French leaders sound alarm over planned Mohammad cartoons

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The French government has called for restraint after learning that a satirical weekly plans to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday just as an anti-Islam video has ignited Muslim protests around the globe.

The Paris offices of the paper, Charlie Hebdo, were firebombed last November after it published a mocking caricature of Mohammad, and in 2005 Danish cartoons of the Prophet sparked a wave of protests across the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, asked about the publication, said any provocation now could only be condemned.

Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault issued a statement saying: "In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excess and calls on everyone to behave responsibly."

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/uk-protests-france-cartoons-idUKBRE88H1CT20120918

[4th law of robotics]

1. These are physiologically mature human beings

presumably with an average IQ around 100.

Living in a first world nation with free education and all the modern amenities.

And we have to worry they will kill people over a handful of pixels in a satirical newsletter.

Sometimes I have high hopes fur humanity. Lately those have taken a beating. Or perhaps a fire-bombing.

[msongs]

2. no first amendment in France, so no worries nt

[marshall]

18. But there are laws protecting freedom of speech

And in the last decade or two, French courts have protected the right to publish derogatory material insulting to both Christianity and Islam, as long as it doesn't target anyone specific.

[pscot]

3. Yeah! Let''s cater to the

sensitivities of humorless religious bigots, no matter how benighted.

[emilyg]

4. +100

[L0oniX]

11. Yea ...let's include the Westboro gang of idiots too.

[alp227]

15. better than letting the crazies win,

stand up and convince those rioters that free speech will never die.

[Mr.Turnip]

5. Cowards.

[NYC Liberal]

6. So the "provocation" is condemned, but not the riots, threats, and violence?

[Dash87]

7. Let's not offend the Middle East equivalent of the KKK!

If you censor yourself for bigots, then is it really freedom of speech?

[uppityperson]

9. "freedom of speech" does not apply everywhere or for everything. Read the 1st amendment and learn.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Dash87]

21. Obviously this is France's call, but in our case,

anybody should be able to insult Islam to their liking. My point is, France would do good to follow this model of thinking - clamping down on speech as a reaction to outside bigots is terrible policy (not that France is, but just saying), even if the speech itself is bigoted.

[rachel1]

8. Pointless provocation

Some people just never learn.

[iandhr]

13. So we should censor our selfs for bigots

""We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation,"


If they wanted to mock the Jewish or Christian faith no one would mind.

Indeed many Jews and Christians might find their material funny.


But Islam is off limits.


"The Paris offices of the paper, Charlie Hebdo, were firebombed last November" FIREBOMBED.

FIREBOMBED. Its seems that people on this site are defending the rioters and not taking the side of a comic why.

[fujiyama]

22. According to cowardly politicians

and many so called progressives, all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.

[uppityperson]

27. Neither Judaism nor Christianity is mocked? Seriously?

[iandhr]

54. That not what I said

what I said was


If they wanted to mock the Jewish or Christian faith no one would mind.

Indeed many Jews and Christians might find their material funny.



According to the paper "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation,"

[christx30]

64. Judaism and Christianity

Are mocked all the time. And Jews and Christians are offended. It does happen. The difference is that while radical Muslims will riot and murder, Jews and Christians will roll their eyes and get over it. There might be an angry letter, and people will slap the letter writer as "infringing on the free speech rights" of the cartoonist. But there will be no death. No destruction. Cause that is how mature people act.
You don't bow down to the bigots and the immature. You treat them the same as everyone else. There are no sacred cows. Your invisible sky man is no better than mine.

[iandhr]

68. Agreed

But The Onion beat you to it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

[christx30]

69. I was thinking

About that onion article when I wrote my post. But they are right. We dont need to walk on eggshells around them. They need to learn tolerance. Just once, don't react as expected. Take a deep breath, show some self control.

[Scootaloo]

28. Have you ever heard the maxim, "don't be an asshole?"

it's generally fairly easy to follow. But it seems time and again, privileged majorities the world over keep forgetting the idea, because hey - who's going to say anything to them, right?

[JoeyT]

30. I hate to break this to you,

but the Islamic religion hardly qualifies for minority status. They're the 2nd largest religion on the planet. 1.5 billion people is hardly a minority.

I'd be more sympathetic if people were kicking Jains, Sikhs, or Shintoists around than I am to a group that makes up a quarter of the planet.

[Scootaloo]

31. In France? The US?

You know, in the nations where white christians make up the majority, and feel they are accorded the privilege of treating others like shit?

The idea stands; don't be an asshole. it seems this is something some DU'ers forget, when given the opportunity to expose what utter bigoted fucks they are.

[JoeyT]

37. Yes, any criticism of religion makes you an asshole.

Is there anything else we're not allowed to criticize, or is it just religions that get a free pass? I'm not white or Christian, so arguing that I'm part of a privilege blind majority isn't going to work.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't bigots about. There's no shortage of threads and comments that amount to "See! Civilized Christian (Implies white) people wouldn't be doing this!" around.

[Scootaloo]

39. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. "Criticism," for example

It doesn't mean "insult." let's you and I explore this word together, with the help of Wikipedia.

Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something or someone in an intelligible (or articulate) way.

Already we're seeing the difference here, aren't we? For starters, to criticize something, one must actually be informed about it. There's no way to have an intelligible critique of something that you are ignorant about. The more informed you are, the more weight your criticism carries. Without being informed of a subject, you can't actually discuss the merits or flaws of it, right? Criticism also relies on presenting an argument. That is, you have to actually put words together to make the case for your criticism.

Think of movie critics. Even Jay Sherman of "The Critic" had shit to say before his ubiquitous "it stinks!" panning of the (fake) film. A critic who just said "lol this sucks and the director is a goon what a loser lol" and nothing else... would be out of a job.

To criticize does not necessarily imply "to find fault", but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an objection against prejudice, or a disapproval. Often criticism involves active disagreement, but it may only mean "taking sides". It could just be an exploration of the different sides of an issue. Fighting is not necessarily involved.

Criticism is often presented as something unpleasant, but it need not be. It could be friendly criticism, amicably discussed, and some people find great pleasure in criticism ("keeping people sharp", "providing the critical edge&quot . The Pulitzer Prize for Criticism has been presented since 1970 to a newspaper writer who has demonstrated 'distinguished criticism'.

In short, it's possible to provide criticism without being a complete fucking cock. At the core, to criticize is the explore the subject and provide an opinion on it. Even tense subjects can be criticized without sending people home feeling mad or insulted. If your intent going in is to create such feelings among those being criticized, you're already failing as a critic; your task is not to belittle or make others feel horrible, but to expose and discuss on the strengths and flaws of their positions, ideas, creations, etc. Indeed if your goal is just to piss on people's heads, that just makes you a bully and a douchebag, not a critic.

of course, some people will always go away mad no matter what. It's not the point of the exercise to mollify hurt feelings, any more than it is to create them. However the onus falls on the critic to try to avoid deliberate antagonism of their subject; if they get pissed anyway, well, that's kind of their twisted panties, and the critic - ideally - can just say "I tried my best."

Criticism as an evaluative or corrective exercise can occur in any area of human life. Criticism can therefore take many different forms. How exactly people go about criticizing, can vary a great deal. In specific areas of human endeavour, the form of criticism can be highly specialized and technical; it often requires professional knowledge to understand the criticism.

Finally, criticism has goals. A critic is trying to accomplish something, trying to get a change, or at least a reevaluation of the subject. Criticism is not for its own sake, it has form and purpose. Think of your teachers in school. Did they correct your mistakes and provide you with information on how to do better, or did they just ball up the paper and say "fuck you, asshole"?

When you engage in criticism, you set an agenda for yourself. "This is the problem, this is what I think needs to be fixed, these are the arguments I will present in the hopes of getting them fixed." In the course of this you are also going to accept the possibility that you don't know as much as you think you do, or that the other side is just going to say "no." You can of course press on - many critics do, which is why "The Phantom Menace" looks like a pit bull's favorite chew toy. But kicking and screaming isn't going to get your arguments any more accepted.

Now, if we have a better understanding of the term "criticism," let's go back to the subject; Mohammed cartoons.

So, if these are "criticisms," what, exactly, are they criticizing? Islam? How? What aspect of the idea is being explored for criticism here? is it the Islamic prohibition against depictions of the human form (not just Mohammed)? if that's the case, then what is the argument being presented? How informed are the critics of the idea they are criticizing? Can they at least make an opening presentation without intentional antagonism? Can they carry on the discussion in a rational manner, or do they just descend into kicking shit?

A study of the material at hand makes it fairly clear that these aren't actually criticisms. They're just insults, someone going "HEY MUSLIMS, FUCK YOU RAGHEADS HAHAHAHAHA!" While some people may respect that sort of thing (or, if nothing else respect its legality in the US) there's really no way to call it "criticism." All that is happening when people do this and call it "criticism" is that they are chodes who think they can pretend to be high-minded and intellectual. "gasp! How dare you accuse me of being an asshole, I'm criticizing!"

Contrary to your bullshit claim, no one is saying that religion should get a pass - least of all me. I'm of the opinion that religion is at its very core, a system for subverting ethical behavior and replacing it with a hazy, tribal set of laws known as "morals," which are almost universally antithetical to decent life as a human being. Yeah, don't accuse me of wanting to give religion a pass. I'm saying there is a right way to criticize it, a wrong way to criticize it, and as we see is the case with this instance, a non-way to criticize it.

Nor is there any real lack of criticism of religion, or Islam in specific. Stop with this horse shit where you pretend that there's some sort of gag rule on the subject. There's not, quite the opposite. Lack of support for your biases and hatreds and insults DOES NOT equal "censorship." People thinking you're an asshole when you do asshole things is not opression. You are not a tragic figure victimized by Sharia law or whatever shit you might have swimming in your head.

[JoeyT]

53. For the most part,

you're kind of arguing with a straw man. My posting history on the attitudes toward Muslims hasn't been critical. Mostly because it's hard to be critical when you're arguing with a bigot without letting the bigot assume you're on their side.

Now for the straw man I attacked up there. There are people on here who would ban criticism of religion in general. I'm fucked if I know how I got you were one of them, but there you go. So I apologize for that.

I do respect the legality of mocking religions, without respecting the mocking. All religions (Hell, all people.) would like to remain free of criticism, and they usually refuse to acknowledge the difference. According to some (SBCs, Bill Donohue, etc) simply not believing in their religion is the worst form of mockery. Mockery and criticism are completely interchangeable from a legal standpoint for that very reason. If we make it illegal to mock them, we make it illegal to criticize them. Take a look at how countries with blasphemy laws work for a more specific example of that. The guy that proved the weeping religious statue was just leaky pipes was criticizing rather than mocking, and yet he got arrested. Mockery is what they complain about, but criticism is what they actually go after when given freedom from mockery.

There's no lack of criticism for religion BECAUSE people defend criticizing and mocking religion whenever it comes up.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. I agree with you -- it's possible to disapprove of something without demanding it be criminalized

We can say ridiculing people's deeply held beliefs is arrogant and wrong without giving in to those who demand we sacrifice our freedoms lest they act-out violently.

I call it the "Walking and chewing gum at the same time" principle.

[Scootaloo]

65. You should proofread more

'Cause this is just a little garbled.

My point is that "lol let's draw Mohammed made of pork chops sodomizing a camel!" or whatever, isn't criticism. There is nothing critical being said, it's just "HEY MUSLIMS FUCK YOU HAHAHAHA." And I'm explaining to you why you shouldn't try to call it criticism. It's just insult.

[JoeyT]

67. No, it isn't criticism.

Yes, it's just an insult. However, if we give religions (All religions, not this one specifically) a pass on being insulted, we're going to find out they're insulted by absolutely everything.

That's why I'm comfortable saying the dude that made the movie was a worthless dickhead AND defending his right to say it. More comfortable with the former than the latter, but still.

[LanternWaste]

59. I imagine every demographic has its sacred cows.

"...or is it just religions that get a free pass?"

I imagine every demographic has its sacred cows. Some demand no racist or sexist get told. Others demand we may not make Polish jokes. And yet others ask us not to make fun of people who are overweight. Still others become enraged due to humor at the expense of a person's sexual orientation. I imagine there are even some who do not want people to joke about abortions (all with the petulant rationalization being that it's appropriate to make fun of choices, but not something one is born with, as though that makes it more.... ethical to advertize our lack of character?).


We make fun or people, trivialize benign beliefs or actions ot appearances of individuals, know the consequences beforehand, and demand state protection for acting in a vulgar manner.

[Missycim]

45. I could say that about a lot of Christian bashing going on in the US

but I rarely see you defending them, its the poor Islamic crazies in the ME I see you defend the most.

[Scootaloo]

46. The principle remains the same

"Don't be an asshole."

You don't see me "defending them" for the same reason I don't see you "defending" Wiccans, Missy; it just doesn't come up that often.

[joeglow3]

32. What were your thoughts on Piss Christ?

[Scootaloo]

34. I was five, so I didn't have any such thoughts.

Mostly I was worried about where by older brother had stashed my Skeletor action figure. In retrospect, I wouldn't have put it past him to tuck it away in a jar of urine.

My current thoughts, if I could go back to 1987? "Congratulations, you're an asshole. We're very proud of you."

What part of "don't be an asshole" doesn't sink in? is this what over a decade of South Park does to people? Has the concept of "freedom of speech" devolved so far in our social consciousness, that it now translates as "my unquestionable right to be a complete and utter cock to every other example of humanity I clap eyes on?"

Nobody should be locked up for being a reprehensible douchebag... but nor should people's highest aspiration be to become a reprehensible douchebag, which seems to be the limits of elevation for some people.

[Nihil]

42. Two excellent posts in a row there

Your patient explanation of criticism above and your simple response in this reply.

I wish your comment below could be broadcast to wake a few people up:

> Has the concept of "freedom of speech" devolved so far in our social consciousness,
> that it now translates as "my unquestionable right to be a complete and utter cock
> to every other example of humanity I clap eyes on?"

[joeglow3]

49. I am glad to see your consistency

Sadly, that appears to be in the minority here. I have asked other people that question and, until you, all had said it was justifiable because it was "art." I am with you that no one should seek to be just an a-hole. However, I am saddened by how quickly people will sell out their beliefs if it benefits their world view.

[iamthebandfanman]

29. yeah, thats what the OP said..

after you imagined an entire post.

where exactly did the poster say anything about censoring people?

could you help me find what youre talking about?

was it the "Some people just never learn." part or the 'pointless provocation' subject line?

for some reason i cant find anything about censoring people in any of that. maybe im losing my eye sight..

or maybe youre over reacting?

lmao

[Scootaloo]

36. Some DU'ers evidently take great offense...

At the suggestion that maybe, just maybe the thoughts and feelings of other human beings should be taken into account.

Wallace Democrats, you know.

[Codeine]

23. Provocation of fascists is never pointless.

They can take their Bronze Age religious horror and shove it right back up their asses.

[slackmaster]

50. I haven't heard of anyone being forced to view the material

It's really a meta-provocation - Mere discussion of the existence of "blasphemous" materials is enough to set some immature people off.

At least it serves to identify those who can't handle the fact that nobody has the right to live in a world free of "offensive" things.

[Earth_First]

10. Yay for more pointless provocation and violence!

Dolts, the whole lot of 'em!

[fascisthunter]

17. true... the timing is suspect

[leftynyc]

40. You have no idea if it's pointless

Perhaps they're trying to make a point also. Perhaps they're trying to point out that cartoons sting a lot of people - not everyone riots and murders because of them. I guess in some peoples' minds, if we asking those who are insulted to ignore it or just suck it up (you know, like the rest of us do) is simply too much.

[slackmaster]

51. The point is to draw out and identify people who haven't moved into the 21st Century yet

There's stuff in the world that you don't like. We all have to learn to deal with it.

[iandhr]

12. In a free society if you can't publish religious satire in a comedy newspaper...

you got a serious problem.


France needs to live up to theit motto liberté, égalité, fraternité and defend a free press.


There was an episode of South Park a few years ago where many religious figures are mocked. Buddha snorts coke. There were no Buddhists rioting in the streets. Same for Jews and Christians when Moses and Jesus are portrayed in shall we say a less then flattering matter.


As hateful and bigoted as the Christian right gets Bill Maher did not have to be placed under protection when he made his movie Religious.



Muhammad is censored initially in the episode and then disguised in a bear costume.


The creators of south park got death threats.



Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about the threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker and said they should be taken very seriously given what happened given what happened to her friend Theo Van Gogh.

[harmonicon]

20. I'm pretty sure that no one's been murdered because of this image yet, either:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

[fujiyama]

33. Wow. Offensive. Distasteful. Disgusting.

That's why I love the Onion.

[JI7]

41. was that from one of the parties by that romney guy ?

[harmonicon]

47. I doubt his parties are that diverse. (nt)

[Dr. Strange]

52. Wow.

That's quite a deceptively subtle dig at Muslims.

[harmonicon]

58. I don't think so.

It's a dig at a certain breed of psycho - not Muslims.

[Dr. Strange]

61. Yeah, but it's subtle as hell.

Very sneaky on the Onion's part.

[Skittles]

14. how shaky is your faith if it is threatened by CARTOONS?

I mean, seriously, WTF

[fascisthunter]

16. well, Those that sensitive better get over it, especially in this info age

welcome to reality... nobody is beyond ridicule or reproach.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

19. Good for them. I'm sick of religious extremists and apologists. nt

[Sunlei]

24. omG, time to flood these backwards countries /w the internets and billions of cartoons from ALL

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. The editors should hand deliver copies to Cairo and Benghazi.

[Scootaloo]

26. Must be a slow day at the offices of said satirical weekly.

[davidthegnome]

35. Freedom of speech does not mean...

freedom from consequence. I think that when we are taking advantage of our right to free speech, we should consider that - whether it's here or in France, or in any of the Nations that consider it to be a right.

These cartoons will most likely push angry, violent fanatics into doing what they do best... being angry and violent. It should be considered though, that for this "Fuck you, we're not afraid", to the zealots, there will likely be a cost in lives. Perhaps the publishers will face some form of violence or retaliation for this, but it is far more likely that people who had nothing to do with it will end up paying the price.

I'm not a fan of, follower of, or believer in any religion. I do believe though, that there is such a thing as civility, as common courtesy... I think the golden rule is a darn good rule. For me, I guess my personal principles are my religion and they suggest that provoking angry fanatics who just proved they will kill for such things... is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting we should be afraid, rather that we should use common sense and consider the impact of what we say (or, in this case, publish).

Is whatever is achieved by publishing these articles worth more death? Will innocents die as a result? I wouldn't blame the publishers for the murders, but I DO blame them for a lack of civility and what appears to be a lack of concern for consequence.

I'll go further, in saying that I can't see how this publication is anything other than yet another attempt to stir up a hornets nest - by people who, most likely, will not be feeling the stings.

[Major Nikon]

55. You're trying to lay the blame on the wrong people

If someone kills or harms someone else over a fucking cartoon, that's not the fault of the cartoon publisher. Civil rights marches in the 50's and 60's managed to get people killed and injured here as well. That doesn't mean civil rights leaders deserved any of the blame.

When you advocate suppression of ideas for fear of violence, you simply send a message to the murderous thugs that do these things that their tactics are working.

[glacierbay]

60. Well said and spot on.

Thank you.

[davidthegnome]

70. That might be the case

if I was arguing in favor of suppression as opposed to common sense. No where did I suggest they should face legal charges, though I think what they are doing is unwise and deliberately provocative.

No, it's not the fault of the publisher if someone kills someone over a cartoon. It is, however, the fault of the publisher if they deliberately publish antagonistic material for no more purpose than to anger an already group of people - an already murderous group of people. I don't think they should be afraid, I certainly am not going to say that they should be legally mandated to stop. I am going to say it's pretty fucking stupid to publish cartoons that aren't going to accomplish much more than probably fucking things up... to publish them KNOWING that there is little or no purpose to it and that there are consequences to doing so.

The publisher does not pull the trigger, so the publisher is not the murderer. What is the fault of the publisher is encouraging violence through pointless, petty and stupid actions. Yes, they are encouraging it. Again... the fanatics have PROVEN that they will KILL for these things. A cartoon is not worth risking your life... and it is certainly not worth risking other lives.

I don't think we should suppress ideas for the fear of violence. I think we should consider, perhaps, when expressing our ideas might have consequences, when it might be better to do so differently. Perhaps we should consider the many people who could face angry rioters as a result of what the cartoons show. They're fucking cartoons! This isn't an exercise in free speech, it's some assholes trying to make a theological or political point.

[azurnoir]

38. The same magazine did this before less than a year ago

2011

In the early hours of November 2, 2011 the newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement[7] was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were presumed linked to its decision to rename a special edition "Charia Hebdo", with the Prophet Mohammed listed as the "editor-in-chief".[8] The cover, featuring a cartoon of Mohammed by Luz (Renald Luzier) had circulated on social media for a couple of days.

Charb was quoted by AP stating that the attack might have been carried out by "stupid people who don't know what Islam is" and that they are "idiots who betray their own religion". Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, said his organisation deplores "the very mocking tone of the paper toward Islam and its prophet but reaffirms with force its total opposition to all acts and all forms of violence."[9] François Fillon, the prime minister, and Claude Guéant, the interior minister, voiced support for Charlie Hebdo.,[7] as did feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali who criticised calls for self-censorship.[10]

2012

In September 2012, the newspaper announced that it would publish a series of satirical cartoons of Mohammed, some of which feature nude caricatures of the Prophet. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius condemned the magazine. The newspaper's editor defended publication of the cartoons, saying, "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation."[11]

This page was last modified on 19 September 2012 at 03:47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

why are they doing again now?

[Nihil]

43. Q: "why are they doing (it) again now?"

A: Because it makes money for them.

There is no god but Mammon and countless are his servants.

[potone]

72. Yes, I agree.

I cannot view this as an heroic act of free speech. These cartoons are deliberately provocative and insulting. At a time when innocent people have been killed over a lousy film, it seems that this is deliberately pouring gasoline on a fire. That is not to say that they do not have the right to publish them, only that it seems irresponsible to do so. What is the possible good that can come out of this?

[dipsydoodle]

44. France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being stepped up at some of France's embassies after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he was "concerned" after the issue of Charlie Hebdo appeared on news-stands.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

Riot police have been deployed around the magazine's offices in Paris.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19646748

[Odin2005]

48. The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up...

...and quit throwing temper tantrums like a 3yo boy.

[ronnie624]

62. You should learn to tell the difference between "the Muslim World"

and a tiny fraction of its population.

[Nihil]

71. Funny how *some* broad brushes are apparently better than others ...

> The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up...
> ...and quit throwing temper tantrums like a 3yo boy.

vs

> The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up...
> ...and quit throwing temper tantrums like an autistic brat.

Suddenly doesn't have the same "clean" ring to it does it?



How's about "Those Muslim extremists need to grow the fuck up
and quit throwing temper tantrums"?

This way, you only target the people responsible rather than hitting
everyone within reach of those jerking knees.

[Bragi]

57. France seems to be handling this quite well

Too many countries in Europe use nuisance and hate laws and other forms of censorship to shut down free speech whenever it becomes overly contentious. Good for France for defending free speech. - B

[Dr. Strange]

63. Well, not so fast...

Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said organizers of a demonstration planned for Saturday against the "Innocence of Muslims" won't receive police authorization. Paris prosecutors have opened an investigation into an unauthorized protest last Saturday around the U.S. Embassy that drew a couple hundred people and led to about 150 arrests.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfB4a_pcUoxCoTdb6Kd-pOqdrW5g?docId=8251296cb1e5416faa8bfc2027a59efb

"Unauthorized protest"? I don't like the sound of that.

[oberliner]

66. French Cartoon of Jew and Muhammed Sparks Anger

A French magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, threatening to fuel the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a film depiction of him as a lecherous fool.

The drawings in satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo risked exacerbating a crisis that has seen the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies, the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan.

Riot police were deployed to protect the magazine’s Paris offices after it hit the news stands with a cover showing an Orthodox Jew pushing the turbaned figure of Mohammad in a wheelchair.

On the inside pages, several caricatures of the Prophet showed him naked. One, entitled “Mohammad: a star is born”, depicted a bearded figure crouching over to display his buttocks and genitals.

http://forward.com/articles/163040/french-cartoon-of-jew-and-muhammed-sparks-anger/?p=all#ixzz26wZvbrU4