim population of any Western European country. I guess it will have to remain a mystery as to why they move there and remain there because your narrative doesn’t seem to address that paradox.

        1. Keep in mind that in many cases, “back home” is desert or rotten land ruled by foreign-backed despots.

          1. Yes, the Muslims’ own culture has nothing to do with the regimes that predominate in that part of the world. It would be a liberal democratic paradise if only those darn white people would ….[insert scapegoating bullshit].

            1. Uh, in most of Europe democracy was imposed by force. There were these world wars you might have heard of.

              It would be most inconvenient for the West if Saudi Arabia, for example, became a democracy, if only because they might slow down the Spice flow. Remember the US intervening on behalf of democracy in Bahrain a few years ago? Or making even the slightest peep when the Saudis crushed the protests there? Yeah, me either.

              1. Uh, in most of Europe democracy was imposed by force. There were these world wars you might have heard of.

                Which countries would that be? And what’s your argument here, that democracies exist by force? Worked out well in Iraq and Afghanistan huh?

                If culture is irrelevant to the governments that different societies find acceptable, then there should be a blossoming western style democracy in Iraq right now.

                It would be most inconvenient for the West if Saudi Arabia, for example, became a democracy, if only because they might slow down the Spice flow.

                So the US is all the stands between the Arabians and democratic governance?

                Remember the US intervening on behalf of democracy in Bahrain a few years ago? Or making even the slightest peep when the Saudis crushed the protests there? Yeah, me either.

                I do remember Libya. That went super well didn’t it?

                1. Worked out well in Iraq and Afghanistan huh?

                  The first time is tough. AFG is more of a geography/terrain issue.

                  You may recall that France’s first democracy led to the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, while Germany’s first democracy led to Hitler. The first Japanese and Chinese democracies produced despots after a couple of decades too.

                  Democracy is a hard thing to take hold without succumbing to certain pathologies. It’s not just a Muslim or Arab problem.

                  1. AFG is more of a geography/terrain issue.

                    Yeah their terrain just isn’t conducive to democracy. That’s why Colorado is currently dealing with it’s own decades long insurgency.

                    You may recall that France’s first democracy led to the Reign of Terror

                    And?

                    while Germany’s first democracy led to Hitler.

                    Your point?

                    The first Japanese and Chinese democracies produced despots after a couple of decades too.

                    And…..?

                    It’s not just a Muslim or Arab problem.

                    Democracy and western style law is antithetical to the culture Islam promotes. But hell, you’ve got it figured out, maybe democracy didn’t work in Libya because it has hills or some shit. I heard their beaches are stony in places, that’s no good for western style government of course.

                  2. Did you just make the point that democracy generally has lead to tyranny throughout history?

                    1. Well, it’s generally been preceded by tyranny too. Tyranny is the natural state of man, to the extent that population density and communications and transportation technology can support it.

                      Getting democracy to take hold is not an easy thing. A bunch of weird coincidences allowed it to sprout up spontaneously in England and the US centuries ago, and we’ve been coasting on that success ever since… every other democracy has required outside “encouragement” to take root.

  30. “However, there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.”

    Look at this linguistic trick. “the acceptable” what? By who? They can’t even clearly state their opinion bc it would become obviously idiotic.

    1. Unfortunate wording. They are saying that one can support the freedom of ALL [removed]’acceptable’ or not) while still considering some [removed]not ‘acceptable’) to be unworthy of rewarding. The definition of “acceptable” is up to each person, just as the definition of what foods one likes to eat is up to each person.

      1. What irony. “expression” followed by a left parenthesis apparently gets automatically removed.

      2. The definition of “acceptable” is up to each person, just as the definition of what foods one likes to eat is up to each person.

        Uhhhh no. Language is a two way street. A language that only one person understands is not a language.

        The whole purpose of communication is toconvey information between sender and receiver, speaking the same language and operating off of the same terms. You can tell me that the Second Amendment entitles all Americans to free pancakes and I can tell you that it means what it actually says, one of us would necessarily be wrong. Take your linguistic relativism elsewhere.

        1. Different people are going to have different standards. Words like “acceptable”, “reasonable”, “appropriate”, etc. are intentionally vague and subjective for the purpose of flexibility.

          1. I know what the word acceptable means. If someone says something is unacceptable, I know what that means too. Now you may quibble over what actions are acceptable to you, but the language itself, the definition of the word ‘acceptable’ is not open to interpretation. Your favorite color might be red and I may prefer blue, and we can argue about which color is better but what ‘red’ means exactly, is not up for debate.

            1. I know what the word acceptable means.

              Not in isolation you don’t. It depends on the context and the opinions of the speaker.

              1. Not in isolation you don’t. It depends on the context and the opinions of the speaker.

                So you’re saying that you love giving rimjobs and slurping cum at truck stops?

                If you like your relativism, you can keep your relativism.

  31. Late to the troll, but gonna post anyway. For Porky:

    “I oppose censorship, but…”

    “I oppose racism, but…”

    “I oppose discrimination, but…”

    “However, there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.”

    Shorter: We support censorship, because we believe there is such a thing as unacceptable speech. And we shouldn’t, as an organization that promotes free speech, actually reward those who practice it in the face of radical opposition and/or dissent. We should only reward those who risk nothing, and who say things we agree with.

    Oops, that was longer. But then, I have a right to misrepresent my intent (leftist-speak for ‘lie.’) After all, I believe in free speech.

  32. “145 Intellectuals Agree: Dead Cartoonists Aren’t Worthy of Free-Speech Award if Their Murderers Come From a Disadvantaged Minority”

    Sooooooo, consensus?

  33. How delicious to see everyone piling on Tulpa early in the morning. Fuck Tulpa. Disgusting amoral scum.

    1. He went full Tulpa. My God, I’ve never seen full Tulpa before. It might be the ugliest thing I have ever seen on the internet.

      1. Those are not the ramblings of a sane man.

        1. I suppose a sane man considers criticism of a speaker to be equivalent to support for censorship (or even equivalent to support for murder, as several commenters here seem to think)? When you strip away all the identities of the parties involved, that’s what the commenters here, from Matt Welch all the way down to the most infrequent lurker, are doing. With the sole exception of me, which is seriously flerking depressing.

          1. With the sole exception of me

            Your absolute sophistry is only exceeded by your ridiculous egoism. I am glad you are depressed. You deserve to be. If I were you, I would also be depressed because it must suck to be such an industrial shit gobbler.

            1. You have nothing but shouting “sophistry” and hurling insults.

              Check your own gullet for turds before you go squinting to see them in mine.

              1. Well sophists gonna sophist Piggy.

          2. “Porque Pig|2015/05/01 10:45:29|#5271135

            I suppose a sane man”

            you lost me

            1. Four words is too much for you to handle?

              1. lol

                no it was the subject proposing something that they couldn’t possibly conceive

          3. If you’re really depressed why don’t you do the rest of us a favor and eat a bullet, you rim jobbing cock gobbler.

            1. Forgot to change your handle back, Free Society?

              Free Society|5.1.15 @ 11:51AM|#

              So you’re saying that you love giving rimjobs and slurping cum at truck stops?

      2. Warty’s condemnations I will bear as a badge of honor. But I thought you were a more reasonable type, Banjos. How sad.

        1. No one cares what you think.

          you already knew that. the fact you keep trying is a sign of illness

          1. Quitters never win and winners never quit, but those who never win and never quit are morons.

            1. that seems to deserve some rock & roll, but instead only gets some badass funk

            2. those who never win and never quit are morons.

              Hilarious to see a libertarian saying this.

              1. what does that make the fool who desires their company?

                1. I didn’t say I agreed with the statement, smartypants. Just that I found it funny for a libertarian to say.

                2. And the Law and Order Libertarian philosophy is far closer to winning than the cosmo/LP version held dear in these parts.

                  1. lol

                    are you going to eat that cake or just hold it?

  34. I’ve never seen a Welch this pissed.

    Bravo.

  35. With all due respect, the document’s signers are chode gargling fuck toilets.

  36. What we’re witnessing unfold is the same rotted mindset – your usual collection of poets and artists – that accepted and defended socialism communism (even when they knew about gulags and murders) in the early 20th century.

    History does indeed repeat itself in some instances I reckon.

    1. Exactly. I’m fairly sure that their heroes like Stalin would have agreed that free speech is good so long as it is in line with policy. It is only when speech does not support the official party line that it must be silenced. And permanently silencing the speaker is simply being efficient, isn’t it? It also serves as an example to others who might be tempted to “punch down” on the “proletariat.”

      1. I think “acceptable” would be the euphemism Stalin would choose.

  37. “We do not believe in censoring expression,” the 145 write, ominously.

    …. *** waits for it …. waits for it *** ….

    “However,”

    ARGHH!!

    1. Walsh? I hate the……
      Aw, the hell with it.

  38. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

    It’s always about intentions.

  39. Matt, you’ve been at the absolute top of your game on this one. They should put you on TV so you can reach a larger different audience.

    1. They tried that already. It only succeeded in kickstarting the career of “Kennedy”.

    2. “Matt, you’ve been at the absolute top of your game on this one. “

      Agreed, but the rest was a gratuitous insult (my favorite kind)

      also, he’s been looking great in 2015. I feel like 2014 was a learning experience for everyone.

  40. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

    Seriously, if the Muslims had it so bad in France, they would A) not have left Goatfuckistan. and B) could move to other European countries that are more willing to bend over backwards for these anachronistic Muslims who would happily see western civilization destroyed. If westerners are so awful, intolerant and malicious then they can fucking leave.

    Nevermind that all this bitching is directed at societies who are indisputably the most tolerant that world has ever known. Or at least they’re the societies that should be the very LAST ones you criticize for not being inclusive enough.

    1. Seriously, if the Muslims had it so bad in France, they would A) not have left Goatfuckistan. and B) could move to other European countries that are more willing to bend over backwards for these anachronistic Muslims who would happily see western civilization destroyed. If westerners are so awful, intolerant and malicious then they can fucking leave.

      Curious, what are your opinions on Mexicans in the US being targeted by Sheriff Joe?

      1. Sheriff Joe is a dick. Are you hoping to build a strawman?

        1. As a wise man once said, “If westerners are so awful, intolerant and malicious then they can fucking leave.” Same goes for the Mexicans if they don’t like Sheriff Joe.

          1. Same goes huh? Well if the prevailing wisdom among Mexican immigrants was that American society is awful, bigoted and oppressive then one would legitimately wonder why they are here. As an outside observer saying that the host society is terrible to these immigrants, you’ll have to explain why the immigrants come in droves.

        2. Sheriff Joe is indeed a dick and Tulpa sucks it.

  41. It’s pretty ironic to see people defend PEN. Much as it is nice that they have been taking the side of Charlie Hebdo, PEN is a typical association of European and Europhile intellectuals. I seriously doubt they would come down on the side of freedom on principle when it isn’t in the economic interests of their members; and the economic interests of writers tend to be pretty different from those of most of the rest of us.

    1. I wouldn’t consider apologists for Islam and Islamic culture to be ‘Europhiles’.

    2. I’m not sure we’re defending PEN as much as we’re condemning the 145.

  42. I apologize for suggesting all the reason writers had taken friday off. This matt welch double-fisted FU broadside is why i still love them all.

  43. Yet more “I believe in free speech but…” horseshit. No. You. Don’t.

    1. Why, because they criticize the speech in question? What a bunch of malarkey.

      I guess we can’t criticize Larry Flynt either because someone shot him for his speech.

      1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 11:43AM|#
        “Why, because they criticize the speech in question?”

        Yes, you pile of shit.

  44. It makes you wonder – is the stereotype of “lawyer asshole” because they are all children, desperately trying to win an argument they lost in 3rd grade?

  45. Complete bullshit. We like free speech unless certain people are offended. This is how our rights should be seen as a seamless web. We have the right to free speech – and the right to defend ourselves effectively (Second Amendment) if disturbed Islamic crazies don;t like it.

  46. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  47. OTOH, I’m not partial to the conflation of victimhood w heroism either. If those cartoonists didn’t rate an award before they were killed, why does murdering them elevate them to free speech award status?

    1. the “free speech award” is “not be murdered”?

      1. So 99% of humanity is getting a free speech award?

        1. Porque Pig|5.1.15 @ 10:16PM|#
          “So 99% of humanity is getting a free speech award?”

          Hey, shitstain! New level of sophistry!
          Fuck off.

    2. also, when there’s a significant difference of opinion on a person/group’s speech, the polite thing to do is state so clearly and strongly *before* the other person has been murdered in their place of work by violent extremists

    3. Perhaps, but it does seem a bit more reasonable than winning a Peace Price for having done absolutely nothing.

      1. Which nobody here supports, so not sure what it has to do with anything.

  48. I would like to thank the enemies of Western Civilization for preparing this list for us. One day, hopefully soon, it should prove useful.

  49. I’m going to rest assured that the majority of the world most likely believes that the writers that were murdered are the victims and the jihadis are evil assholes that need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice. These 145 and assholes like Tulpa are just a vocal, whiny minority.

    I’m now going to go play some Chrono Trigger.

  50. Increasingly, intellectuals are in effect idiot savants, each knowing everything about some precise subject and virtually nothing about anything else. Yet they believe their savant status makes them the smartest people around. This is why, as George Orwell observed, no one else can be as stupid as an intellectual. Nor, as it turns out, as sympathetic to totalitarian movements of all sorts (just look at how many high SD officers were intellectuals).

  51. The main reason that Charlie Hebdo is controversial amongst the PENfolk is not because of the religious skewerings but the way that blacks are (usually) depicted, cartooned in ways that would not be acceptable to most Americans and Europeans.

    The commie-left (I think Charb was a commie as well as some of the other artists) also is kinda creeped-out by homosexuality, generally archetyping them as mincing, mugwump sodomites.

    1. The commie-left is as homophobic as the Christian right; really, except for which corpse they worship, commies and conservative Christians are pretty close. Ironically, behind the iron curtain, it was often the churches that supported homosexuals.

  52. What’s funny is all these folks are, more-or-less, lefties. The commie side of the intellectual pond will soon look a bit like this me thinks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkWTVwJEQ7c

  53. “145 Intellectuals Agree: Dead Cartoonists Aren’t Worthy of Free-Speech Award if Their Murderers Come From a Disadvantaged Minority”

    The defining mark of group privilege has always been asymmetry in who can insult who.

  54. I should put up a kickstarter campaign to buy a million copies of The Satanic Verses to distribute in France.

    -jcr

  55. I may not agree with these 145 PEN members, but I will defend to death their right to say it (unlike some of the hypocrites commenting.)

    1. Choadintheroad|5.1.15 @ 5:39PM|#
      “I may not agree with these 145 PEN members, but I will defend to death their right to say it (unlike some of the hypocrites commenting.)”

      So are you admitting you are incapable of discerning the difference between denying someone membership in an organization and outlawing their word?
      How could someone so stupid even understand the concept of hypocrisy?

      1. What exactly don’t you understand? I don’t believe in government outlawing free speech and I don’t believe that PEN should outlaw free speech. If the situation had been reversed and 145 PEN members were in favor of honoring Charlie Hebdo whilst the majority were against, I would be aghast if the majority expelled the 145 members in favor of honoring Charlie Hebdo. I suppose you would if your complaint is that you’re not a hypocrite. Is that what your saying? Because, quite frankly, that seems a bit stupid.

        1. you’re

      2. Also: Are you admitting you’re unable to discern the difference between a private citizen killing someone because they don’t like what they said and outlawing their word? Again, pretty stupid.

  56. Freedom of speech… just watch what you say. – Ice-T, 1989

  57. No discussion of freedom of speech in Europe is complete without noting that there are half a dozen people in prison in a number of the countries which criminalize questioning the dogma of the holocaust .

    1. What “dogma” of the holocaust are you talking about? There’s the FACT of the holocaust, and while I don’t condone David Irving being imprisoned for denying it, I’ll still call him a lying Nazi prick for doing so.

      -jcr

  58. Ha, ha, you’re all agreeing with Katha Pollitt.

  59. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.

    You mean the part where there are over a billion Muslims, whose nations control much of the world’s oil and many of whom want to see me dead? Sure, that shouldn’t be ignored.

    (Incidentally, progressives seem to have a hard time keeping “inequity” and “inequality” apart, apparently believing that they are synonyms.)

  60. Charles Schulz created Peanuts

    Garry Trudeau has No nuts

    1. Charlie Hebdo was named after Charlie Brown. Peanuts is highly regarded in France

  61. Phobia is defined, mostly, as an “irrational fear.” For that reason, I don’t believe that Islamophobia is a correct definition. The Koran and the Hadith tells good Allah-fearing Muslims of the Islamic religion to convert or kill all non-believers. Fear of the Islamic religion and its followers who are merely doing what their prophet and holy book tells them to do is not a phobia. It is not irrational. It is a very rational fear. If the so-called moderate Muslims do not call for a true reformation of their religion, and are willing to die to see that it is reformed, then we can trust no Muslim because they have many ways to deceive us, all the while pretending to tell us the truth. http://islamexposed.org/multim…..uruna-etc/

    If Islam finally conquers the “west”, as is it’s original intent, these 145 intellectuals will have to convert to Islam or have their heads cut off.

  62. There just seems to be some logical disconnect in the notion that the victims fo Charlie Hebdo were killed for excercising their free speech. They were killed because certain people didn’t like what they said. that is a huge difference. Plenty of people are killed every year for saying something that pisses someone else off. I am not in any way saying that’s right, but I don’t believe in government stepping in and preventing you from saying something that might get you killed by an irrational person. That didn’t happen in this case. Fortunately, the victims of Charlie Hebdo were allowed the free speech that led to their murder.

  63. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  64. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  65. It’s important to note that as writers go, PEN represents people who’s only skill at writing is writing Federal grant applications that allow them to blather and pontificate on the public dime.

  66. Their lack of insight and inability remember the past or foresee the potential consequences of their newfound beliefs, completely negates the title “intellectual” Matt. These people are dishonest sicofants to popular culture, nothing more.

  67. women = fascist, evil, toxic, parasites
    #killallwomen

  68. “We do not believe in censoring expression”

    ‘Me thinks thou doth protest too much.’

  69. “Intolerance will not be tolerated!” is the new “beatings will continue until moral improves!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.