General Discussion

Hepburn

(21,054 posts)

19. Inciting is the issue...

Reply to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 28, 2015, 05:32 PM

Nov 2015

...and the relevant issue, IMO, as to liability. You are so correct that the issue is not free speech!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it? [View all] hill2016 Nov 2015 OP

Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons meant to be inciting? guillaumeb Nov 2015 #1

Third option: satirical riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #4

But they did NOT lampoon the tricouleur, guillaumeb Nov 2015 #8

I confess I wasn't a subscriber to Charlie Hebdo so I haven't seen everything riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #10

I have seen many of the cartoons. guillaumeb Nov 2015 #20

Ugh. Victim blaming. You couldn't be more wrong riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #25

There was a cartoon that depicted a number of black, pregnant, veiled females. guillaumeb Nov 2015 #26

French humor obviously does not translate in Quebecquois.. Yorktown Nov 2015 #53

vive les cons! Et les racistes aussi! guillaumeb Dec 2015 #60

You are like the XiXth century anthropologist shocked because the natives are naked. Yorktown Dec 2015 #64

My French ancestors immigrated to Quebec in 1605. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #66

I described a quebecquois as having anglo PCness because of the country culture obviously Yorktown Dec 2015 #68

Is this humor? guillaumeb Dec 2015 #70

No, not humor, better knowledge. Yorktown Dec 2015 #73

I have asked most of my regular correspondents about the cartoon. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #75

Well, three possibilities Yorktown Dec 2015 #83

You missed the fourth possibility, guillaumeb Dec 2015 #84

Oh, OK, past history is proof of current opinions? Such a fine basis for reasoning. Yorktown Dec 2015 #85

You actually admit to blaming victims? Where do you stand on short skirts and women who go to bars? CBGLuthier Nov 2015 #58

You have actually read what I posted? I think not, guillaumeb Dec 2015 #61

Your post #20 contradicts and answers this one Yorktown Nov 2015 #52

Mocking the Institutional Church is one thing. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #63

Doesn't matter... TipTok Dec 2015 #77

Only religious persons can be blasphemous. And most of them are, constantly. Bluenorthwest Nov 2015 #2

The person who commits the violent act - hifiguy Nov 2015 #3

...^ that 840high Nov 2015 #57

Do cartoons kill people? Rex Nov 2015 #5

It's the fault of swaggering assholes with guns, there are no exceptions Warpy Nov 2015 #6

I may not agree with what you have say. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #7

Inciting is the issue... Hepburn Nov 2015 #19

Not sure how to approach this, but katsy Nov 2015 #9

Again, do cartoons kill people? Rex Nov 2015 #11

no. hill2016 Nov 2015 #12

What about Rex Nov 2015 #17

I believe hill2016 Nov 2015 #23

So do you defend people that make death threats? Rex Nov 2015 #32

no and no. hill2016 Nov 2015 #35

My point is, it is rhetoric that kills people. Rex Nov 2015 #37

In this case hill2016 Nov 2015 #43

At least you didn't get all snarky with me like the last poster. Rex Nov 2015 #45

Yes. The fault of a shooting lies only with the shooter Yorktown Nov 2015 #54

Where is the state action which gives rise to the issue of free speech? Hepburn Nov 2015 #13

some people hill2016 Nov 2015 #15

That's not the issue. Hepburn Nov 2015 #16

here's the state action hill2016 Nov 2015 #18

OMG... Hepburn Nov 2015 #21

ok hill2016 Nov 2015 #22

I did. Hepburn Nov 2015 #24

Perfectly explained. hifiguy Nov 2015 #27

Thank you... Hepburn Nov 2015 #29

as I said hill2016 Nov 2015 #33

Only if there is state action. Hepburn Nov 2015 #39

do you agree with this sentiment hill2016 Nov 2015 #31

Fiorina is an asshat. hifiguy Nov 2015 #34

I agree with what you say hill2016 Nov 2015 #36

Glad to see you got it! Hepburn Nov 2015 #41

he says hill2016 Nov 2015 #44

the question in the hypothetical is: hill2016 Nov 2015 #30

For the last time: Hepburn Nov 2015 #38

well hill2016 Nov 2015 #42

There are 4 elements to negligence, incitement is not one of them. Hepburn Nov 2015 #51

Fully legally? Hepburn Nov 2015 #40

ha ha ha... hill2016 Nov 2015 #46

Have you heard of the phrase... Hepburn Nov 2015 #50

The actual perpetrators of the violence. hobbit709 Nov 2015 #14

Indeed. ucrdem Dec 2015 #76

The gunmen. GoneOffShore Nov 2015 #28

The gunmen are responsible, fully. The same would be true if cartoonists sought out Bluenorthwest Nov 2015 #47

the correct response to a magazine cartoon u dont like is laughter and ridicule IMO nt msongs Nov 2015 #48

The gunman. Waldorf Nov 2015 #49

I find this thread enlightening NobodyHere Nov 2015 #55

Freedom of speech means people have a right to mock religion davidn3600 Nov 2015 #56

Much of DU doesn't care as long as you mock Christians only Democat Nov 2015 #59

Yep NT Ex Lurker Dec 2015 #67

I mock anyone who believes in a giant invisble sky-man who is obsessed with your private parts Warren DeMontague Dec 2015 #79

The gunman. All responsibility ultimately falls on the actor, full stop. Shandris Dec 2015 #62

The fault of the killers. No one else's. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #65

The gunman and his religion Marrah_G Dec 2015 #69

The gunmen. Throd Dec 2015 #71

when you let your religion override the law, whose fault is it? hobbit709 Dec 2015 #72

The gunman. KamaAina Dec 2015 #74

Some people here really don't understand the 1st Amendment. These threads prove it. Warren DeMontague Dec 2015 #78

Fault for shooting people? Gunman. Nobody else. Action_Patrol Dec 2015 #80

Five backwoods homophobes having beers loyalsister Dec 2015 #81

The murderers, of course. There is no human right to go through life unoffended. NT Warpy Dec 2015 #82

the guns fault... ileus Dec 2015 #86

I did happen here...kinda ileus Dec 2015 #87