Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone’s faith.
Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one’s mind for the sake of the common good.
But he said there were limits.
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.
“If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
I think we all knew that this was the Catholic Church’s position, but there it is in black-and-white.
aimai
A punch *is* normal. Stalking and killing people with guns? Not normal. Has anyone argued that free speech means no right to criticism? That free speech means that if you insult someone’s mother they stay friends with you? Its the fallacy of the excluded middle–there’s something in between “insult me, I love it” and “I’ll kill you.”
chopper
so the pope is down with the doctrine of ‘fighting words’. imagining him trying to sock someone does give me a chuckle.
patrick II
Alberto would get a punch from me too, if he insulted my mother. The question is is insulting my mother a crime? ( I would say yes, but others may disagree) Should Alberto go to jail? When does government get involved in making sure Alberto doesn’t insult my mom?
Corner Stone
I thought that was an extraordinary exchange. I’m not sure how he leaps from indignation to planned mass murder, but hey, that’s why I’m not da freakin Pope.
Svensker
I don’t think of it as the Catholic position. It seems the polite position. People have the right to be as nasty and insulting as they want (the French government appears to disagree, since they’re arresting folks right and left these days). But it’s not gracious, thoughtful or helpful to gratuitously insult people. Doesn’t mean people who do gratuitously insult others should be killed, but I have no problem shunning them. Think Westboro Baptist folks — they had the right to insult gays and everyone else, but no reason why anyone needed to be nice to them about it.
Amir Khalid
Not everyone is a free-speech absolutist. I myself am not. And while I’m very uncomfortable with legal limitations on free speech, beyond those on libel and slander, I and many other people consider abstaining from mockery of others’ beliefs an appropriate ethical limitation.
Just Some Fuckhead
Awesome, now we can expect a wave of Jesuit suicide bombers.
kc
So if someone insults my mother, I’m entitled to punch him. If he insults my religion, then I can mow him, his coworkers, and anyone else in the vicinity down in a hailstorm of bullets.
sharl
Mistermix, no big thang, but your link need fixin’.
ETA: correct link
Goblue72
@Amir Khalid: I think that’s what the Pope is getting at.
We shouldn’t expect the Pope to be a raging secularist liberal. That’s just stupid.
But that doesn’t mean he can’t be an ally on areas of agreement.
Elizabelle
This seems a relevant thread to pop in this little piece of “both sides” artistry, in the headline at least; a recent Al Hunt column in the NY Times on US political reaction to Pope Francis.
A full read is energizing; it’s clear that it’s conservatives — be they Republican, Catholic, or both — who are squirming over Pope Frank. No one in Hunt’s column makes a convincing argument that squirming affects both parties.
A Pope That Makes Democrats Squirm and Republicans Wriggle
Corner Stone
@kc:
If that happens have your lawyer call the Pope as a defense witness.
Just Some Fuckhead
@kc: Yes. Even better, you get to decide what constitutes an insult. So, for instance, if I mocked your backwards views about women or reproductive rights, you’d be well within your right to kill me. Of course, I know this is exactly what you’d do, so I’d just skip the mockery and kill you first.
Botsplainer
“Oh nose – polite old guy expects others among his culturally affiliated people to be polite. My free speech is being oppressed!!!!!111!!1!!!Eleventy!!ll!!!”
/ravings of freedom and liberty minded non-PC free speech absolutists, both left and right
Elizabelle
Here’s the link mistermix intended. AP reporter Nicole Winfield, from Talking Points Memo. Reporting from “the Papal Plane” (aka Alitalia?)
Calouste
@Goblue72:
No, the man is not going to put himself out of business, is he?
Lo
My layman understanding of the law regarding “fighting words” (those magical incantations that are allegedly guaranteed to produce violence) is that they must actually be spoken.
As in, within audible distance of average human vocal cords. That necessarily disqualifies any form of printed media. If you read my offensive speech, get angry about it, formulate a plan to avenge your gored ox, then act upon it, you cannot at all claim you were provoked into a blind immediate rage resulting in violence (the archetypal “he insulted my mother!” scenario).
Infallible vicar of Christ or not, My Dude Frank disappoints.
Botsplainer
@Elizabelle:
Something tells me that the first words from Frank’s mouth in such an address would not be about the sacredness of fetii nor the evilness of sluts.
Just Some Fuckhead
There are few things more universal and comforting than “Death to Infidels!”
Paul in KY
@Elizabelle: I think most Democrats would loooovvvee to see this pope address the House. Republicans….not so much.
bin Lurkin'
On the other hand, the Pope continued, insulting someone’s sexuality is perfectly fine because sexuality is a choice while religion is an immutable characteristic over which people have no control.
patrick II
@Corner Stone:
I didn’t take that as his point. I think he means some speech is too provocative and should be outlawed — perhaps not with criminal but civil penalties. The Catholic Church has sued charlie hebdo numerous times. I don’t think the pope thinks people who pracitce provacative speech should be mowed down with machine guns.
Elizabelle
From the AP article, via TPM:
I am fine with Pope Francis on this. You will note he NEVER says there was not a right to publish.
Do you think he would excommunicate someone for satire? Even about religious beliefs? I don’t. He’s got more on his plate than that.
Haydnseek
@Amir Khalid: I agree, right up to the point that I’m sufficiently provoked by insane, fact-free personal attacks because I’m an atheist. That’s when the gloves come off (figuratively, of course.)
schrodinger's cat
Who is the final arbiter of what is deemed “polite”?
wasabi gasp
What if your mother insults your faith?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Not a lot of absolute monarchs of medieval institutions are gonna be free speech absolutists, I suspect.
@Elizabelle: I was raised Catholic, and the pope’s “pro-life” stance doesn’t make me squirm any more than Pat Robertson’s or Michelle Bachmann’s. And while this pope is exponentially better than his predecessor(s), I would love to see one so-called “reform Catholic”, EJ Dionne perhaps or Lawrence O’Donnell, who IIRC makes a show of wearing the ash on his forehead on TeeVee once a year, point out that the Church’s anti-birth control stance makes it probably the largest and most powerful pro-poverty, pro-hunger institution in the world.
Elizabelle
@Botsplainer:
@Paul in KY:
Oh yeah. It would be marvelous to have Pope Frank address Congress, and he has a lot more courage and honesty than your average congresscritter or journamalist.
And a ready-made audience, too.
It will be fun to see GOP conservatives try to bat this threat down. From Hunt’s NYTimes column:
Chris
@Amir Khalid:
And the French certainly aren’t, and neither is most of Europe.
That’s the thing. There are already more or less stringent laws in much of the continent against anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, Nazi slogans et al – and people like the leaders of the FN have been successfully sued and fined under them. If I’m raised in that society as part of a marginalized group (e.g. French Muslims), I’d be more than a little inclined to wonder, if X, Y and Z are banned because they offend and demean Jews, why isn’t the same being done for things that offend and demean my group?
I, personally, very much prefer the American position on free speech – e.g, “if this offends you, if it’s sick and wrong and racist, you’re welcome to sulk, write a letter to the editor, start a boycott or write your own counter-cartoons, but we’re not shutting it or fining it just because it’s offensive.” But that’s not the way things work in France. In that light, there’s something disingenuous about the whole “we support free speech!” movement that’s sprung up around Charlie Hebdo.
Tree With Water
I like this Pope, but come on- not make fun of Moroni? Or a guy who walks on water?
Haydnseek
@Elizabelle: The Papal Plane. I love it. Do Buddhists report from the Astral Plane?
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@aimai:
There’s the excluded middle in the reaction to the attacks, too, though. Saying that what Charlie Hebdo published was bigoted trash doesn’t mean the person saying it thinks they should have been murdered for publishing it, but there sure seemed to be a lot of people online going there.
Elizabelle
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Same here.
More from that NYTimes column (and it’s worth a click):
The Ancient Randonneur
Clearly the Pope is giving me permission to cap the DMV employee who took my driver’s license photo! (Or maybe it’s my punishment for how I drive when the police aren’t around.)
constitutional mistermix
I fixed the link – thanks to all who pointed it out.
Mandalay
So much for the pope following the teachings of Jesus: “whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also”.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
Also, did anyone seriously expect the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to come out in favor of unfettered free speech, especially towards religion? That’s like expecting the head of PETA to do commercials for Got Milk?
Elizabelle
@Mandalay: A punch is still better than being lobbed out of The Papal Plane.
smintheus
Proving finally that the Pope is fallible.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Elizabelle: Conservatives of both the political and religious kind absolutely hate this guy. I think part of his famed lack of security precautions is that he knows he’s going to die at the hands of an assassin no matter how good his security, so why bother?
I get why he’d say this:
but it’s not how we do things in America, and quite frankly the rest of the world needs to take the collective stick out of its ass and get on board.
Botsplainer
@Elizabelle:
It would be fun if he excommunicated Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas for their direct capital punishment decisions.
From the podium.
TooManyJens
@patrick II:
I couldn’t tell if he even meant that much, or if he just meant that mocking people makes you a dick who’s probably going to get punched. Between crappy reporting and (possibly) language barriers, it’s hard to tell what this story is even about.
Chris
@Elizabelle:
Good. They need it.
As much as I disagree with the RCC on abortion and gay rights, that’s not even the last straw that made me get out. The last straw was the unspoken consensus among most of the “devout,” “practicing” Catholics that those were the only things that should be worried about and that, oh, about 90% of Catholic doctrine – about poverty, war, the treatment of prisoners, the environment, take your pick – was stuff you could simply handwave away. “Oh, well, the Church doesn’t know much about economics or counterterrorism anyway, so I don’t have to listen to them on that. Or anything I don’t want to listen to them about, really.” And the American clergy, by and large, is fine with it. If not leading the charge.
So yes, these fucking charlatans should absolutely be squirming, it’s long overdue. Want to go around parading your Catholicism and shoving it down everyone’s throat? Bring it into your own life first. If you don’t like it, then stop calling yourselves devout Catholics and go cry to the Southern Baptists about it.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
Question that probably only Catholics care about — I wonder if this is a signal to any Islamophobic bishops out there to STFU about the “clash of civilizations” BS.
burnspbesq
@Lo:
He’s only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith. Outside that realm, he’s just another Argentine who dresses funny.
Emma
@CONGRATULATIONS!: but it’s not how we do things in America, and quite frankly the rest of the world needs to take the collective stick out of its ass and get on board.
Irony? If not, one of the silliest expressions of American exceptionalism ever.
Europe has different rules because they have a different history. Until very recently, historically speaking, religious wars were common. Not so long ago, one European nation marked a group for extermination based on its religion. They’ve learned to thread carefully.
Corner Stone
@patrick II:
That might be a reasonable take on his position. But you can’t come up with an analogy that leaves the aggrieved a lawful recourse, and use it in this situation.
If a bus full of Jesuits walked in to CH and pimp slapped Charb, he could make the case that righteous indignation deserves some meted action, or as he says, it’s to be expected.
I disagree with that position as well, but it’s at least in the same ballpark.
Elizabelle
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Your right to free speech, yes, but please don’t say that. It’s up there with joking about offing Obama; just cannot even bear to think about it, for either gentleman.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Chris:
Yep. Conservative Catholics who supported the Iraq War and the death penalty thought the “Cafeteria Catholic” thing was oh-so-clever when it took about 10 seconds for the target to go, “Hey, wait a second …”
/former Catholic married in a Unitarian church
Elizabelle
@Chris: Yeah, it’s pretty amazing how the conservatives smirk about “cafeteria Catholics” when they’re the ones partaking of the All Abortion Screaming, all the time! and only the extremely conservative part of the offerings, and no concern about social justice, war, or, honestly, just about everything Jesus ever actually said.
Antonin Scalia is a horrible Catholic. He’s vile. The conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court are not the good men they feel themselves to be.
burnspbesq
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
One can hope, but I think that’s too subtle a message to be received by most American Bishops.
fuckwit
Oh, maybe the priests and nuns I had when I was a kid misread the bible to me. Jesus didn’t say “turn the other cheek”, he said, “sock that scumbag right in the mouth!”
cokane
Mockery of others’ beliefs IS perhaps one of the most important forms of speech that needs to be protected. Why is it okay to mock a libertarian’s faith in the free market but not okay to mock a Christian’s or Muslim’s faith in God? Religious faith is one of the most important things to mock.
SatanicPanic
I’m already kind of over these Charlie Hebdo clowns. I mean, obviously there’s no excuse for murdering them and they should be able to insult whoever they want, and the terrorists are terrible people and can all die in jail for all I care, but these cartoons suck and aren’t funny. I, personally, would be bummed if I were killed for not funny cartoons.
Elizabelle
I am a cynic about Benedict’s (aka Ratzinger’s) Church canonizing Pope John Paul II so fast (and throwing John 23rd in, to quiet non-conservative Catholics).
I think Pope Francis is there to staunch the hemorrhaging of Catholics. If you truly respect women, there is not much for you in the Catholic Church of recent years.
It’s a boys club, with mean boys in dresses.
TooManyJens
@fuckwit:
I guess that’s what happens when the Pope is a former bouncer.
kc
@Elizabelle:
As a Scientologist, I could not agree more.
wasabi gasp
@wasabi gasp: …or if your faith insults your mother?
Thank god for death. Sooner or later, we will surely all deserve it. So…Jesus and your mother walk into a bar…
Mike J
I wonder what Frank has to say to Perumal Murugan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-30808747
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Elizabelle: I was not joking, and I think such a thing would be a tragedy. Given what happened to John Paul I, however, I think we need to be prepared for such a horror.
Botsplainer
@burnspbesq:
RayRay Burke HAS gotten the message and clearly feels some asshurt; he keeps running his mouth the way he has, he’ll find himself assigned to an abbey consisting of three double-wides and a rotting frame shed in northern Saskatchewan.
kc
Islamic fundamentalist gunmen mow down a bunch of cartoonists, writers, and bystanders, and the left’s reaction is to tut-tut about how the murdered people abused their right of free speech.
What a bunch of assholes.
fuckwit
@wasabi gasp: My mother is named Faith and I am insulted. Can I hit somebody now? Please?
Cervantes
@wasabi gasp:
Then you dig up James Madison and throw him at her.
Corner Stone
@SatanicPanic: It all seems to have devolved into a lot of overwrought pomp.
MomSense
I just read the article Mistermix posted and the Pope clearly says that killing in the name of god is never justified. It doesn’t read to me like he is condoning the attacks in any way.
I don’t support limiting speech, even speech that is hateful. I don’t understand why people would want to insult religions. I think there is a big difference between pointing out the hypocrisy of a person like Paul Ryan whose proposals are completely in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church on matters of economic justice and care for the sick and needy. That’s not insulting Catholicism or an entire religious group and it’s also punching up.
How do the juicers feel about speech that incites others to commit violence?
schrodinger's cat
@cokane: If people who believe that you can get pregnant and still be a virgin, that mythology is history (Rama was a historical person), that earth is 6000 years old, that women are unclean because they menstruate, etc., etc., don’t deserve to be mocked then who does?
Amir Khalid
@cokane:
I’m fine with criticism, even very harsh criticism. Mockery, when it’s punching down and/or meant to inflame, is another matter.
Mike J
Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats
Elizabelle
@CONGRATULATIONS!: FWIW, I didn’t mean to try to censor you (and in the midst of a thread on free speech, no less — choose your occasions!)
Maybe that threat, unspoken and in the back of his mind, inspires Pope Francis to work all the faster to remove the detritus of too many braindead and evil conservatives within Church ranks. It’s great to see a whole mess of new cardinals from all over the world.
All male cardinals. In dresses. That’s got to change, but it’s their Church. I’ve left too, although still root for the good ones.
Lee
I honestly don’t think what he said was that big of a deal.
Speech has consequences. We all have acknowledge that fact.
Back in the day (USMC 84-90) you talked shit to me I’d punch you in the mouth. Sure, there would probably be consequences (legal or otherwise) for me punching you. But you still got punched for talking shit.
Speech has consequences.
maurinsky
So…no turning of the other cheek, then? Someone pisses you off, they’re obligated to protect your feelings and you’re allowed to get angry?
dedc79
@Amir Khalid:
That’s a distinction that is so subjective and context-laden that is impossible to apply/enforce.
Cervantes
@burnspbesq:
Argentinian.
“Argentine” means something else.
Botsplainer
@Elizabelle:
I tend to think of the bleed as something specifically wrought by JPII, Ratzinger and Americans like Burke.
The feel I have for Francis is a recognition that the laity has been shat upon in daily life for decades and that there will be a course change.
schrodinger's cat
Where does it stop? Do we really want to give religious fundamentalists (of any religion) the veto over what can and cannot be discussed? Because if you give them a millimeter, they will take a light year.
kc
From the article:
Little disappointed in this Pope – not that it matters, because I’m not a Catholic.* He seems to be saying the victims had it coming.
*Catholicism is silly.
NonyNony
@Elizabelle:
Me I’m a cynic. A huge cynic – especially when it comes to entrenched power structures. And I think that Francis is there because Benedict’s people committed some kind of egregious scandal that even he wasn’t going to be able to survive if it got out. Something bigger than the various pedophile scandals that have trickled out over the past few decades – which means pretty goddamn big.
I cannot otherwise explain why the people who were on the top of the power structure suddenly had their fortunes reversed this way. I can see why Benedict would want to step down in the wake of backlash against his personal handling of the scandals, but I don’t see how a guy like Francis gets to take his place afterwards. A lot of it only seems to make sense if Francis’s faction of the Church suddenly had information that would put a whole bunch of people in jail (or worse) and decided to use it to twist some arms and kick some of the assholes that had taken over in the nuts for a while.
You can find individual parishes, but yeah – the Church as whole has a very medieval (or even ancient) interpretation of what “respect for women” means. I don’t see that changing – we’ll get another Schism or 12 before the Vatican decides that women are people who have equal status to men.
Cervantes
@Mike J:
Pretty funny.
(By which I mean the opposite, of course.)
Mandalay
@Elizabelle:
And I am a cynic about Benedict making billionaire investment banker Kenneth Langone a Knight of St. Gregory. Sure he has been generous with his money, but that is easy when you have over two billion. But his loyalty to the leader of the Catholic Church appears to be a matter of convenience for Langone (as you pointed out in post #33).
Loviatar
@Lee:
THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS. Can’t say it enough.
Too many here who prattle on about “Free Speech” don”t really want free speech, what they want is speech without consequences.
Cacti
Let’s not kid ourselves here.
Leaders of top down, authoritarian religious institutions have never carried the banner for freedom of expression in the past, and we shouldn’t expect it of them in the present.
The “freedom” to say nice, polite, socially appropriate things is no freedom at all, and is generally afforded even in the most heavy-handed of regimes.
Chris
@kc:
The Vatican is now “the left?”
My, the Overton Window just never stops moving right.
Elizabelle
@MomSense:
Which is why our brave media, in thrall with their brave murdered Charlie Hebdo colleagues [you could see Mika thinking “that could have been ME!”], won’t go there.
They let conservatives use the trappings of religious faith, right and left, but point out that their policies are contrary to that faith? (And not even its more esoteric points.)
Pope Francis is respected because he’s courageous.
One of the reasons people (like us) are turning away from conventional mainstream media is that it is the opposite of courageous, too often.
It’s careerist.
kc
@Loviatar:
I would like speech without getting machine-gunned. Or even punched.
fuckwit
@schrodinger’s cat: Deserve, maybe, but is it helpful? Education is helpful. Mockery and snark are the refuge of the powerless, an echo-chamber kind of thing, a way to pretend to have power when you don’t, really, more of a survival mechanism. It doesn’t change anything.
The only really helpful response to ignorance is education. Yes, you can use humor to educate people– if you can get THEM to laugh at their stupidity–, but if you’ve offended them, and it’s only you who is laughing, then that means that the humor did not achieve its educational objective.
kc
@Chris:
No, dummy, I’m referring to many commenters here.
Not to mention Twitter . . .
NonyNony
@kc:
If he’d followed it up with “and if Dr. Gasparri then decided to press charges and have me arrested for assault, he’d be right to do so” I’d be a little closer to sympathetic with the Pope here. You say shit, there are consequences. You take actions, there are consequences to that as well. If you say inflammatory shit you should expect people to get pissed at you, but if you get pissed at someone and beat their asses you should expect to go to jail. None of that is “right” or “wrong” but just how the world operates.
But of course that isn’t what he’s saying, so I’m less sympathetic to his need to beat an old man up for insulting his mother.
Nick
Fuck the pope right in his stupid face. He’s siding with Al Qaeda, full stop. He just doesn’t go as far as killing.
Botsplainer
@NonyNony:
Interesting take. Maybe a dual scandal? Financial AND sexual?
It isn’t as if neither JPII nor Ratzinger weren’t naming ideological warts to red hats over the past 30 years – if anything, it should’ve meant more of the same, or worse.
Wonder what internal stats were showing about the bleed in the Americas, along with true participation and donation rates? How much of a factor would that have been?
FlipYrWhig
@Just Some Fuckhead:
FWIW, the English were obsessed with the possibility of Jesuit terrorism and conspiracy for centuries. They thought Jesuits believed in assassinating kings.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@kc: Seems to be the right’s reaction as well. All around shitheadery here that transcends party lines.
Right there with you.
White Trash Liberal
I know thisis off-topic, but I find the western media grandstanding over the Hebdo massacre to be nauseating. We live in the era of the least free press since the days of Hearst. No establishment journalist will dare cross a Republican or any interest that bothers their advertisers.
The cliche of answering speech with more speech does not hold up to scrutiny. The media performed better under Fairness Doctrine, which established regulation of speech to limit the current monopoly of right wing infotainment that strangles the exchange of ideas and the capacity of journalism to inform.
Je Suis Charlie is bogus. The freedom to insult Islam remains sacrosanct to the right wing death cult and their enabling press empire. But the freedom for anyone to get published or aired saying anything other than “both sides do it” is dead.
Freedom of speech my ass. Freedom of oppression, more like it.
SatanicPanic
@kc: I’ll take getting punched if it’s about someone’s mom. But definitely not machine-gunned.
Lee
@kc:
Pretty simple then, don’t talk shit.
There are people in the world that will machine gun you for talking shit (about their god) and there are people in the world that will punch you for talking shit about their mom.
Maybe some day we will have a world without the former, but I doubt without the latter.
Loviatar
@kc:
Then don’t be a dick when you criticize someones faith or deeply held belief. If you need to be a dick in your criticism then you should be comfortable with the possible consequences.
dedc79
In some ways the free speech question is the easiest one we face. Combatting/addressing the intolerance that feeds the market for hate speech – that’s a far thornier problem.
So, no, I don’t think a bigot like Dieudonne should go to jail for the horrible things he said, but it concerns the hell out of me that he has a popular following.
Elizabelle
@NonyNony: I wonder when we’ll find out. I hope that we do.
Would be great to know what had Ratzinger aka Benedict quaking in his red Prada shoes, and quiet as GWBush these last few months since the change in leadership.
burnspbesq
@Botsplainer:
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving fella. Hopefully Dolan will be the next to get what he deserves.
I’m reminded of the end of True Confessions, when Rev. Spellacy only figured out what being a priest was really about when he got tossed out of the hierarchy of the L.A. Archdiocese and banished to a shit parish in the desert. Maybe Dolan should go up to the Bronx, and Burke to some mill town in western Massachusetts where the mills closed down 50 years ago.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Elizabelle: I agree. I think he knows he’s got to get as much done as possible because he may not be around for long. I hope he stays for forty fucking years and turns the whole fucking church upside down.
kc
@Lee:
Fuck you.
@Loviatar:
Fuck you, too.
And you mothers, and your gods, and your pets.
Corner Stone
@Loviatar:
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here supporting that viewpoint. Speech has consequences, as it should. If some speech was not consequential then what would be the point?
But the outcomes of that speech should not be violence, nor lead to violence. What speech can I offer if I know I’m going to be assaulted or possibly murdered along with others who had no endorsement of that speech?
Sounds like the threat of violence is being lauded as a way to temper speech some disagree with.
Chris
@kc:
Interesting definition of “the left” all the same.
Elizabelle
@White Trash Liberal:
Well stated.
And money is not free speech, in politics, as the Supreme Court has judged on a few occasions.
It drowns out free speech.
I wish we would bring back the Fairness Doctrine — that idea unnerves conservatives, for good reason. Obviously, Citizens United is “Dred Scott” decision level of stupid.
kc
@Lee:
@Loviatar:
Lee and Loviatar say that if I don’t want to be gunned down, I should be polite. Where else have I heard that line of thinking?
Oh, yeah, right wing gun nuts.
Are you fellas armed?
SatanicPanic
@Loviatar: So getting killed for mocking religion is an OK result for you?
Bob In Portland
If Charlie Hebdo was a false flag, then the debate over fighting words should be an inquiry into how propaganda is so effective against BJers. A little introspection instead of lashing out. Good luck.
Elizabelle
@burnspbesq: Get them out of the scarlet-trimmed dresses and out into the poorest parishes.
kc
@NonyNony:
That’s a really interesting theory. Would make a great potboiler thriller novel (I don’t mean that as an insult).
schrodinger's cat
@fuckwit: So does that mean we have to take every utterance of every GOP moron and treat it with utmost respect? BTW what if some dope starts an argument in your class when the topic of discussion is the radiocative carbon dating? To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, his ignorance is not equal to my knowledge ( in this case a widely accepted scientific consensus).
ETA: I did not mock the said person though he richly deserved it. In my experience religious types seldom respond to reason.
Botsplainer
@burnspbesq:
But then they’d have to interact with the laity they serve in real life, to have an inkling of the struggles, effort and pain.
It is clearly far more fun to act as theoretical societal scolds. More TV time.
burnspbesq
@Elizabelle:
Works for me. Shit, I’ll help them move.
fuckwit
@FlipYrWhig: As I recall, there was evidence that they did, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babington_Plot
Sherparick
A religion, at least not now and in our country since 1776 (and hopefully it will stay that way, although about 40% of the country would make a state religion of their particular brand of Christianity if they get the chance), is not a state which can throw you jail for saying impolitic things. If you choose to belong to a religion, you are also choosing to let it give you guidance for your behavior. Hence, Pope Francis is saying that if you want to be a good Christian, don’ say provocative things or use language directed at others about the people and things they care passionately about. This goes to the basic rule. “Do unto others and would them do unto you.” (Personally, when in the give and take and political arguments, I do not mind being called stupid, a knucklehead, or an ignoramus as long as I am free to answer in kind (and because there may be more than a grain to truth to it when I consider how little I really know and compare it to how much there is to know). And there is also the history of oppression to consider, for instance when an Englishman calls an Irishman “Paddy,” there is an edge and insult there that does not exist when two Irishmen are calling each other “Paddy.” So “redneck” or “cracker” are not the same as the “n-word.” Hence, my defense of Pope Frank.
Lee
@kc:
Yes there are crazy murderous people in the world that will gun you down if you speak badly about their god. Apparently you have missed the last week or so of the news. You might want to catch up a bit.
Is it right that they do that? Absolutely not. But to deny the reality of the situation means you are delusional.
Loviatar
@kc:
I never said be polite. I said be you should just comfortable with the possible consequences of being a dick.
—
Right now I’m teaching my son a new phrase DBAD (Don’t be a Dick), not because I want him to be polite and courteous (that’s a fortunate side benefit). But, because there is always someone willing to be a bigger dick than you. There is always someone willing to tun the dial to 11. Why turn the dial to 10 unless you’re willing to accept the consequences of the dial going to 11.
You obviously are a turn the dial to 10 person, good luck with that and I hope you never have to deal with the consequences.
Betty Cracker
@Emma:
But does their approach work? Does it make sense that Charlie Hebdo had the right to intentionally insult Muslims but Holocaust denial is a crime? I understand why Europe has a different approach to free speech than the US, but I don’t necessarily think their strategy makes sense. Please enlighten me (anyone).
burnspbesq
@Botsplainer:
If you’re in it for the TV time, you shouldn’t be in it at all.
Amir Khalid
@dedc79:
I’m not in favour of legal penalties, which require that an offence be defined objectively and without the hazy penumbra of context. So, I’m okay with my definition of beyond-the-pale mockery being subjective and context-laden.
cokane
@Amir Khalid: islam isn’t down. it’s one of the most powerful ideologies and/or beliefs of our time. It’s the second largest religion in the world. It has followers in the hundreds of millions. People need to get this idea out of their head that Islam is the voice of the oppressed. It is an oppressor, imo.
I’m not going to sit and adjudicate individual Charlie Hebdo cartoons, since i don’t speak french, and i don’t understand french culture. People have the right to criticize them as they see fit. But not to kill them. And not to silence them.
fuckwit
@schrodinger’s cat: That depends on whether you are trying to persuade, convince, educate, or just blow off steam.
I love snark, but I realize it’s much like masturbation. Doesn’t accomplish a damn thing in the real world, but makes you feel better for a short while.
SatanicPanic
@Lee: @Loviatar: You two seem unclear on the difference between saying “behaving like ____ is advisable” and “society should allow people to murder each other over words”.
burnspbesq
Am I the only one a little bemused by the fact that we’re having this discussion on a day when members of the Texas legislature are having “panic buttons” installed in their offices because open carry activists have been getting rambunctious?
“Free speech” is especially free when it comes with one in the chamber and another 14 in the clip.
There is no god but Smith, and Wesson is his prophet?
schrodinger's cat
@fuckwit: I was trying to teach physics and the scientific method. I cannot help it if scientific fact goes against someone’s deeply held beliefs.
Dave C
@Loviatar:
Why do you single out faith or “deeply-held beliefs”? What is so special about them? I’m sure many people have “deeply-held beliefs” that vaccines cause autism or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Should I refrain from mocking these extremely sill beliefs just because they are “deeply-held”?
Mandalay
@kc:
Not my fight, but I didn’t see them saying that – they pointed out that if you provoke with your speech you should expect consequences. They weren’t necessarily condoning or justifying specific responses – they were just being realistic about the situation.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
How are you teaching him something so completely alien to your dickish personality, our precious little PUMA-Naderite hybrid? You’re one of the biggest assholes who posts here, albeit with blessed irregularity.
Telling that you only care about being a dick if there are immediate, physical consequences. I’m guessing that’s not uncommon to obnoxious internet trolls.
Amir Khalid
@cokane:
It is in Europe.
Loviatar
@SatanicPanic:
You seem to not understand that you can criticize in a way that is not insulting and demeaning to someone faith or deeply held belief. If you decide to not do so and instead decide to criticize in a dickish manner then you open the door for them to then also respond in a dickish manner.
Now this is the difficult part you and others here don’t seem to understand; dickish means different things to different people. For some its a dirty look, for others its a threatening letter, the Pope says he may punch you in the nose. But for those thankfully very few it may mean your death. Those are the consequences of speech, you can’t rant and rave about free speech, how important it is, yadda, yadda, yadda, not understand speech may be free, but there is always consequences.
Chris
@cokane:
And other people need to get it out of their heads that because Islam rules unopposed and oppressively in other parts of the globe, that somehow lessens the bigotry that Muslims endure in many parts of the world where they aren’t the majority or the rulers.
The Catholic Church in the nineteenth century was a reactionary, regressive, antidemocratic force in many countries. Does that mean that Americans printing out anti-Catholic tracts in the safety of New York City were boldly speaking truth to power? No. With very few exceptions, they were simply punching down at starving Irish immigrants, whom they hated for reasons that had very little to do with the crimes of Catholic regimes. The fact that on the other side of the world, a Pope was being an asshole was irrelevant.
schrodinger's cat
@Amir Khalid: What about Pakistan? Why are so many journalists killed over there?
Corner Stone
Man, what a crock of shit.
Glidwrith
For all the tut-tutting about not insulting someone’s religion, may I remind folks that accusations of pedophile priests could be considered very insulting? How about the concept that owning slaves is not justifiable even if your special book says so? Or that a woman can hold power over a man?
These religions are powerful and they will kill you in the name of God if they get too full of themselves. I think they need to have the stuffing knocked out of them on a regular basis, so that it doesn’t come down to :”I don’ t believe the same thing as you do, so I am justified in killing you.”
Loviatar
@Dave C:
Everyone has their trigger point, why go out of your way to push buttons. You can criticize, yes even mock them without being overtly insulting and demeaning. My point and I’ll repeat myself to all; speech may be free, but there is always consequences. Thats the reality of life.
Botsplainer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
While I tend to agree with him on this (and I am not often in agreement with him), I have to give kudos on the structure and verbiage on this. There is a subtle elegance to it, all in tandem with a brevity that one seldom sees in a complete insult.
Amir Khalid
@schrodinger’s cat:
What has Pakistan got to do with the Pope’s remarks?
Bobby Thomson
@SatanicPanic: nah, Loviatar is just a dick.
Mandalay
@burnspbesq:
And apparently they have to pay for the panic buttons to be installed!….
At least the price of freedom can be met in monthly installments.
SatanicPanic
@Loviatar: No dude, now you’re just being obtuse.
Loviatar
@Botsplainer:
It was pretty nice wasn’t it.
Emma
@Betty Cracker: I’m not saying it’s logical fro our point of view. The problem, at least in France, it seems to me, stems from their recent history. We keep missing the fact that the French are intensely racist towards their immigrant populations, especially the Muslim ones,ESPECIALLY if they come from former French colonies. We’re also missing the fact that a fair number of the French, especially their government, collaborated with the Germans in getting rid of France’s Jewish population. They tailor their response accordingly. It’s a poisonous mix that is unsustainable in the long term.
sparrow
@Chris: I think the banning of holocaust denial sits right in my gray area in terms of free speech limitations. I think most reasonable people agree on the following already:
1. Speech which causes imminent danger/death on purpose (yelling fire in crowded theater, etc)
2. Libel/Slander
And for the above, I prefer the burden of proof to be fairly onerous (more like in the US than in Europe). But for the holocaust deniers, while I find it absolutely loathsome, I’m not 100% sure how I feel about banning it. I suppose it sort of comes under “slander of an entire group”, so there’s that, but it DOES seem a bit like protecting one group over others (like you said, why not then have bans on cartoons of muhammed? or for god’s sake the 9/11 truthers?) In some circles (ahem, the 27%), the ban would probably INCREASE belief in the lies.
Sigh. Democracy is difficult.
SatanicPanic
@Bobby Thomson: that seems to be the case
Dave C
@Loviatar:
Some beliefs are so wrong, so deeply silly and so harmful to society, that the people who hold those beliefs need to have their buttons pushed. I find it hard to believe that any regular BJ reader could disagree with this sentiment, since it could be the fucking mantra of this mockery-filled website.
Also, I fail to understand why people feel the need to keep repeating that “speech has consequences.” It’s true to the point of utter banality and adds nothing of value to the conversation at hand.
Botsplainer
@Loviatar:
I think it was the “albeit with blessed irregularity” phrase that tickled my verbal pleasure center. It had a literary quality that I don’t often see.
Kinda like Twain’s takedown of James Fenimore Cooper.
http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html
The critique is actually a long one, and full of other slams that should have seen Cooper banned from schools foreverafter.
kc
@Betty Cracker:
Betty, that’s not really how French hate speech laws work.
A complaint was brought against Chalie Hebdo a few years back based on French speech laws, and was dismissed because the adjudicator found that the the speech (cartoon, whatever it was, I forget) was aimed at terrorists, not all Muslims. By contrast, Brigitte Bardot has been fined substantially for alleged hate speech aimed at Muslims. It is not accurate to say that French law permits one to insult Islam but not, say, Judaism or Christianity.
You can google “French hate speech” laws and find numerous examples of court cases against people for speech aimed at Islam or Muslims as well as other religions, nationalities, etc.
I’m not defending the French law – I don’t like such laws in general – but it would be helpful if we understood it before we talk about it. I’ve seen an awful lot of misinformation about it here and there on social media.
kc
@kc:
I take back the part about the pets. Not the rest of it, though.
Loviatar
@Dave C:
What I find frustrating is that you (by that I mean everyone) seems to be missing the point. Yes, have your free speech. Yes say whatever you want in the most insulting and demeaning manner possible, but realize in the reality based world there may be consequences.
schrodinger's cat
@Amir Khalid: I was offering an example of a country where Muslims are not the oppressed minority but journalists are attacked and many times killed for questioning the status quo about Islam.
ETA: Since both the dead and the killers are Muslim it does not make front page news around the world.
Dave C
@Loviatar:
Nobody is missing your point. Your point just happens to be stupid and irrelevant to the conversation.
kc
@Amir Khalid:
.
Yeah, no. It’s not.
steve
@Loviatar:
I’d like speech where violence is not considered an acceptable consequences. Punching someone should never be an acceptable consequences for an “insult.” That is an echo of the barbarism of our past that I would like to see fade away.
kc
@Emma:
What could be more fun than listening to a bunch of white Americans sit around talking about France’s racism problem.
kc
@Dave C:
Not to mention it sounds smug as hell.
Calouste
@White Trash Liberal: By “western” you mean “American”? Because I doubt that you have any knowledge about the exact state of the freedom of the press in the West outside America.
kc
Fwiw, I don’t have a problem with the Pope preaching that we should be respectful of different religions; that’s mighty nice of him and I’m glad Christianity has put that torturing-heretics shit behind it.
I am disturbed by the you-can-expect-a-punch part. I dunno, it just seems to me that the Pope ought to be preaching non-violence and and counseling restraint, instead of justifying a violent response, particularly in the wake of so much bloodshed.
Mandalay
@steve:
Exactly, which is why I am amazed that the pope isn’t getting a lot more shit for his comment about hypothetically punching someone for insulting his mother. From mistermix’s link:
So the very mixed message the pope sent out was that violence in the name of religion was unacceptable, but violence as a response to a personal insult was OK.
Corner Stone
@kc:
It did seem a little non-Popeesque. Especially the repeating of, “it’s normal, it’s normal.”
Since when in modernity did the Pope think violence was an expected answer to speech?
Pococurante
@sparrow: Holocaust denial is used as a blunt instrument to justify anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism action. It’s not simply offensive speech – it’s goal is political change to damage cultural and religious Jews and so not very different than colonial European denial that other races were not “human” so institutional racism is G-d’s will, or the modern Christian Movement denial that in fact the US was not founded on separation of state so it is ok to to use the power of the State to discriminate against women / homosexuals / other religious members.
The direction of the EU is to soften bans on detested speech so these laws will probably not exist a decade or so from now. But the lesson Europe derived from the 20th century is that populist ideologues can take advantage in difficult times to create horrible facts on the ground. The world is no more immune to this possibility today than the last century – the even dying gasp of the Nixon Youth in just the last few years shows that uncontested speech intended to hurt/de-legitimize other people has real consequences today.
As far as the staff of Charlie Hebdo, I am terribly sorry they were murdered. There is no justification, and the “you should expect consequences” argument smells much like Christians saying abortion providers and young women should have expected consequences and acted differently.
But as defenders of free expression they were nothing of the sort, but instead basically an adult/sociopathic version of 7th graders sniggering in the corner looking for the latest punk act to get attention.
Charlie Hebdo is “brave” the same way as is the Westboro Baptist Church.
gene108
@Elizabelle:
I think the Catholic Church knows plenty about economics.
They have survived the fall of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Black Death, several wars, including two world wars and several major transitions of the economy from feudalism to mercantilism to modern capitalism.
It is impressive that they have been able to stick around as an institution for such a long time and therefore I assume they have some institutional knowledge on how economies work and what their role in the economy is.
Amir Khalid
@schrodinger’s cat:
I think that’s a quite different problem, in which the conflict is between an authoritarian, religious status quo and dissidents, rather than between different faith/no-faith communities within the same society.
@kc:
On that, you and I differ.
@steve:
And I would like a pony.
MomSense
@Amir Khalid:
Exactement.
Emma
@kc: What could be more fun than listening to a bunch of Americans dictating to Europe how it should behave.
steve
Or these are people who think we should accept the status quo and work to accommodate it rather than push for reform.
“What did she expect wearing clothes like that?” is something someone says if they believe violence against women is an intractable problem/an immutable feature of our society. Any analogy that likens sexual violence against a woman who dresses “incorrectly” to a guy who enters a bear cage wearing a meat-suit is horribly insulting to both men and women.
Pococurante
@Pococurante: Typo: (…) or the modern Christian Movement denial that in fact the US actually was founded on separation of state so it is ok to to use the power of the State to discriminate against women / homosexuals / other religious members.
SRW1
@burnspbesq:
Shouldn’t those dudes in the Texas legislature simply practice to draw quicker? At least that’s how the good guys usually do it in them movies.
steve
@Amir Khalid:
Oh, we should accept sexual violence against women as a feature of our society? Violence against people for slights? Violence against abortion doctors for providing a service? These people should all expect “consequences?”
Yeah….that is real starry-eyed idealism on my part.
Couldn't Stand the Weather
@burnspbesq:
Messrs. Heckler and Koch would beg to differ, I suspect.
Personally, I glad Francis put it the way he did. He did say punch. Not shoot/bomb/incarcerate at Guantanamo for twelve years.
Betty Cracker
@Emma: Okay, but I’m not sure how any of those assertions explain why the French approach to free speech is more effective than the American one, even for France. If anything, it seems to suggest the opposite.
@Dave C:
QFT
Botsplainer
@gene108:
That would be a really interesting academic study, to see diaries of how decisions were made around economic dislocations.
Pogonip
What kind of crazy world is this where the Pope, of all people, advises against blasphemy?!??!?
(FY Autocorrect wanted to change his title to ” the Pipe.”)
Amir Khalid
@steve:
I made no such argument.
@Dave C:
Is pushing the buttons of such people really the most effective way to refute their misguided beliefs, or is it merely the response that feels most gratifying to you?
Amir Khalid
Punching out a guy for insulting your mother is a very natural response. But, as many here have noted and as the Pope must know, it’s not a very Christian thing to do. I wonder if he admitted that in his speech.
smintheus
@Botsplainer: When you own that much real estate, and convince the masses that you own their souls, it’s not hard to have staying power.
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
I think the answer that question varies heavily from case to case. For example, take creationism. One way to combat creationism is to quietly and calmly refute each and every wrong-headed claim that it makes. I enjoy and appreciate such refutations. That said, I think that the mockery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also an important and useful tack to take.
At some point, when an idea has been shown to be nonsense over and over again, but its adherents refuse to take note, FSM-style mockery becomes both an appropriate and useful means of combating the spread of that idea.
steve
@Amir Khalid:
Aren’t you asking whether satire and mockery can be effective in shaping perceptions/ideas among those who are (yet) uncommitted or not deeply invested in a side (perhaps they harbor doubts)? The intended audience is not the ideologue…they are too far gone.
If they delegitamize those ideas and push them outside the sphere of positions that are socially acceptable to take and still be taken seriously (e.g. the “teach the controversy/intelligent design” people or the “homosexual reparative therapy” people) then satire/mockery can be effective. But as to what makes effective satire/mockery…I am less certain.
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
Appropriate and useful? How?
Mandalay
@Pococurante:
I doubt that – the trend is in the opposite direction. Many bans on speech have only been introduced in the past 30 years, one reason being to counter the rise of right wing organizations which are thriving in Europe. Besides, the EU cannot control laws relating to free speech in member countries.
Just last year Britain passed new legislation to ban “verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)” in pornographic films produced in Britain.
And there is no way that the French are going to start allowing people to say that the Holocaust is a pack of lies, and there is no way that Germany is going to allow people to start wearing clothing with swastikas. And quite rightly so.
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
As Steve (more eloquently) said above – to delegitimize those ideas in the eyes of people still on the fence.
Amir Khalid
@steve:
Mocking and satirising those whom you disagree with will get you a laugh only out of those who already agree with you. And from what I understand of the psychology of belief, being mocked only makes you more defensive about your beliefs and that much more likely to lash out at those mocking you. (I’m not saying this to defend lashing out, which is of course always wrong whatever the provocation.)
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
Again I ask, does that actually work?
Betty Cracker
@Dave C: Standing up to bullies (non violently, of course) is valuable in its own right too, and I think that’s part of what Charlie Hebdo is trying to accomplish. I understand and am (somewhat) sympathetic to arguments that Charlie Hebdo “punches down,” but the fact is, extremists are trying to impose censorship on people who don’t share their views via threats and violence. It’s important to stand up to that.
BobS
@Chris: Least of all Charlie Hebdo. In 2009 the magazine fired cartoonist Maurice Sinet for “ridiculing Judaism” when he suggested financial reasons were behind former French President Sarkozy’s son conversion to Judaism.
cokane
@Amir Khalid: Sorry, dude, but no. Look I appreciate that Muslims are a minority and get shit on unfairly in France. But they are still something like 8+% of the population, making them the second (or third if you count atheists) largest religious group in the country. The average Muslim in France, for all the shit they have to put up with, still has it better than the average Muslim in a Muslim majority country. This is an important point to dwell on. There’s always going to be something inherently backwards when you believe in shit without any evidence, no matter how moderate you try to be.
Islam, especially its conservative side, is an oppressive force in this world. It needs sober criticism. But it also needs needling, cutting, biting, vicious satire. And I feel the same way about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, hell even Buddhism for that matter, just for the record.
steve
@Amir Khalid:
I agree with the second part (those who are mocked may lash out although that might play into the satirist’s intent). I don’t necessarily agree with the first part. There are more than two camps observing every dialectical debate and much of what is said is not intended for “the other side.” Now I can certainly imagine satire backfiring and inadvertently creating sympathy for the object of ridicule so I am not saying it automatically works but I do think it it plausible that it could be used as an effective tactic. Some social movements use mockery effectively but I don’t have any special insight into the formula(s) for success.
Mandalay
@Amir Khalid:
This x1000. It is like preaching to the already converted.
When were any of us ever won over by someone on the right mocking President Obama?
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
As one rhetorical weapon, among many, of course satire works.
@Betty Cracker:
Completely agree.
kc
@BobS:
People keep posting that as if it proves something. No.
Firing a cartoonist for mocking an individual’s religious conversion is not inconsistent with publishing cartoons that mock violent extremists.
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
Is it indeed the cleverest mockery that convinces the fence-sitters that you are the one in the right? I’m not so sure about that.
Betty Cracker
@Mandalay:
Why do you think it’s right to ban Holocaust denial in France and swastikas in Germany?
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
Good for you, I guess?
Parody and satire have been put to use, I’m sure, as nearly as long as humans have been communicating with each other. If you don’t see the value in them (again, as one rhetorical tool among many), than I suppose that is your loss.
Pococurante
@Betty Cracker: It is acceptable to me because: @Pococurante:
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
I keep asking you if parody and satire are effective, and you reply that they have been used for centuries. (ETA) Do you not see the difference?
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
What are you looking for, scientific studies? I’m sure some exist, though I don’t know what they say. In any case, do you honestly disagree with the following statement?
“When used in conjunction with other methods of argumentation, satire can be one useful way to make a rhetorical point?”
Honestly, it appears to me that you’re just being willfully obtuse on this.
Emma
@Betty Cracker: If you read it again, you will see I didn’t say a thing about being more effective. I just discussed a few reasons why it is what it is.
Mandalay
@kc:
It’s worth mentioning that Charlie Hebdo was eventually forced to pay that cartoonist for unfair dismissal over what he wrote, and that he was also found innocent in court of Antisemitism.
An interesting aside arising is that the cartoonist also sued a journalist for slander over the incident, and said this:
So much for the right to offend without facing violence in return.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Amir Khalid: The bit about “punching” someone for insulting his mother was made in jest while he was talking on the plane. I think it was clear that he was adding some levity, not advocating violence in the face of an insult. He was saying it was a natural, human reaction.
I don’t like that he’s saying that insulting religion should be verboten, but he is certainly right that some insults will provoke an uncivil (or worse) response.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that insults too often morph into punching down, and punching down is too often dangerous.)
Betty Cracker
@Pococurante: Do you think the Confederate flag should be banned in the US? Or that it should be illegal for Americans to claim that there’s no separation of church and state?
Hopefully this goes without saying, but I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts (and anyone else’s) on this issue. The US position on free speech makes the most sense to me, but it’s the one I’m most familiar with, being an American. I don’t understand the logic of some of the speech restrictions in Europe, but I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered, hence my questions.
Someguy
Sigh. I fear this pope is a moron. The same neutral legal principles that protect his ability to practice his faith (something the Charlie Hebdo attackers find abhorrent and insulting, BTW) are the same principles that protect Charlie Hebdo to insult Catholicism or Islam.
If what he said is correct, that a punch in the face is a natural reaction to an insult, then beating Catholics who are Catholics (or Jews who are Jews, or moderate Muslims who are moderate Muslims) is a natural reaction and to be expected because AQ in Yemen thinks that all of these people are highly offensive and an insult to the prophet. They just don’t yet have the wherewithal to go around punching random Catholics / Jews / AQ-deemed apostate Muslims, but it’s on the list…
I suspect what he said is going to be used by terrorists to justify the slaughter Christians. AQ will ignore the part about religion never justifying violence – that’s one of the things they sort of disagree with – and focus on the other part.
The Pope was right about one thing he said in that interview. He is in fact careless. Pretty bad tendency to have, if you’re a Pople.
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
I’m convinced that we are talking at cross purposes.
Amir Khalid
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Thanks for clarifying that.
Betty Cracker
@Emma: True, but in an earlier response to another commenter (here), you criticized the suggestion that France should adopt US-style free speech laws. That’s why I made the assumption you think the French laws make sense for France. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
chopper
wow, we could hit a half-bogg here.
Amir Khalid
@Dave C:
I’m not being wilfully obtuse. Parody and satire can and often do make one’s point clear. They are valuable for that reason. But I’m asking, do they help convince the other side, or the fence-sitters?
Mandalay
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
I agree that it was clear in your link that the pope was only trying to add levity. But it wasn’t so clear in the link in the O/P, and probably won’t be clear in many other articles.
If you want to condemn violence then steer well clear of also joking about violence.
Corner Stone
@Betty Cracker:
When someone threatens to kill you because of your offensive stance, it is not “punching down” to stick the piss to them.
Keith G
@Dave C:
So, I am waiting for you to make your “The Prophet Having Sex With His Parents” parody on your non-anonymous Youtube channel. I think you need to strike a blow for button pushers the world over. Come on. Be a leader, Dave.
Not the issue, you say?
I think it might be…..it’s certainly related.
Since we live in a horribly imperfect, world, one always needs to be aware of the consequences of all actions. I think the ideas of extremist Islam must be confronted, and I know that Charlie Hebdo’s methods of doing so were worse than ineffective, they were, and are, counter productive. Not just because of possible violence, but because that type of behavior seldom if ever produces dialogue or reflection. Homo Sapiens are not capable of living up to our name. We are a greedy, violent, self-centered, grubby little species. Inter-community dialogue is quite often very difficult.
The chance for an extreme outcome should never be ignored as part of the calculation. I feel bad for the Charlie Hebdo staff, but no more than what I feel for the onetime owners of the over 200 carcasses that remain frozen on Mt. Everest.
To say that one always needs to be aware of the consequences of all actions is not to defend violence or to devalue the need for open expression of ideas. It is to fully comprehend the realities of the imperfection of humanity.
Dave C
@Amir Khalid:
As I said earlier, I don’t know what, if anything, scientific studies have to say on this topic. That said, I do imagine that such rhetorical devices may convince some people some of the time. Different types of personalities respond differently, I think, to different types of arguments.
burnspbesq
@Someguy:
Noted.
Villago Delenda Est
@Just Some Fuckhead: Well, there is “Death to all who oppose us!” which is just as good.
Mandalay
@Betty Cracker:
Because the dangers are very real, and the stakes are very high.
I don’t know how many Nazis are still alive, but I would guess that it is in the hundreds of thousands. There are certainly many millions of Germans with Nazi parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Lower but still significant numbers would apply for the French who collaborated with the Nazis. And there are still Jews all over the world with numbers on their arms. WW2 and the Holocaust are not the distant past. That doesn’t mean that there are millions of Nazi sympathizers in Germany, but it does mean that the ties of the living with that past are very real.
And there are ugly right wing parties with a superficial air of respectability growing all over Europe. Within 24 hours of the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo Britain’s Nigel Farage (head of the UK Independence Party) was attacking Muslim immigrants. It would take a New York minute for the right in Germany to deny the Holocaust, and wear swastikas if that became legal. And it would flame the spread of fear and hatred against many “other” groups apart from Jews: gays, blacks, Muslims, immigrants, etc.
It doesn’t make any sense to ban Holocaust denial and the swastika here, but it really does in Germany (which has been magnificent in constantly demonstrating its shame and horror at what it did seventy years ago).
YAFB
@Betty Cracker:
Yeah, poking my nose in here, but I didn’t see emma as doing anything other than describing the situation, which you acknowledged.
You said: “I don’t understand the logic of some of the speech restrictions in Europe ….”
I’m not sure if logic’s there to be understood, no matter how hard you look. These are laws that were enacted (in the case of Holocaust denial and some expressions of sympathy with Nazism) prompted by history and horror and guilt (France was not blameless) over the Holocaust, added to by fear of the resurgence of petty and not-so-petty neo-fascism (check out how many votes Front National can command in France in the periods when it’s in the ascendant), the usual horsetrading in legislatures, the vagaries of public opinion, any recent atrocities etc.
I think I might know you well enough that you might agree that there are elements of the traditional American stance on freedom of speech that are also not entirely logical and also stem from history and accidents of legislation, but I’m not going to put words in your mouth!
I see the Pope in his comments as doing what seems to be his style – breaking out of the stuffiness of office and responding as a human, ex-ex cathedra. I think many have been surprised to feel like applauding him for some of his more radical proclamations (from “welcoming” gay people through castigating the greedy rich and social inequality to encouraging breastfeeding in his presence), some of which have then been opposed by the synod and other powerful voices in his own Church.
He’s the Pope, people treat his every utterance as allegedly infallible even if they’re not Catholic (IOW, he’s a hypocrite of some species if he’s not infallible, hence always a hypocrite).
Given his influence, I can’t help applauding him when he speaks out about issues I agree with him on, no matter how I feel about the legitimacy of his title. I can cut him some slack for what appears to be a casual remark that some seem determined to misinterpret and others want to parody by putting words in his mouth he never uttered.
He could have been a religious opportunist and chosen to exploit the situation by condemning Islam to bloster his own Church’s position. He’d have been a hypocrite in many of our eyes, of course, but I’m glad he didn’t do that anyway.
I still think there are aspects of his Church that suck big time, like all the others. I suspect he’d agree with me!
Betty Cracker
@Mandalay: I agree the dangers are real, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the remedy (banning Holocaust denial and swastikas). Better to allow the fascists to wear their true colors and speak their native language, in my opinion.
Bill
@Loviatar:
Nah – I’m actually fine with consequences in response to speech. (Unless they are from the government and then I like to stand behind that constitution thing.) But I’m not OK with violence as a response to speech. There is a huge difference between those two.
Can’t sell any more widgets because customers don’t like your publicly expressed racist views? No problem.
Got fired because you called your boss a dumb ass? I’m ok with that.
Punch me because I refer to your deity as an imaginary friend? Nope. Not ok with that.
Violence is not just another consequence. And the fact that people exist who think it is speaks to their short comings.
If you only point is that some people respond to speech with violence. Yeah, I agree, criminals exist. The response to that is not just to say “oh well that’s just how it is.”
Another Holocene Human
@Amir Khalid: I agree.
Note, the Pope was calling for restraint. Not legislation.
It’s not the same context as when he put out stuff about climate change recently. There he is saying there is a duty to act (ie on the state level).
Betty Cracker
@YAFB: Poke your nose in anytime, old friend; your thoughts are always welcome! You’re right — I don’t think the US approach to free speech is perfect, particularly when a conservative court defines “money” as “speech” and subverts democracy.
But the more absolutist approach to what people are free to say seems fairer to me. I understand the historical reasons for making Holocaust denial illegal, but it does seem to result in cognitive dissonance, such as the fact that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists could gleefully insult Islam but a French Muslim faces charges for a Facebook post that “defends terrorism” and has in the past faced charges for anti-Semitism.
If French Muslims perceive that as unfair, I don’t blame them.
YAFB
@Betty Cracker:
I don’t blame them either.
Anti-Semitism is real. It also gets conflated with anti-Zionism (a school of thought I’m somewhat sympathetic to, but I’m always surprised how any defense of that stance on nominally politically “liberal” US boards and forums gets hackles rising and sometimes makes me very uncomfortable about the virtual company I’m keeping).
I’m knackered and lazy, but if anyone hasn’t clicked though to that Vox link above – http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats – I found it worth a read. That’s where your “free speech” has gotten you. I’ve no doubt journalists are self-censoring in discussing Islamophobia for fear of that sort of backlash and threats which may or may not pan out, with consequences for their families etc. who carry the burden of their choices on free speech.
Meanwhile, the likes of Jeane Pirro can sit in Fox’s cozy studio on her no doubt well-upholstered ass and invite on evident idiots to spew legally protected inflammatory lies about other countries (and come a wee bit of a cropper when they pick on countries like the UK and France that are privileged enough to be able to fight back with torrents of righteous ridicule) and incite frothing neoconservative remote warfare to pit Muslim against Muslim in her jihad to “KILL THEM ALL!!!1!”
Hell, I’ve seen people offer to visit real-life violence on each other over disagreements about Mac vs. PC in my time (I won’t mention circumcision, which seems to bring the worst out in everyfuckingbody)!
Maybe the European “hate speech” etc. laws will catch up and be more evenhanded, but I can’t see the more iliberal ones being rolled back any time soon. Especially not if the current climate continues and our societies continue to insist on being terrorists’ best friends by perpetuating the terrorism, at home and abroad.
If folks are infuriated that Muslims complain about jabs at Muhammed while their own society’s acting like a nutter abroad (let’s leave out the fringe who actually commit acts of violence for a moment, as we know what an eye for an eye gets you), does it really take a leap of imagination to see how arguments about free speech ring hollow and seem somewhat decadent when there are thousands and millions whose beliefs are being pilloried are deprived of any speech at all by living under repressive regimes we tacitly or explicitly support, or by the simple act of being stone cold dead?
J R in WV
@Amir Khalid: I think il Papa was saying that resorting to violence in defence of one’s mama is only natural, not defending it as a correct and proper thing to do, just natural, and to be resisted.
But I’m not Catholic, don’t know much about Argentine street culture, etc, etc. Been wrong once before, a long time ago…
Loviatar
@Bill:
Keith G‘s comment is a much better response than anything I can say.
In particular I think his closing statement speaks to the reality of the world in which we live, not the fantasy world in which we wish to live.
Mandalay
@YAFB:
Nonsense. Germany had deeply and sincerely repudiated “its history and horror and guilt” for many years (and still does) before the law was passed in 1985, almost 40 years after the Nuremberg trials. It was enacted because Holocaust Denial was considered to be a form of hate speech which could incite violence and promote support for extremist organizations.
As years pass and Holocaust survivors die it becomes more vital to maintain the law.
Mandalay
@Betty Cracker: Making threats against the president is a felony. Do you support that? If so, you might want to rethink your opposition to Germany banning Holocaust Denial.
The parallel is not exact, but the motivations for the laws are broadly similar.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
Nonsense, you say? Blah. I’m aware of Germany’s efforts to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself, for instance by including detailed treatment of the country’s 20th-century history in state schooling. I’ve known Germans who’ve been through it.
Knowing your country’s history, warts and all, is a good thing, depending on who gets to write it (I wish British history teaching hadn’t tended to whitewash us as a nation as much as it did when I went though my own schooling). Guilt isn’t necessarily a bad thing, in case that’s your objection. Horror in the face of such a history is understandable.
The fact that this education etc. wasn’t enough to avoid a resurgence, even on a comparatively small scale so far, of those with fascist sympathies is what I see as driving the legislation. Whether it’s succeeding either is another matter.
So unless you’re just looking for a fight, I can’t see the “nonsense.”
Bill
@Loviatar:
Again, the “imperfections” of the world are noted. But all you’re saying is that violent people may act irrationally violent when provoked. Not great insight, and certainly not a reason to hold your tongue.
You seem to be fond of consequences, how about focusing on consequences for those that act violently instead of those who engage in speech?
YAFB
@Mandalay: @YAFB:
Ah, I may see one area of possible misunderstanding. If you look above, you’ll see that Betty and I were discussing specifically the French laws (or at least I was, given the context of recent events). I wrote:
But I do think my argument above stands for Germany, too.
Betty Cracker
@Mandalay: A more exact parallel would be a ban on threatening people with physical harm, which is already illegal.
Mandalay
@YAFB:
No there is nothing wrong with a sense of guilt. Germany certainly has that in spades, and justifiably so. My objection is to your false claim that Holocaust Denial in Germany became illegal because of that guilt; that’s just not true.
Making Holocaust Denial illegal in 1985 was part of legislation that was prompted by rising antisemitism, fueled by Holocaust Denial, in Germany in the 70s and early 80s.
If the legislation really was driven by guilt over the past then Germany would have passed it long before 1985.
Bill
@Mandalay:
This is an interesting questions, because it’s one of the few areas where we limit pure speech in the US. I actually don’t think a mere threat should be enough to warrant suppression let alone criminal charges. It would be more appropriate to make it a crime to threaten and commit some act in furtherance of that threat, however small.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
Dude, look at my subsequent reply above, then we can maybe continue, or not.
I’d guess there were a host of reasons why it took till 1985 to pass that law, BTW. You’ve now fixated on my evocation of “guilt,” for some reason feeling it important to belabor the point, ignoring my mention of “fear of the resurgence of petty and not-so-petty neo-fascism,” let alone “any recent atrocities etc.” (I was talking about the French case, but it obviously applies to Germany, too).
Mandalay
@YAFB: Ah, if you were talking about France then the fault is mine – my apologies. I don’t know what prompted the French law, but (like Germany) they have some reason to feel guilt.
Mandalay
@YAFB: My bad – I was “fixated” because I incorrectly thought that you were referring to Germany not France.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
No worries!
kc
@Mandalay:
What a stupid goddamn analogy.
Mandalay
@kc:
Imperfect, but hardly stupid. Both are clear limits on free speech imposed because they present a significant threat to the nation. If you think that’s nonsense with respect to Germany then you really need to bone up on its history over the past 40 years, to understand why that limit exists.
SRW1
@Betty Cracker:
I agree with this sentiment in general, but there is one difference when it comes to Nazi, especially in Germany: Given the past, there is a whole bunch of people to whom a swastika, a Nazi uniform, the Nazi salute, etc, always are an immediate threat because there has been this murderous follow through. Not only against Jewish people, but also Roma, gays, people with mental diasbilities, persons of color, etc.
There is no folkloristic display of Nazi insignia. It is always seen, and meant, as an act of intimidation
lol
@Elizabelle:
“Catholicism was all well and good when I could use it to morally hector the little people but now that I’m a target, it just won’t do!”