• Doc Anthony

    On any given day, “newsworthiness” (and journalistic ethics) is in the eye of the beholder. Each media outlet calls their own shots. The NYT got it right. The RNS got it wrong.

    And what about ole Charlie? Charlie Hebdo REALLY got it wrong. “Je ne suis pas Charlie.”

  • Julian Penrod

    Again, a crucial facet of “free speech”, that it be well meaning, not intended with ill will. It’s not offensive to “inform” police that a car ran off the road five miles north of the police station. If the car actually ran off the road five miles south of the police station, and the intent of the message was to keep help from getting to the driver and passengers, that is still not “protected speech” and can even be considered a crime. It is the purpose behind the speech that determines its nature in the eyes of the law. If you go in an inner city neighborhood and start saying filthy things about someone’s mother, when they beat you up, the police may give them a fine, but find you guilty of provocation. As far as it goes, “offense” requires as specific a definition as “free speech”! Some cases are trivial, some are more serious. There was never an intent to be abusive in naming the Washington team. Things are much different for the depictions of Mohammed, however. It began with the Nazi leaning rag, Jyllands Posten, claiming it was approached by an “artist” who said he was preparing an illustrated biography of Mohammed, but he received death threats. Jyllands Posten then declared it was “testing the strength of freedom of speech” and it commissioned deliberately hate filled, vicious, desecratory depictions of Mohammed fraudulently termed “cartoons”.
    They could have “tested the strength of free speech” by providing respectful depictions of Mohammed!
    Perhaps the images the “artist” claimed he wanted to put in the biography.
    But everything Jyllands Posten said was a lie. Claiming it was “testing the strength of free speech”. Even claiming the malicious representations of Mohammed were “cartoons”.
    What the Nazi sympathizing Jyllands Posten wanted was to incite Muslims to riot, hoping they would kill Europeans and Jyllands Posten could call for that to lead to the Final Solution of the Muslim Problem! Jyllands Posten, the French magazine, the “artist” in Copenhagen, all only want to provoke anger and violence! They won’t stop until they can provoke Muslims or violence, or they can kill some Europeans themselves and blame the Muslims.
    In the end, it’s not surprising that the events at the French magazine do not conform to other claimed “terror” incidents. It looks very much like the staff of the magazine fabricated an “attack” and had vagrants or homeless people killed, then used their bodies as substitutes for their own!
    It should be mentioned that “sarcasm” and “satire” also require specific definitions, and what the French magazine put out did not qualify as either.
    For that matter, the cover of the issue depicted is calculated to be hate filled and offensive. The “turban” and the elongated face of the individual are intended to resemble a man’s reproductive organs.

  • MarkE

    Come on. Charlie Hebdo’s cover wasn’t insulting or trying to depict Mohammed in a derogatory manner. If Hebdo’s cover had him eating a ham sandwich, then it borders on baiting. But there is no possible “neutral” use of the name Redskins, regardless of the “intentions” of the owners or fans. It’s an insulting, offensive reference, and you can’t explain it away. And I live in the DC area.