Chomsky video on Charlie Hedbo and "defense of free speech"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't want to be sage, but it does seem slightly hypocritical that Spanish satire rag El Jueves was sued by the government and put under intense pressure for printing caricatures of the royal family:





and yet the international press largely ignores a clear "violation of free speech"

[swl]

this is from 2 years ago, after the mag was in the news for publishing cartoon depictions of Mohammed and other Muslims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-FD6leCKU&feature=youtu.be

it's hard to hear him... his point is that Hedbo is being congratulated as a beacon for "free speech" as they published caricatures of Muslims, but if they had published a caricature of a Jew they'd be prosecuted under the anti-anti-Semitism laws. rendering French "self-congratulation" over their defense of "free speech" "fakery" and "fraud".

The same day it declared to stand for free speech, the French government decided to sue people who congratulated the terrorists on Facebook and Twitter, so "free speech" is only the theory.

[Insula Dei]

In most European countries going after individuals who have the means to sue you unsurprisingly is a lot riskier than dealing in dubious ethnical or religious stereotypes.

EDIT: Case in point, the following cover was banned by a court  of law:

http://miniurl.be/r-pr3

[politicus]

In most European countries going after individuals who have the means to sue you unsurprisingly is a lot riskier than dealing in dubious ethnical or religious stereotypes.

EDIT: Case in point, the following cover was banned by a court  of law:

http://miniurl.be/r-pr3

That link refers to a whole page with pics. Which one?

[bedstuy]

This is silly.  Chomsky is an idiot who hates Israel and hates America.  He'll say anything in service of that so who cares? 

For one thing, I think he's wrong factually.  Charlie Hebdo was not making cartoon that were the equivalent of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda targeting Muslims.  Charlie Hebdo could certainly say blasphemous things about the Jewish religion.  Does he really think French law single out Jews for special treatment?

Anyway, you can't hold Jews responsible for French or European free speech laws.  Jews are less than 1% of the population of France and historically, they're a victimized minority.  And, it's such a false note.  As if Jews are getting off scot-free in this whole affair.  The Jewish community of France is the victim of hatred-motivated terrorism. 

But, I suppose there are certain hate-speech laws in France.  And, if there are hate speech laws, should they necessarily conflate blasphemy with the most extreme racial hatred like Nazi-style anti-Semitism?  I don't think so.  I think making fun of a religion is about ideas.  It can go too far, it can be stupid and ignorant, but it falls within the bounds of rational discussion.  Making fun of Muslims for their racial heritage is disgusting and vile, just in the same way anti-semitism is vile.

Personally, I think America has it right where free-speech is concerned.  If you allow every opinion, even the reprehensible racist ones, the public will exercise their judgement and properly condemn racism.  But, France is not some Jewish-run state that is giving Jews special treatment, that's ridiculous.

[Velasco]

I don't want to be sage, but it does seem slightly hypocritical that Spanish satire rag El Jueves was sued by the government and put under intense pressure for printing caricatures of the royal family:



and yet the international press largely ignores a clear "violation of free speech"

Actually, that cover on the abdication of Juan Carlos was never printed. The publisher got frightened for some reason and it was replaced by that lame Pablo Iglesias cartoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Jueves

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Orgullo y Satisfacción" was a popular tagline in Juan Carlos' speeches... "It fills me with pride and satisfaction..."

This is silly.  Chomsky is an idiot who hates Israel and hates America.  He'll say anything in service of that so who cares? 

Chomsky is one of the most brilliant linguists alive, if I'm not wrong. The fact that you disagree with him on political grounds should not entitle you for such disrespect.

[Insula Dei]

In most European countries going after individuals who have the means to sue you unsurprisingly is a lot riskier than dealing in dubious ethnical or religious stereotypes.

EDIT: Case in point, the following cover was banned by a court  of law:

http://miniurl.be/r-pr3

That link refers to a whole page with pics. Which one?

The first one. Basically it depicts George  Forrest wearing Mobutu's trademark leopard hat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't this basically just an attempt to move the debate onto territory he finds more comfortable?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Isn't this basically just an attempt to move the debate onto territory he finds more comfortable?

Definitely so.

[bedstuy]

This is silly.  Chomsky is an idiot who hates Israel and hates America.  He'll say anything in service of that so who cares? 

Chomsky is one of the most brilliant linguists alive, if I'm not wrong. The fact that you disagree with him on political grounds should not entitle you for such disrespect.

I'm not talking about linguistics or his intellect, so maybe idiot is the wrong word.  I mean idiot in his opinions.  Like someone might call Ted Cruz an idiot for his crazy right-wing ideas, even though Ted Cruz is also very intellectual and brilliant. 

But, certainly when it comes to his politics and his political writings, I don't respect Noam Chomsky.  I don't find his political opinions brilliant or insightful. I think when it comes to politics he's a hack who will ignore facts and spews propaganda with a very specific vision.  Maybe he sees himself as a counterpoint to the right-wing's propaganda, a sort of devil's advocate against America and free markets.  And, that's fine if that what he wants to do, but I think it's appropriate to disrespect and ignore his political opinions.

[politicus]

Knowing that Chomsky is highly intelligent actually makes it harder to tolerate his political hackery and narrowmindedness.

[Velasco]

Well, I'd say that hackery is not uncommon in whatever ideological corner, when the subject of discussion is Israel and the role of the USA in the world. If you don't like his opinions on those issues and find them not worthy of being taking into account, there's little to say. I'd say that it's 'respectable'. "Idiot", "Traitor" (another posted that), "Hates America", "Hates Israel" are derogatory enough to speak by themselves.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'm getting really sick of people pretending that it's equivalent to print something blasphemous to a religion and something inciting violence against a group.

Hate speech isn't determined by how offended someone is.

[Famous Mortimer]

Holy crap, did you guys read Slavoj Zizek's take on this yet?

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

He is coming out hard. Has he ever made comments about Islam before? Seriously, I think this is awesome but it will not go over well with his fan base at all.

[bedstuy]

Well, I'd say that hackery is not uncommon in whatever ideological corner, when the subject of discussion is Israel and the role of the USA in the world. If you don't like his opinions on those issues and find them not worthy of being taking into account, there's little to say. I'd say that it's 'respectable'. "Idiot", "Traitor" (another posted that), "Hates America", "Hates Israel" are derogatory enough to speak by themselves.

I did address his point as well.  I think what Chomsky said is factually wrong and his point is invalid which I explained.

I didn't just insult him.  And, if he wasn't the patron saint of the far-left, it would be unnecessary.  But, a certain segment of the population takes his word as a kind of gospel.  That's part of the needed context with Chomsky.  Really, we shouldn't treat any academic as if they're a general authority .  Some people worship university professors, as if they have special knowledge and reasoning ability.  We ought to treat these kind of comments like they were coming from anyone else and ask critical questions.

[swl]

Isn't Chomsky an anarchist? He is the kind of people you would expect to support Charlie Hebdo.

[Velasco]

I did address his point as well.  I think what Chomsky said is factually wrong and his point is invalid which I explained.

I didn't just insult him.  And, if he wasn't the patron saint of the far-left, it would be unnecessary.  But, a certain segment of the population takes his word as a kind of gospel.  That's part of the needed context with Chomsky.  Really, we shouldn't treat any academic as if they're a general authority .  Some people worship university professors, as if they have special knowledge and reasoning ability.  We ought to treat these kind of comments like they were coming from anyone else and ask critical questions.

You are right in saying that we shouldn't treat a brilliant academic as a general authority. I couldn't agree more, although your claim that Chomsky is an "idiot" is blatantly baseless. That's not even the point. Regardless if he's right or wrong on this particular issue (in any case, it's not an invitation for violence nor anything remotely comparable), I wonder why some people needs to resort to, let's say strong words, when the notorious "patron saint of the far-left" exercises his right to dissent on a wide range of issues. It's symptomatic, to say the least. Especially when many voices are raising these days in favour of the right for irreverence, in the trail of those barbaric killings. I haven't read political writings by Chomsky in a long time, by the way. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder why some people needs to resort to, let's say strong words, when the notorious "patron saint of the far-left" exercises his right to dissent on a wide range of issues.

Does Chomsky still think that supporting the Khmer Rouge was the right thing to do?

[Velasco]

I wonder why some people needs to resort to, let's say strong words, when the notorious "patron saint of the far-left" exercises his right to dissent on a wide range of issues.

Does Chomsky still think that supporting the Khmer Rouge was the right thing to do?

Did he really wrote something in that way? If yes, that deserves a strong reply. As everybody knows, he has written tons of articles and I don't have a clue on his current thoughts on the subject.

[politicus]

One of the problems with Chomsky as a public figure is that he is an "opinion machine" as we say in Danish. He is a guy that feels the need to produce opinions on an very wide range of subjects - most of which he knows little or nothing about - and he is doing it by inserting a limit range of standard raw materials (like anti-Americansm and Israel hate) in one end and spewing a standardized ouput out in the other. It often produces strikingly crude, foolish and inadequate answers to highly complex and complicated issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I must admit, I'm surprised Chomsky is still alive, let alone that people still listened to him.

[© tweed]

I wonder why some people needs to resort to, let's say strong words, when the notorious "patron saint of the far-left" exercises his right to dissent on a wide range of issues.

Does Chomsky still think that supporting the Khmer Rouge was the right thing to do?

Did he really wrote something in that way? If yes, that deserves a strong reply. As everybody knows, he has written tons of articles and I don't have a clue on his current thoughts on the subject.

no.  it's ing nonsense, debunked within 60 seconds by any literate teenager.  it's akin to when people called him a Holocaust denier because he wrote a preface to a book by  Robert Faurisson.



he's hated because he does not assume that US/Israeli violence is by nature any more legitimate or virtuous than any other form of violence.