Innocence Riots

I'm getting deeply frustrated and angered by the irresponsible and thoughtless people who seem determined to prove how big their dicks are by printing the most offensive pictures of Mohammad they can think of.The defence of such actions always comes down to the fact that we can't be cowardly and roll over in the face of violent intimidation. We've got to stand up for freedom of speech and free expression!All well and good. I do agree that it's an appalling state of affairs if you find yourself self-censoring because you fear violent reprisals, and we shouldn't roll over in the face of intimidation.But let's be clear what you're doing when you print these pictures in some magazine in France, or Denmark, or the US. You're not bravely standing tall in front of someone intimidating you and refusing to back down. No-one's standing before you. If the expected response to the publication of the pictures was targeted death-threats against you, specifically, then you're actions would be a sign of moral fortitude and courage,But it's not. Anyone publishing these pictures knows it's not. No - the expected response will be mobs throwing bricks through the windows of a French embassy somewhere; or a firebomb through the window a French international school.If a crazy guy is swinging an axe at people in the street, taunting him from behind cover is neither courageous nor wise.

People would write letter to TV stations complaining, and rant on radio and the internet about how victimised they are.

Charlie Hebdo isn't a person. It's a magazine.But yes, they are inviting risk on themselves. I think I read somewhere one of their offices was firebombed last time they printed Mohammad pictures.It's not that their actions are risk-free for themselves - it's that they aren't only putting themselves at risk, nor are they the primary ones at risk. If the reaction expected from this sort of thing was only a targeted fatwah against the magazine, then going ahead and publishing would be a courageous statement in honour of free speech. But they know that the expected reaction is an explosion of violent rage against anything that looks French in several different countries. They're putting other people at risk without their consent - this is what's irresponsible. And that's exactly why I posted that link - to point out the sheer, bullheaded, irresponsible stupidity of the fuckwit who posted it. He puts up the pictures because they're offensive to Muslims and then writes - 'and look how the silly Muslims react - they blow up some Jews who had nothing to do with it!'I have no idea if this bombing has any connection to the cartoons. But if you expect the reaction to their publication to be random attacks on Jews who have nothing to do with it, don't publish them.

Sorry - I didn't think it was necessary to point out that murdering people because of a cartoon is wrong, on account of it being blindingly obvious. We can take that for granted as agreed upon without reservation by everyone involved in the discussion and stop bringing it up as if it had any relevance. They certainly are putting people at risk, because we have the ability to predict how others will react to our actions. You may consider it racist to predict that will result in ab angry mob, for reasons which aren't clear, but it is, nevertheless, true.If I leave something expensive on the back seat of an unlocked car in a high-crime area, I am not doing anything morally wrong. I am not breaking any laws. I have every right to do so.There is a high possibility that the expensive item will be stolen, and the fault for that theft lies with the theif. The fact that the thief is at fault, however, doesn't mean that I was unable to predict that there was a good chance of it being stolen. If there were expensive things belonging to others in the car as well, then my actions in leaving them there would be highly irresponsible.The world is full of bad people who do bad things. This should be taken into account when choosing a course of action.

Well that depends what you mean by expect. If you mean 'consider to be the likely outcome', then of course I expect people to violently overreact to this sort of thing, because that's what has happened every time some Mohammad cartoon has popped up in the news the last decade.If by 'expect' you mean 'hold to be the standard of moral behaviour', then of course I expect people not to burn embassies over a cartoon. I don't know anyone who disagrees, and didn't expect anyone on this forum to disagree. Frustration with the violent reactions of extremist Muslisms had already been expressed at the start of the thread. If you'd like, I could preface every sentence I write with 'it's wrong to firebomb embassies over some stupid cartoon or, you know, to firebomb embassies at all'; but it would get somewhat tiresome, and I thought you were bright enough that the fucking obvious doesn't have to be repeatedly pointed out to you over and over again. Should I occassionally make clear my point of view on the colour of the sky, just to make sure we understand each other properly? If a young woman walks alone at night dressed provocatively then, in many areas, she is putting herself at risk. If someone rapes her, he is in no way absolved of guilt by the fact that she put herself at risk. She should be able to walk freely wearing whatever she wants wherever she wants. There should be no police, and no prisons. But she can't, and there are, because the world's a nasty place.There seems to be some idea that pointing out the irresponsible behaviour of a victim of crime is in some way letting off the criminal, which seems to be a very confused way of thinking to me. If somebody breaks a lock in a place expected to be safe to steal some valuables; they are 100% guilty of the theft of those valuables. If someone takes some valuables left in an unlocked car in a high crime area they are 100% guilty of the theft of those valuables. In the latter case, the owner of the valuables was irresponsible in looking after them, in the former they weren't. The responsibility or lack of it of the owner is not relevant to the degree of guilt of the thief.

Just to clarify, I don't think their free speech should be limited in the sense that they shouldn't be allowed to make these films or publish these cartoons. They have the right to. I just think their doing so is childish and irresponsible.