What do you all think about this? The attacks on French magazine Charlie Hebdo a few months ago got me to thinking about this. I feel that everyone's freedom of speech is one of ideals I hold most dear, but is what they did worth the loss of 12 lives? Let me be clear in stating that the people who perpetrated the attack that killed a dozen people in France a few months back are depraved mongrels and if this is how their philosophy informs them to act and react, then then it's best to wipe those ideas of the face of the planet. But what I also find me asking myself... Did the publishers and writers at Charlie Hebdo enrich the lives of their readers by any meaningful metric by publishing those Mohammed cartoons for no other purpose than to satirize a major world religion? They had to have seen something like that coming. If not they knew it would seriously piss if a lot of people. It's worth noting that not one publisher in the U.S. Thought it was worthwhile to show those cartoons here even in the aftermath of the massacre.
Consider the alternative. Is a life of looking over your shoulder, and censoring your work into inoffensive blandness worth living? Is mere existence a life? See above.
Strictly speaking, satire is not journalism, no. Journalism involves investigations and reporting of facts and structured narratives - who/what/where/when/why/how. It is, however, expression and any society that values freedom of expression will protect satire as a valid form.
So now we come back around to [I've been censured here any time I use the term "self-censorship"] Creative Common Sense for Dummies, or "How far is too far?" Of Trudeau and Hebdo: How 15 top cartoonists really feel about satirical "red lines" Cue the chorus of "Trudeau hasn't been funny for years" and "Trudeau was never funny" and...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's apparently too big a concept for a lot of people to grasp.
Who cares if/when he was funny? He's wrong. I mean, Cosby was funny. I agree with this take. http://www.littleatoms.com/science/charlie-hebdo-you-know-nothing-garry-trudeau
I think that's a false choice. After all, none f the U.S. Publishers ran this cartoons even in the aftermath of the attacks. I don't think we have inoffensive blandness here. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that Carlie Hebdo had no right to run the cartoons, but I just don't think there was anything to gain from what they did and it's not like the attacks weren't foreseeable. I guess what I'm saying is that even though they were well within their rights, I find what they did in very poor taste and tact and 12 people are dead now. They didn't deserve to die, but they knew they were provoking dangerous people with radical views. I think they wasted their lives because no one is any better for what they gave their lives for. I remember being a little annoyed by how other journalist lauded them as heroes.
It doesn't matter if it's journalism or not, because being journalism is not a precondition for speech to be protected.
Who cares? This is the dark path censorists always go down. Mistaking personal taste for value, or even morality.
I don't know about Charlie Hebdo, but The Onion's satire is many times a far more accurate depiction of reality than what's published by journalists. I also hesitate calling the victims "heroes," because from what I've seen of their work about Islam, much of it is little more than simply drawing cartoons of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban. That's hardly biting and insightful. Compare that to the Awkward Moments (not found in your average) Children's Bible, which asks some rather pointed questions about Bible stories often told to children.
The only graphic artist I know had his art training interrupted to take a course in counter-insurgency warfare. He took it as evidence of Marine stupidity, saying "Did they really think our studio might get attacked by the Viet Cong or something?" The Marines obviously thought it important for graphic artists to know how to kill insurgents and terrorists, and they were not mistaken. Sadly, too many liberal college journalism and art departments ignore Marine wisdom on the matter.
Trudeau has been funny in the past. Not so much nowadays. He strikes me as mostly coasting on past glory these days, kind of settling into the deep smugness that seems to afflict liberals. That someone like him would look down on the defense of free speech ("free speech absolutists"? Really?) is mind-boggling. It's freedom of speech that puts food on his table and cash in his wallet. To accept restrictions on it is akin to the guy on the assembly line accepting restrictions on his ability to move up the corporate ladder. Freedom of speech means all speech, not just the bits you approve of. Sure, there will always be those who abuse this freedom to spew vitriol and hatred, but the beauty of free speech is that it enables the rest of us to see them for what they are and use our own freedom of speech to heap ridicule upon them.
Satire is not only not journalism, but it is political speech. All speech is protected, but by the reasons for that protection, satire's protected status is much more important than that of journalism. Having said that, the right to do something doesn't imply it's the right thing to do. But even outside legal matters and for purely moral judgement, it's worth saying more than just "should/should not". If we are to discuss whether Hebdo "should" have published their anti-Muslim cartoons along with their racist, misogynist, antisemitic and other reactionary cartoons, let's say what intentions and consequences we're considering. They should have done so in favour of what? They shouldn't have done so lest what? One suggestion seems to be "They shouldn't have published those cartoons lest some radicals shoot them and other victims." I agree that that is no way to live: You don't refrain from doing what you want because you fear that evil people will punish you.
The day I strap you to a chair, glue open your eyelids, and force you to watch "Human Centipede", you might be able to make that case.
A good satirist had better be part journalist to get his point across with intelligence. But it's political commentary. I guess the question then is, is political commentary journalism? Or is journalism simply reporting, not commenting?
Satire is the use of humor and hyperbole to indirectly criticize social constructs. Journalism is the act of using various media to inform people about shit that's happening. Journalism can be satirical, but they are not intrinsically connected. The Daily Show is both journalism and satire. The Onion is satire that mimics journalism. The evening news on a local NBC affiliate is journalism without being satire. The novel Jennifer Government by Max Barry is satire but is not journalism. The half-finished novel on my hard drive about space-elves and centaur-velociraptors is not journalism or satire, nor is is any good. Is satire protected speech in places that recognize free speech as a right? Yes. Did I read a dictionary today? Also yes. Sent from my cheap Toshiba tablet while taking a shit.
Yes satire is journalism. Through the medium of humour it nonetheless explores the issue that it seeks to satirise and cast a critical eye over topical issues by way of a critical eye. If you read an opinion piece in a newspaper you're reading the same thing, just without the overt humour and/or mockery.
If you mean atheism, bald isn't a hair color. If you mean "free speech fundamentalism", that isn't a thing. It's a collection of English words, but so is "butter flavored dildo rocket sled".
