In fact, it was a form of plan for an atomic bomb that is the textbook case about prior restraint of speech in the US.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressiv...
I certainly don't want simple plants for bomb making out on the internet.... I'll happily give up certain rights for that.
You don't have to fundamentally disagree with religion in order to believe that parody should be protected speech.
Free speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. It doesn't imply a right to disclose any and all information about about any person or organization that you may have access to, or to make extreme threats, or to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. Just because a literal interpretation of the phrase "free speech" might imply such a meaning to you, that's not how the term is conventionally used or interpreted.
And so there are many people who are saying that what Charlie Hebdo is doing is the equivalent of hate speech or some other form of speech which is not protected.
What we should be saying is what this speech is and why it's not hate speech and why we should be willing to go to war over it, because nobody is willing to go war over "free speech" which does not really exist.
> What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe
> in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its
> Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing
> to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.
> That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire.
> Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.
There already exists a rationalization in almost every Western country's law that there is a distinction between hate speech (that incites violence) and ordinary free speech. This is obviously a highly contentious issue among smaller-gov/progressive types but one that is not super relevant to the Charlie Hebdo issue which you are replying to.
It is semi-relevant if you factor in the UK's enforcement of offensive language on sites like Twitter and compare it to their politicians outraged reactions. But again, not super relevant - since that doesn't happen in the USA or (I believe) France which are involved in Google -> Charlie Hebdo investment.
So your argument is needlessly polemical and I support the downvotes.
Anyways, I am OK with mostly-free speech. This act is not about our right to have free speech. This act is about our right to make fun of religion in whatever way we want to.
And frankly, there are parts to Muslim religion which I think are just as silly and deserved to be satired as much as possible. I feel the same about parts of Catholicism, Judiasm, etc. etc.
And why should we be able to make fun of these religions? Because they have caused such atrocious conditions for so many for too long. For example, conservative forms of muslim religion has inspired the oppression of women and girls in such horrible ways.
It's very very important to note, that Orthodox Jews are just as bad at oppressing women as well, btw. A fact that is terribly lost on so many westerners.
Yes, hardly any constitutional rights are absolutes in American law. But you'll find a million examples of this in caselaw where the rights are considered with very carefully worded maybes and conditionals for edge cases (ie. searching a phone but only for particular images as to not totally intrude on their privacy).
The next segment was a picture of Sarah Palin's son stepping on the family dog. The picture was taken in their family home. What happened to privacy?
It seems the privacy card is only pulled out when defending the people you like or agree with. I've see this time and time again on nearly every major news media outlets in the US.
In Europe, another sacred cow is the holocaust. Again, I see no valid reason for making that protected speech. The holocaust was a terrible crime.
Religions, however, in my opinion are fair game. And that's what this is all really about.
This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it.
Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc).
What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.
That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.
edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that.
Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point.
I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race.
Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion.
The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.