Hxstory

[BvBPL]

That's utter BS.

If three papers publish a cartoon, that doesn't mean they each need to be two-thirds less worried about their security or that their employees' spouses will be two-thirds less concerned about the employee not coming home one night. It means more worry for more people, not less.

What's more, you can't assume that terrorist groups wouldn't simply target all three papers.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, because terrorists groups have unlimited resources and can just strike wherever and how often they want.

But no, that does indeed not mean that each publisher needs to be "two-thirds" less worried, of course each magazine publishing the article will drive up the overall danger of a terrorist attack by a bit, so the actual decrease of danger "per magazine" does not quite match the rising number of magazines. Still, when tons of magazines publish these cartoons the actual danger for each magazine is rather minimal.

And of course there's still the tipping point at which publishing cartoons of prophets is so normalized that even terrorists will see it as a lost cause.

 

[Funky]

However, many Muslims do take their religion very seriously indeed. So much so that they see it as part and parcel of themselves (or even vice versa: they are part of Islam). So is it any surprise that many of them are prepared to die in - what they see as - the defence of it?

Unfortunately, even extreme measures like murder as a reaction to "blasphemy" are commonplace among fundamentalist Muslims, so their attack on Charlie Hebdo indeed did not come totally out of the blue. But Muslims, like adherents to any ideology, must accept that their rules don't apply to non-believers. The burden is on them, not on us. In no way did the cartoons, nor can any other expression of free speech infringe on the freedom of Muslims to practise their religion in any way they please, as long as they don't harm others. The notion that non-believers are not allowed to criticise Islam, let alone that they deserve to be killed for doing so, must be completely and vehemently repudiated - by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

And on the other hand, we have a publication like Charlie Hebdo which specializes (or specialized - I don't even know whether the thing is still going) in publishing scurrilous cartoons with a blatant disregard for the feelings of even the most liberal Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo made fun of all sorts of people and ideas, mainly in the realms of French politics and Christianity. Islam was only one of many topics they touched, and the cartoons in question were actually very benign. In any case, as a satirical magazine it was simply doing its job.
But even if it was one-sided against Islam, and even if the cartoons could have been considered flat-out racist, that wouldn't change the moral analysis. People were murdered for drawing pictures; there is no way to justify such an act of barbarism.

I think it maybe all too easy to expect modern day Muslims to be like secular Christians (other religions are available), who, it has to be said pay mere lip-service to their religion, in the main.

It's an on-going process. Despite the massive problems I am optimistic that we can get there eventually. But it certainly won't help if we give in to intimidation and thereby strengthen the radical elements in Islam. Quite the contrary. There are secular, moderate forces within the Muslim world which we have to help challenge the orthodoxy. One way to do so is to help them establish the narrative that holy texts can be questioned, prophets can be mocked, religious ideas can be challenged. Only by means of a "relaxed" approach to religion will Islam be able to adopt to the modern world.


BvBPL:
By reducing the number of those who speak out, you raise the stakes for everyone who does. I don't see why that is so hard. Ayaan Hirsi Ali would not need police protection if thousands of people were speaking out against orthodox Islam the way she is.

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah, because terrorists groups have unlimited resources and can just strike wherever and how often they want.

They are capable of striking multiple targets simultaneously within a major metropolitan area already under heightened security in preparation for a forthcoming international conference. It isn't that they have unlimited resources, but that their capabilities are not known. The assumption that their capabilities are not inferior to what they are gets people killed.

Still, when tons of magazines publish these cartoons the actual danger for each magazine is rather minimal.

Twelve people died in the Charlie Hebdo attacks. That is not a "rather minimal" risk.

And of course there's still the tipping point at which publishing cartoons of prophets is so normalized that even terrorists will see it as a lost cause.

How many years does that take?

Multiple that by the number of journalists we can expect to be killed each year. Then by the average number of children. That's the number of people growing up without a father or mother because of your cockamamie idea.

 

[Ryika]

They are capable of striking multiple targets simultaneously within a major metropolitan area already under heightened security in preparation for a forthcoming international conference. It isn't that they have unlimited resources, but that their capabilities are not known. The assumption that their capabilities are not inferior to what they are gets people killed..

So your solution is: "Be cowards and bow to those who threaten violence"?

Twelve people died in the Charlie Hebdo attacks. That is not a "rather minimal" risk.

Do you really still not understand the argument after it has been explained half a dozen times now or do you just not want to understand it?

How many years does that take?

Multiple that by the number of journalists we can expect to be killed each year. Then by the average number of children. That's the number of people growing up without a father or mother because of your cockamamie idea.

Yeah, in the name of freedom sometimes people die. Your alternative is going to produce way more frightening results in the long run if you allow the mentality of cowardliness to spread.

Here's how you deal with it, from a Charlie Hebdo editor:

The film critic said it’s important for journalists and ordinary citizens not to self-censor and, staking an absolutist position​, said: “We don’t negotiate. There’s either freedom of speech or there is not.”

But Biard said the magazine, which printed nearly 8 million copies of its first post-massacre edition – up from its usual 60,000 – cannot continue its bold exercise of free expression alone, and warned Western journalists they risk emboldening jihadis by avoiding sensitive topics, such as depicting Muhammad, and marginalizing those who do.

Many publications, he said, “turned their back” on Charlie Hebdo by questioning the appropriateness of pillorying religious fanatics.

“The press suffer a lack of courage in this matter,” he said. “We don’t want to be a symbol any longer. … We can’t be the only ones to stand up for these values.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...editor-we-dont-want-to-be-a-symbol-any-longer

 

[Arakhor]

Given that we're apparently still talking about Muslims in a thread that's not about them, I'm sure it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that not publishing a bunch of cartoons for whatever reason is necessarily bowing to threats of violence. Besides which, your "if everyone publishes them, people will get bored and not care" is like the arguments teachers give in schools about how bullies will get bored and go away. Yes, that might happen, but chances are very high that they won't.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And of course there's still the tipping point at which publishing cartoons of prophets is so normalized that even terrorists will see it as a lost cause.

At which point... everyone continues to publish such cartoons for the hell of it? Or is that the point when they're allowed to stop?

 

[BvBPL]

So your solution is: "Be cowards and bow to those who threaten violence"?

I am just pointing out the crap argument as to safety. I understand the argument, it is just isn't any good.

Yeah, in the name of freedom sometimes people die.

Really? Journalists have to die to preserve freedom? No.

Your alternative is going to produce way more frightening results in the long run if you allow the mentality of cowardliness to spread.

No it does not. That's utterly ridiculous. My alternative is that the ten thousand newspapers in question each come to their own opinions and publish those, not feel obliged to republish the same work in ten thousand other papers. That does nothing to promote cowardliness. Quite the contrary.

BvBPL:
By reducing the number of those who speak out, you raise the stakes for everyone who does.

The stakes are raised for everyone who would publish such a cartoon regardless of how many organizations do so.

If you had a pill that caused death in one in ten thousand cases you could give it to one guy or give it to ten thousand guys. Regardless of the number of people you give it to, an individual bears the same risk of death. No one is safer or more in danger merely because you gave the pill to however many other people.

In the same way, no one organization becomes safer merely because others have published the cartoon. It just means others also bear the risk.

 

[Cheetah]

...

You're still misrepresenting the arguments. And now Manfred too was talking about "when they're allowed to stop". Whether it's because we can't explain it well enough, or because you simply refuse to understand, I can't tell. Whatever the cause, this exercise seems futile.

I give up.

As an aside, I realized that I hadn't actually commented on the topic at hand, and bothered to read the article in the OP. The demands of the activists are a bit worse than simply demanding a change to the spelling of some words:

Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school

Campus totalitarianism with separate but equal dormitories...

PS: This stuff is an example of what we're referring to with the "regressive left" term.

 

[Funky]

In the same way, no one organization becomes safer merely because others have published the cartoon. It just means others also bear the risk.

Because others bear the risk everyone becomes safer. This is not hard. Like Cheetah and Ryika I have to conclude at this point that you don't want to understand.

The even more crucial question however is what is the alternative? Give in to the terrorists' demands, to Islamic blasphemy laws, and self-restrict free speech? I have news for you, the jihadists won't be satisfied. What about their threats and attacks on people for merely speaking critically about Islam? Is the appropriate response by the media to no longer write anything critical about Islam to be on the safe side? What about the jihadists' general hostility to non-Muslims? Should we all convert to Islam to avoid being attacked? Of course it would have to be the specific version that the jihadists follow, which is impossible, since there are thousands of different sects. I hope you see how ridiculous your reasoning is. The only solution is not to cower to any demands, and have the balls to stand for our own values and report whatever we want, especially if the maniacs of the world insist that we don't.

At which point... everyone continues to publish such cartoons for the hell of it? Or is that the point when they're allowed to stop?

Aside from that this isn't about being "allowed" to do something or not, the whole issue of self-censorship is only so significant because there are people out there who demand this censorship. If criticising Islam wasn't a problem, if people weren't being constantly threatened, attacked and killed for treating Islam like every other topic, there would be no problem for freedom of speech. Nobody would be talking about this issue; I certainly wouldn't be arguing the significance of publishing cartoons over pages in an Internet forum.
The reason showing the cartoons is so important is because people are intimidating us not to do so. If an adherent of an ideology demands that we cannot say something because it doesn't comply with his rules, then it becomes especially important to say it. The importance is exacerbated and becomes an absolute necessity if we are threatened with violence or even death for merely acting by the standards of our free society.

If some day Muslims no longer care all too much whether their religion is mocked, if they no longer seek to impose blasphemy laws, if everyone can criticise Islam freely without having to fear repercussions, then is the time that for sake of good will we can refrain from saying or publishing things that some may find offensive. At that point it would no longer be necessary and be reduced to a matter of taste. But until that time the issue is not about taste. It is about defending our values and our right of free speech against freedom-hating theocrats who demand special privileges for their religion.

 

[Arakhor]

Because "activists" represent the entire half of a political spectrum, naturally.

 

[Cheetah]

Because "activists" represent the entire half of a political spectrum, naturally.

Was that a reply to me? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying?

 

[Arakhor]

Was that a reply to me? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying?

If you're intending to make a serious point about people with silly ideas, no matter on what part of the spectrum they are, using stupid terms that target entire hemispheres of political thought, such as "regressive left" or "fascist right", is simply corrosive to discussion and a waste of time for all concerned.

 

[Cheetah]

I see.

No, 'regressive left' is a term coined by Maajid Nawaz to refer to people on the Left whom are otherwise liberal and progressive, but are inconsistent in the totality of their policies. For instance by failing to properly address the problems in Islam with respect to Human Rights, women and minorities, or by limiting freedom of expression by (trying to) banning certain speakers from public appearances or for harassing critics.

Direct examples are the people who just made excuses for the situation of several dozen 11 to 17-year old child brides whom came as refugees to Europe during the current crisis, and arguing that the girls should stay with their "husbands", or the professor (iirc) at a US university who threatened violence on a student newspaper reporter, or the group in this case, who wants to segregate students and make their own "thoughtpolice" department.

I have never stated, nor considered, the entire Left to be regressive! In fact, the reason behind the 'regressive left' term is the contradiction observed between the expected progressiveness of the Left, and the regressive policies that some members of the Left expose.

Did that help clarify my point? I realise I'm not fully consistent with which words I capitalise. Sorry if that added to the confusion.

 

[BvBPL]

Because others bear the risk everyone becomes safer.

Risk of terrorist reprisal is not butter, it does not get thinner as a you schmear it across multiple parties.

Let me use a model to explain this.

Say the Times creates and publishes a cartoon that provokes the terrorists. Johnny Jihad sits in his bunker, becomes irate, decides his cell will make a reprisal, and determines that his cell has a 40% chance of conducting a successful terrorist attack against the Times. So there's a 40% risk of a successful attack.

Now let's say the Post and the Daily News also pickup the cartoon and choose to publish it. Johnny's analysis of those two papers determines that his cell has 60 and 80% chances, respectively, to successfully attack those papers.

The chance of a successful terrorist attack now is 80% against one target, the Daily News. So the risk has increased.

However, it does not stop there. There are also 40 and 60% chances to attack the Times and the Post whose ratios of success are independent of the ratio of success to attack the Daily News. The choices by the Post and the Daily News to republish the cartoon do not reduce the risk to the Times, they merely create risks to themselves that are independent of the risk to the Times. The risk share does nothing to reduce the initial risk of the Times. It only creates risk for other parties. Ergo, the argument that republication in ten thousand other papers would create safety is baloney. It would only create additional instances of risk independent of the original one.

The even more crucial question however is what is the alternative? Give in to the terrorists' demands, to Islamic blasphemy laws, and self-restrict free speech?

There are two problems here. The first that you've suggested a false dichotomy, that the only alternative to your proposal is to give into the terrorists' demands. Which is utter bupkis because a third way of having ten thousand newspapers printing a diverse array of ideas is an alternative that does not give into the terrorists' demands.

The second is that ten thousands newspapers all printing the same thing isn't free speech. When speech becomes obligatory, it ceases to be free.

 

[Ryika]

Risk of terrorist reprisal is not butter, it does not get thinner as a you schmear it across multiple parties.

Let me use a model to explain this.

Say the Times creates and publishes a cartoon that provokes the terrorists. Johnny Jihad sits in his bunker, becomes irate, decides his cell will make a reprisal, and determines that his cell has a 40% chance of conducting a successful terrorist attack against the Times. So there's a 40% risk of a successful attack.

Now let's say the Post and the Daily News also pickup the cartoon and choose to publish it. Johnny's analysis of those two papers determines that his cell has 60 and 80% chances, respectively, to successfully attack those papers.

The chance of a successful terrorist attack now is 80% against one target, the Daily News. So the risk has increased.

Yeah, and the Risk for the other Newspaper to be hit by an attack has just been reduced to (in the limits of this example) 0%.


Let's increase the amount of newspapers a bit:
1 Newspaper with a 40% Chance.
Then add 9 Newspapers with an 80% Chance.

An attack happens. The Chance of you being killed in an attack is now on average (1*40+9*80)/10/10 = 7.6%.

Make it 100 Newspapers and the chance of you being killed in an attack is 0.76%.

That's what it's about. "Herd security". Yes, the chance for a successful attack may very well go up, the overall number of victims may go up, the chance that an individual in an individual newspaper is killed goes DOWN. That is what this is about, making sure that the individual has a risk that is as low as possible so they can all do their job and freely report on what they want and think is important. The goal is to create a system that makes it easy not to give in to terrorism.

As unfortunate as it is, to keep freedom for everyone sometimes individual lives must be put at risk. If the individuals in the newspapers are not willing to risk their lives - and I would totally understand that they wouldn't - then they may not be the right people to be in that position.

I skipped the rest of the "Risk Calculation" because frankly, it is not important and misses the point made above. The fact that the number of individuals who may die goes up does not change anything.

There are two problems here. The first that you've suggested a false dichotomy, that the only alternative to your proposal is to give into the terrorists' demands. Which is utter bupkis because a third way of having ten thousand newspapers printing a diverse array of ideas is an alternative that does not give into the terrorists' demands.

Yeah, that's why people say this one event was not the end of the world. It does however show a serious problem. What if next some terrorists demand that nothing bad about Muslim extremists is written anymore and start killing people who still do? What if the news once again cover out and stop reporting about this stuff? Will YOU be part of the one newspaper that then steps in and puts their lives at a huge risk to break the silence? Or will you still defend your "It's about the lives of individuals!" and argue that it's perfectly fine to be silent?

 

[Arakhor]

As unfortunate as it is, to keep freedom for everyone sometimes individual lives must be put at risk. If the individuals in the newspapers are not willing to risk their lives - and I would totally understand that they wouldn't - then they may not be the right people to be in that position.

Right. Said by someone who will no doubt ever have to even consider making such a decision.

Did that help clarify my point? I realise I'm not fully consistent with which words I capitalise. Sorry if that added to the confusion.

That's clearer, yes.

 

[Flying Pig]

If the only reason we don't publish racist and hateful cartoons is a fear of being attacked, there's something wrong with us.

 

[Ryika]

Right. Said by someone who will no doubt ever have to even consider making such a decision.

Indeed, as I had noted a few pages ago. I am very well aware that I am in the privileged position of not having to fight this fight, however, how does that invalidate anything I have said?

In fact, no individual has to take part in this fight, being part of the press is an entirely voluntary decision. The people who did not realize that as the press they need to be at the forefront of defending free speech once it is ever under a real attack then Charlie Hebdo was a good reminder for that.

If they choose to not leave their position before a real threat emerges that's on them. I will call them out for not doing their job then. And if they step down but there's nobody to take their place then we will rightfully lose our right to free speech, bit by bit, until it's either gone completely, or the pressure is so high that we finally decide to change our stance.

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah, and the Risk for the other Newspaper to be hit by an attack has just been reduced to (in the limits of this example) 0%.

No it has not because the probability of success to attack various targets are independent of each other. There's nothing that bars the terrorists from attacking multiple newspapers.

The math you've used to show the unlikelihood of an attack on a specific newspaper is wrong. (Probability 1) x (P2) x (P3)... is the formula for the repetition of an independent event. It does not describe risk to individual party, but instead how likely the terrorists are to attack all newspapers.

That is what this is about, making sure that the individual has a risk that is as low as possible so they can all do their job and freely report on what they want and think is important.

When speech is obligatory, it is not provided freely so there can be no free reporting. (Setting aside the quibble that publication of a cartoon is not reporting.)

Yeah, that's why people say this one event was not the end of the world. It does however show a serious problem. What if next some terrorists demand that nothing bad about Muslim extremists is written anymore and start killing people who still do? What if the news once again cover out and stop reporting about this stuff? Will YOU be part of the one newspaper that then steps in and puts their lives at a huge risk to break the silence? Or will you still defend your "It's about the lives of individuals!" and argue that it's perfectly fine to be silent?

No one is saying that newspapers should be silent.