Novelist admits she was wrong to oppose Charlie Hebdo award

[MellowDem]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/04/novelist-i-was-misinformed-and-quite-frankly-wrong-when-i-opposed-charlie-hebdos-courage-award/

And an excellent summary of the whole debacle:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/05/america-s-literary-elite-takes-a-bold-stand-against-dead-journalists.html

American writers misunderstanding French satire. At least one had the courage to own up to the mistake, hopefully more will?

Imagine the Colbert show being attaked, and French artists blaming Colbert because of his racist and bigoted show.

[trotsky]

1. Key takeaway:

I — like many, I now believe — fundamentally misunderstood Charlie Hebdo’s mission and content. The controversial images — while arguably tasteless, offensive and not even particularly well-drawn — sprang from satire, not hate. It is a profound and crucial difference: if one is to argue for freedom of speech there can be no caveats, no asterisks, no fine print qualifying that “freedom” only applies to expression we don’t consider too upsetting, or doesn’t enrage right-wing fundamentalists with guns.

Here's hoping other people see the light one day as well!

[nil desperandum]

2. Indeed

it's what we say and do when we are wrong that truly defines our character.

Good to see this article it at least reminds me that there are those who can still be honest and express their wrongdoing with a sincere apology.

Free speech that contains either hate or satire that irritates and inflames is the ultimate test of our resolve to understand and respect our rights.

Free speech for the speech we love is easy, free speech for the speech we find reprehensible, offensive, or hateful is difficult but it is also the kind of free speech we must defend to the death.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. SOME folks here REALLY need to understand and grok this.

I — like many, I now believe — fundamentally misunderstood Charlie Hebdo’s mission and content. The controversial images — while arguably tasteless, offensive and not even particularly well-drawn — sprang from satire, not hate. It is a profound and crucial difference: if one is to argue for freedom of speech there can be no caveats, no asterisks, no fine print qualifying that “freedom” only applies to expression we don’t consider too upsetting, or doesn’t enrage right-wing fundamentalists with guns.

[Yorktown]

4. Well done

Hemant Mehta puts it well:

Good for her. That’s not an easy letter to write, but she deserves credit for admitting she jumped on the anti-free-speech bandwagon at a time when we needed courageous voices supporting the rights of Charlie Hebdo more than ever.

Let’s hope others follow in her footsteps.