Acceptable responses include:

  - laughter
  - eye rolling
  - calling them assholes
  - shunning people that enjoy the toons
  - holding a protest and claiming they'll all go to hell
  - etc

Unacceptable responses include:

  - shouting religious slogans while executing cartoonists

> But they are racist/bigot cartoonists .

Even if this would be true, this is still no excuse for killing peoples. In no way there could be any excuse for such a awful terror act.

yeah ,I phrased that wrongly .

They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed. They criticized and made fun of misbehaviors in religious practices (like fanatics, people using their power, etc.). They had lawiers of North Africa origins (even though atheists) when they went to court because of drawings with Mahomet.

They most certainly used racist caricatures on a consistent basis. Of course it's tragic (and completely unacceptable) when people use violence to silence speech, but let's not whitewash Charlie Hebdo's islamophobic tendencies.

For a more detailed argument see for instance this article:

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-char...

That article is nonsensical.

Someone calling racism this:

"Even in a fresh-off-the-press, glowing BBC profile of Charb, Hebdo’s murdered editor, he comes across as a racist asshole.

Charb had strongly defended Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he told the Associated Press in 2012, after the magazine’s offices had been fire-bombed.

“I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Koranic law.” "

is someone that doesn't know anything about racism

And the "welfare queens" quote is really funny

>They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed.

I'm guessing you didn't really check carefully. They do mock Islam (and Judaism), and also publish flat-out racist cartoons. They're not mutually exclusive. They publish a lot of offensive cartoons, like the one linked to by the OP depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens. They should be free to do that without getting murdered by fanatics.

> and also publish flat-out racist cartoons

Then it will be easy to provide proof of that, isn't?

The one with the racist stereotype caricatures of pregnant women enslaved by Boko Haram saying "don't touch our welfare" seems pretty racist to me (the lame French play on words about child-benefits/wefare is revoltingly callous and mean-spirited). The huge-nosed Jews they feature with discussing Jews are completely racist as well.

Perhaps you lack the context of that image but it is not racist, the contrary, they are criticising Boko Haram AND the French right wing anti immigrant.

And now you will say that when they parody the rural French they are also racists.

And the Jews?

Are you aware that they use stereotypes to make the parody?

Perhaps also you will find racist the caricature of Le Pen as a pig

>Are you aware that they use stereotypes to make the parody?

Yes, I see what they are doing. It's actually very common to use racist stereotypes in parody and satire. It's also still totally racist to draw huge nosed Jews (and huge-lipped black people). Drawing huge-nosed Jews in the context of criticizing Jews might be parody, but it's not some subtle ironic parody of right-wing ignorance, it's just a crass racist joke.

Yes, and drawing pictures of Spanish as toreros is racists, and drawing pictures of French as cheese eaters is racist.

Everything is racist in some minds even if the people drawing those pictures are part of Non Racist organisations.

I did not had to check anything as I had read the newspaper. They do not mock the religions themselves but the way people practice their religion.

Given that freedom of speech is paramount, I think that the only way this is relevant is that it makes "je suis Charlie" a questionable slogan.

> But they are racist

And you're lying

> And you're lying

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, even when somebody says something false.

If you can categorically say they didn't draw those cartoons ie a black person as a monkey , Then yes I'd wrong .

The drawing is a reference to a nationalist leader comparing a black minister to a monkey. There's a reference to the "rassemblement bleu marine", coined in reference to current nationalist leader marine le pen, transformed into a gathering of racists through charlie's game on words. Also the logo at the right bottom of the picture is that of the nationalist party

As always, taking writings or caricatures out of context is not only lying but also potentially dangerous. Charlie is not racist, nor violent. Please use some critical thinking before calling people or institutions racist (or any other adjective)

I think this one of those let's agree to disagree moment .

I know of that context and I still drawing a black person as a monkey is racist.

All black persons look like monkeys, said a crazy fascist french politician.

By writing "All black persons look like monkeys", can I be qualified as a racist myself ? My point is that the only to write about racism is also to define it, and to write the ideas it "defends". The same way, the only to draw about racism is to actually draw racism. The context is what makes the difference between a racist drawing something racist and someone drawing racism to criticize it. Forgetting, or missing or removing the context is exactly what extremists do. I'm deeply troubled by the fact that you (or anyone) would so quickly consider to "agree to disagree" in such a sensitive and important issue, to be honest.

I would definitely agree that monkey part of the drawing is racist, but the context should be enough to convince you that the drawing itself is not. The drawing can be shocking, but that's a whole different issue that has nothing to do with the alleged racism of its author, only to do with the sensitivity of the reader (you and I, here). Shocking is one of the definitions of charlie hebdo

Charlie Hebdo is notoriously against the Front National and Marine Le Pen and has made tons of satire against them.

It's totally wrong to say they would do any caricature to support any of their theses.

This is misinformation and lack of context that have you talking here ...

In the USA this is called "hipster racism" where you re-use racist slurs or caricatures to make a point about racism. But some feel that this is still unacceptable because the propagation of the racist imagery still hurts. I am not black but I suspect a black person may still take offense to the imagery of a black person as a monkey.

And a muddle of confirmation bias added to sunk cost fallacy for refusing to admit one's first assumption is incorrect.

They did this cartoon to denounce the way the French Minister of Justice was mocked in some conservative demonstrations around marriage equality and access to assisted procreative technologies as a monkey. People were shouting "Taubira (the minister's name), eat your banana" at these demonstrations, and this cartoon denounces that. The name is even a wordplay on the name of the French main far-right party.

The symbol on the left is the logo of Front national and the text says something in the lines of "Racist Assembly". I don't speak French but I think you might be missing something, sir.

Poe's law in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

I can categorically say that you're cherry picking images and omitting context. Basically, trolling.

Can you guess what the word "raciste" in that image means?

Well... Considering the word racist is thrown around so easily it's debatable when it can be applied to whom.

What we do know is that they were purposely offensive, even in the fact of possible threats.

That means they maybe lacked judgement or respect or other things.

Orthogonal to that, we have the ideal expectation that one should be able to write/draw absolutely everything without being punished with violence.

Of course, that should apply to speech no matter what the issue and, sometimes, it seems that "freedom of speech" or its prosecution is decided based on who the governments consider the enemy.

Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increas...

So, blame the victim?

Nobody here is suggesting they deserved getting murdered (or that they had it coming). The pushback is against the voices turning them into heroes or champions of free speech. They're not. They're people with stupid racist opinions who nonetheless had every right to voice those opinions.

We must condemn the murderers but we don't need to endorse or ally ourselves with the publication. Most people who repeat the "We are charlie" slogan are probably not aware of the publication's racist history.

Thank you for saying this. I agree. I don't agree with violence against the Westboro Baptist Church for the "God Hates F*s" protests at military funerals, but if they were attacked I'm not going to go so far as to say, "I am the WBC". It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda.

All one needs to do is enter "Charlie Hebdo" in Google Image Search. It is offensive stuff, and pushes beyond the limits (at least my limits) of parody/common decency. I would be ashamed to publish it or have my name on the masthead. I am against violence. I am for freedom of expression. It does not follow that I am for Charlie Hebdo.

Um, there's a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo and the Westboro Baptist Church.

To try to repair your analogy, what if the Westboro Baptist Church were to demonstrate a lot of redeeming qualities like actively opposing right-wing reactionaries, crazy leftist social graft, and (of course) radical religions? What if they were to spend most of their time exposing issues that seriously deserve ridicule, and God Hates F@s was an occasional anomaly, a result of pushing the limits too far? (I never read CH so I don't know how anomalous it is. I do know this though: google image search can be pure selection bias and is definitely not a good way to get a feel for the magazine as a whole)

I personally dislike like Charlie Hebdo the same way I dislike like Benny Hill. The occasional mild laugh just isn't worth the tedium and distaste. (and this goes for other BDs like Fluide Glacial, L'Écho, the whole style)

So, I'm not for Charlie Hebdo either, but I'm very happy to see the outpouring of support. It's clear what people mean when they say je suis charlie -- no need to parse and overanalyze it.

It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda.

Who exactly are you talking about?

It's not necessary to agree with 100% of a publication to sympathize with one of their positions. It is not necessary to disclaim all their past transgressions (as distasteful as they may be) before supporting them in the wake of this massacre.

You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."

I suppose that you will provide proof of that racism don't you?

No. I was trying to approach this in a more, let's say, egalitarian put-myself-in-others-position way, considering why we (the western world) react more strongly to this horrific event and ignore others.

But I find it really tough to write about it and usually refrain so (long talks are better because one can moderate the speech and clear misunderstandings right away).

Your answer that accuses/asks me if I'm blaming the victim showcases this.

I very clearly wrote

    Orthogonal to that

to showcase that I was pointing facts and that they didn't justify violence against them in any way and that everyone should have the right to speak without fear of violence (in all subjects, not just religious satires, which is why I posed the Glenn Greenwald article I felt relevant, did you read it?).

They can be racist (not saying they are since, as I said, it's a heavily politicized word that loses meaning easily) and that doesn't make them acceptable targets. The same goes for Neo Nazis, KKK members, people who say we Iran should be bombed, people who say USA should be bombed (funnily enough, these people might get prosecuted and jailed, see article), etc.

I might have written more than it's prudent and might have been all over the place. I'm sorry, it's late.

If something feels off, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification.