But, je suis d’accord with Charlie’s right to publish whatever foul crap they want to, without being shot for it by some self-proclaimed spokesgunman for Allah.

You see, folks, once you start to posit that there are limits to that freedom, you have to decide:

1) who decides those limits
2) where those limits are
3) who enforces them

And there is no way to agree on any of those three things in any modern, pluralistic society. Heck, there’s no way to agree on those things in any human society. All you can do is pressure the disagreers to shut up, by social pressure or physical coercion.

When we don’t think this through, we react from our own viewpoint of right and wrong and start thinking as if our own ideas of the limits are True and Universal. And so we get prima facie “reasonable” statements like jks #30:

of course I’m not saying Charlie should have been censured. That is not my argument. But please, don’t say that we have a responsibility to fight for freedom of the press at all times and in all places. We don’t necessarily have to fight every “slight infraction.”

Yes, we do have that responsibility. Because I don’t want jks to decide the limits, and s/he shouldn’t want me deciding, and none of you should want either of us doing it or vice versa.

And we also get people keeping score to see who wins, like Steve Smith in #29:

Whatever jerk Charlie Hebdo may have been is outweighed a million times by the bullying murderous jerkishness of Islamic terrorism.

(“Jerkishness”? Really?) Anyway, so how bad does Islamic terrorist jerkishness have to be to be worse than Charlie Hebdo jerkishness? If the terrorists had broken into the office, tied up the staff, filled their ears with whipped cream and drawn mustaches on them with Sharpies, would that be jerkish enough to outweigh Charlie jerkish, or would Charlie be jerkier than that? If they’d only killed 10? 8? 1? How much Islamic terrorist jerkishness is one one-millionth of a dozen deaths, so we’ll know next time where the line is, and we can stop denouncing Islamic terrorists and start denouncing shock journalists? Those may seem like ridiculous examples, but this is an extreme case. If you start making the comparison, then you must admit there exists, and you will eventually arrive at, a point where the comparison is close and someone must decide. Who?

“But,” you say, “we can all agree on this one.” Well, obviously we don’t; there are commenters here who seem to think that anyone qui ne est pas Charlie is some kind of terrorist, and I guarantee that there are Muslims in France and the US and a hundred other countries who are going about their business very quietly thinking, “They got exactly what they deserved.”

No, the only painful but consistent answer I can in good conscience arrive at is that I would rather see Charlie than hand my choices over to the Board of Censors; that I would teach others correct principles and hope they read good things and don’t shoot people they don’t agree with, and I pray that others do likewise. Some will not. Passing laws against provoking them will not prevent that.

The only problem that everything around this issue is kinda raw right now, and perhaps not the best time to discuss those issues.

Sadly, as Mr. Turley notes, certain elected officials in the U.S. have, in recent years, lent support to these efforts.

There is no greater threat to Western civilization as we know it than the efforts of governments to silence their citizens. This should frighten us far more than the terrorists.

While trolling did you forget the dead bodies?

Nope. Critic huh?

Anyone else but your mom read your autobiography?

Troll much?

I’ll let Bro. van Beek police replies on his own thread (including this one, if he feels it is not sufficiently related), but I would like to answer your question.

Indeed, you are correct in implying that, just as no one should be killed for expressing himself (however reprehensible we might think the expression to be), no one should be killed for his religion. To that extent, and to the extent that the hashtags are similar, your question has merit. However, Bro. van Beek may wish to confine the thread to discussions of the former rather than the latter.

That having been said (and at the risk of derailing the thread), for more information on je suis juif, see here:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/09/je-suis-juif-i-am-a-jew/

And I’m glad you’re still alive to say so, Sir! ;-D (Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go take a shower …)

“We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and Putin. It really makes me laugh. We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends; They’ve never seen Charlie Hebdo. A few years ago, thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan to demonstrate against Charlie Hebdo. They didn’t know what it was. Now it’s the opposite, but if people are protesting to defend freedom of speech, naturally that’s a good thing.”

Willem (pen name for 73 year old Bernard Holtrop) gave the interview to the Dutch Volkskrant and specifies that his disgust comes from those, such as Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders, who use the events to promote their own agenda of intolerance.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/je-suis-charlie/