This week we picked up on the KPFK/Pacifica Radio BradCast where my “Why?” post (and excellent subsequent comments here at The BRAD BLOG), following the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, left off last week.
In short, my question is: Just because we can publish material offensive to millions, should we? Callers ring in with their thoughts — lots of them — during this interesting hour. Plus, Desi Doyen joins us, as usual, for the latest Green News Report, and to beat up the state of Texas a bit (because they deserve it)…
Download MP3 here or listen online below…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradCast_BradFriedman_CharlieHebdo_011415.mp3%5D
Great show today. My condolences to the Paris victims, Boko Haram victims, and everyone. I’m Palestinian American and also Muslim. It’s one thing to expect the Fox News right wing types to side with the Hebdo publication, What’s troubling to me is these so-called progressives who say that the drawings aren’t offensive and split hairs between racism and criticism of ‘Islam’ as they perceive it. Before the western countries involvement in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria were largely secular. The media needs to stop downplaying the political agendas of these attacks.
I’m sick of these buzz words Islamist, jihadist, extremist, etc. Jihad in it’s original and true form is not a bad thing. Waking up at dawn to pray is Jihad, fasting is jihad, and in the context of war, defending your fellow man is jihad,
Based on my personal experience, people in the US are much more tolerant, civil, and overall nicer than Europeans. You heard Mark on your show. He wanted to bring minstrel shows back, God bless his soul. Mark, if you don’t want these dirty brown Muslims in your backyard, France should have thought about that before WW1.
Great show, Brad. Thank you for having the courage and fortitude to apply intellectual integrity to investigative journalism. I hope and believe your blog is a paradigm for the future of news media.
So, if I understand your position, you are absolutely in favor of free speech but nobody should actually USE their free speech, because being mean to people is icky.
Has anybody else pointed out to you that this position makes no sense? Your position reminds me (appropriately enough) of a joke told during the Soviet era, when Reagan was the US President:
A US journalist was stopped by a Russian as he was walking down the street in Moscow. “Comrade, what is this freedom of speech you have in your country?” the Russian asked.
“Well, it means that we can say whatever we want!” the journalist responded. “I can stand on a street corner and yell ‘Down with Reagan!’ and nothing will happen to me.”
“But Comrade, we have that here!” protested the Russian. “I can stand on a street corner and yell ‘Down with Reagan!’ and nothing will happen to me either.”
Your understanding of free speech is like that – you’re firmly in favor of everybody being “free” to speak the thoughts you agree with. That’s the kind of free speech they have in Iran and Afghanistan – you can say “Down with Reagan!” all day long, but don’t talk about Mohammed….
OffendedMan said anonymously @ 3:
Clearly, you don’t.
I’m sorry, I must have missed where I said anything of the sort. But thanks for completely misunderstanding, misinterpreting (and probably not bothering to listen to at all) my own free speech. Well done!
Besides Free Speech is responsibility. For example in Rwanda some extremists on the radio exhorted others into Genocide.
Shockingly irresponsible for Charlie Hebdo to keep its offices in a high density area, even sharing a floor with other businesses. The terrorists were lugging around on the videos ammo, weapons including rocket launcher, presumably expecting a SWAT response – they could have decided on massacring dozens instead.
Irwin Mainway @5 wrote:
The issue, Mr. Mainway, is not simply responsible speech, but the scope of what amounts to “speech” that is protected by the First Amendment.
As I explained in “Should Major US Pundits, Politicians be Prosecuted for Incitement to Murder, ‘Terrorist Threats’?” citing the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, while the First Amendment shields individuals who merely advocate the violent overthrow of the government, it does not protect speech which is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
See also, Should Neal Boortz be Prosecuted for Incitement to Murder? Removed from the Public Airwaves?
I am so glad you said this because I feel the same way. I can’t figure out why so many otherwise “nice” people are telling the world that nasty, sexually perverted and racist cartoons are supposed to be our symbol of freedom of speech in the world. There is nothing noble in these cartoons. They don’t help foster a debate about any issue, not really. I have seen some of the worst of those cartoons and I can’t even defend the right of those specific cartoons (about 3 of them) to exist. We have laws against hate speech in the US and they would not be printed here. Are we actually more civilized than the French ? I don’t know, but I do know this has changed the way I feel about the French. When Fox News is on their side, something is wrong!