As long as their stomachs are full they will quote the church doctrine, but let's see what they do when they have no food or shelter, that is when their faith comes into question. For the most part they will revert to the very basic animal instincts in order to survive, just like everyone else.
Most Christians in the US will deny their religion at the first sign of adversity, unlike the Amish who are prepared for adversity,
It seems to be the opposite but it will vary in certain circumstances:
Religion is a space filler. When science has no answers, religion makes them up. When people have no possessions, religion offers them hope of prosperity or charity, worst case in the after-life e.g 'the meek will inherit the earth', 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'.
People who have science and prosperity have no need for God.
At the same time, there are poor people who would think what has God ever done for them and rich people who consider they've been blessed. People at award ceremonies sometimes put God before everything, even their own family. Marissa Meyer even said her priorities were God, family and Yahoo but then said she wasn't all that religious so mainly the latter two.
They were educated, they weren't well-off. "Kouachi’s lawyer Vincent Ollivier said at the time that his client’s profile was more “pot-smoker from the projects than an Islamist. He smokes, drinks, doesn’t sport a beard and has a girlfriend before marriage”".
"Cherif and his older sibling Said, 34, were reportedly believed to have been hiding out in a social housing complex in Reims."
"Cherif, 32, had been sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for helping to transport fighters for the alleged purposes of jihad from France to Iraq, for which he served 18 months, the Associated Press reported. He had said he was inspired to do so after witnessing images of CIA torture from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
Even though he was a known and convicted terrorist, they couldn't keep him locked up forever. These people were educated and driven by their own belief of the importance of what they committed murder for, which I'm sure is common among murderers.
I'd expect wealthy religious people to be more passive and poor religious people to be more fundamentalist because people who have possessions have something to lose and little to gain from violence. Although it seems like certain groups of wealthy Christians are heavily fundamentalist, they are in speech but not actions and their brand of fundamentalism differs greatly from the texts they read e.g anti-poor, intolerant of others, pro-wealth, pro-war, yet pro-life (pro-life but anti-quality-of-life).
People stick to ideas that further their own interests and distort those ideas according to what gives them the best emotional response, even to the point that it's not in their own interests. This is evident when you see the female killer posing in a bikini, read about their drinking and promiscuity. Osama Bin Laden's hideout had pornography in it.
One thing that I've noticed in religion is when people fall on hard times or something bad happens to them, they assume they are being punished by God and repent. When they do well, they thank God. They assume that God is infallible, omnipotent etc without realising that this is an image they create. If you don't criticize someone who does you wrong, you're the one making them infallible.
I'd expect wealthy religious people to be more passive and poor religious people to be more fundamentalist because people who have possessions have something to lose and little to gain from violence.
<...>
Marvin, you are a niece person, but you just don't get it. The major threat does not come from poor people, but from cheese !
Yeah right. As long as their stomachs are full they will quote the church doctrine, but let's see what they do when they have no food or shelter, that is when their faith comes into question. For the most part they will revert to the very basic animal instincts in order to survive, just like everyone else.
Most Christians in the US will deny their religion at the first sign of adversity, unlike the Amish who are prepared for adversity,
The comedian that was mentioned earlier who had a play banned has been arrested in France for a single Facebook post now and he could get up to 7 years in prison if he's found guilty:
"Dieudonne's alleged crime: writing "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly" (I am Charlie Coulibaly) on his Facebook account."
Coulibaly is the surname of one of the gunmen.
"Inciting terrorism is a crime with a five-year prison term in France; inciting terrorism online can lead to seven years in prison."
France's Ambassador to the US said:
"That's a debate that we have had with our American friends for some time, because of your First Amendment. "For a long time, for instance, we have a debate on the Internet, because you accept on the Internet that you could have hate speech ... while it's forbidden in France. "In France, the speech is free, but [not] if it could lead either to a crime, or if it could be seen as libel. But this is of course under the control of the judge. It's for the judge to decide whether the red lines have been crossed."
They've arrested 54 people since last week for what they say is 'defending terrorism' in what they've said or written.
A Muslim wrote an article here on the subject, which seems to have struck a chord with some people as it has 162,000 likes:
He brought up the fact that Angela Merkel was on the unity march but Germany has laws that imprison people for denying the holocaust, the following person was imprisoned for it in one of the countries that has that law:
It's obvious that it would be an offensive thing to say but so might denying other historical events, which wouldn't result in a prison sentence. A Jewish newspaper photoshopped all the women at the march out claiming it's undignified to show women in the media:
The president Nicolas Sarkozy's son Jean Sarkozy was in 2008 marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a Jewish heiress of a large electronics chain. The cartoonist made a cartoon that said he was converting to Judaism for financial reasons, the cartoon was rejected, he stood his ground and he was fired for it and won a settlement for wrongful dismissal.
It doesn't quite cover the problem, which is that it's not about particular religions but what is being said in each instance. The difficulty is that without being in the target audience, you can't always know what's more or less offensive. They can tell you but someone can say they have a major fear of something but have only convinced themselves of that and when presented with it, they actually aren't. Christians are taught to be offended by blasphemy but even when Ben Affleck was defending Islam on TV, he replied to the statement 'Islam is the motherload of bad ideas', using the phrase 'jeeezus' without a moment's hesitation and nobody mentioned it. In the Christian religion, that's supposed to carry a death sentence (assuming you don't just pick and choose which passages to take seriously):
"anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death."
Without any sense of irony, this is followed up with:
"Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death."
"Online news sources the Daily Beast and Slate published the cartoons, but major U.S. publications, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters and the Associated Press, did not. Some said their guidelines call for avoiding publishing images or other material intended at offending religious sensibilities.
Bill Marimow, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, told Reuters: “We will not under any circumstances run the cartoons. The idea of gratuitously insulting tens of millions of Muslim people rather than describing something in words is not a close call.”"
The French ambassador talked about immigration and what is contributing to the problem:
"Araud says France's high jobless rate poses a threat, because "as usual the immigrants are the first victims of unemployment, so they have a rate of unemployment of 20 percent, which means that you have a lot of these youths — Muslim youths — who are excluded from the social life."
He outlines an arc that some of those young people follow after committing petty crimes: "They go to prison, and in prison they are radicalized. They find a sort of raison d'etre in religion."
"The French authorities have been expecting for some time a terrorist action. We have 5,000 radical youth; we have 1,200 young people who are in Syria or are coming back from Syria. They are trained. They are radicalized. I say 1,200 – [it] means we have identified 1,200. There are more than that."
"France is a country of 65 million inhabitants. There are between 5 and 6 million Muslims. And I guess 99.9 percent of Muslims are peaceful citizens. All the polls are showing their commitment to France. They are French; most of them are born in our country. So the message that we have to send to them is, they are part of the nation. They are a full part of the nation."
1200 radicalized individuals could cause a lot of harm and the people who ordered the original group to attack have said there will be more like it. It's looking like this is going to be a defining event in how people deal with free speech. It gets said often that this is about terrorism and nothing more but there were acts of terrorism committed during major wars and wars are not all fought for the same reason of simply waging war. There's always the driving force of some unresolved contention.
In this case, it's not just free speech itself but the unevenness in how it's regulated and there's obviously a heavy influence from the ongoing war between Muslims and Jewish people and who's getting better treatment than the other from different countries. There would be some progress from figuring out what the people driving it want. The republishing of the cartoons could end up being exactly what some Muslims want as it will add fuel to global jihadism. Thousands of moderate Muslims could see these actions and become less moderate.
I managed to get this on the French iTunes Store... during a few seconds (but seems to be withdrawn so far). Unable to download the App. Will probably reappear within the next days.... at least on the French site. Unable to guess concerning the others.
But careful, American people. This will lead you to depravation !
Warnings are very clear : sexual content, nudity, humor vulgar or blasphematory !
I eat my humble pie. Is this what you say, in English ?
Edit : now managed to download the last issue of Charlie Hebdo. I did not think I would live such an experience; Thanks, Apple !
@Marvin the Martian not the Martian, impossible to correct grrrrrrrr!!! : you would be a good journalist
Concerning Mr Nolan Peterson (the FoxNews guy who said that parts of Paris were as unsafe as Bagdad) , he somehow backpedalled and admitted he went too far. See :
Mr Lassana Bathily, who saved the life of several people within the Paris Kasher shop, is a muslim employee. (because of this, he will be granted fast track French citizenship (He comes from Mali)).
One of the policemen in charge of protection at Charlie Hebdo premises (Mr Ahmed Merabet), who was killed together with the journalists he was protecting, was muslim
Also noteworthy is that Salman Rushdie expressed support fort Charlie Hebdo (and he knows about religious persecution ...)
Charlie Hebdo people (the surviving ones ...) are not na¨ive, and know that among the multitude of people having expressed support ("Je Suis Charlie"), some do not fully understand or agree with Charlie Hebdo spirit, whereas for others, perfectly knowing what it is all about, it is more a question of tactical positioning.
Still, the incredible consequence of a local event affecting an obscure -near to bankrupcy- satirical French magazine is to divide the world into two camps : #JeSuisCharlie and #JeNeSuisPasCharlie, with a no return option, once the choice is made .....
At today's funeral of Charb, Luz (the second in charge Charlie Hebdo editor said to the audience : You said you are Charlie, now prove it, with you drawings, your words !
Again, on this site mainly dedicated to Apple, I want to say how much I have been impressed by Apple courageous attitude, of relaxing their usual restrictive policy about "offensive" (and even blasphematory !) content in favor of Charlie Hebdo. I would have expected not less for this company I cherish so much, but I would have never bet on such a radical change. Congrats , Apple ! Congrats, Tim !
But careful, American people. This will lead you to depravation !
Warnings are very clear : sexual content, nudity, humor vulgar or blasphematory !
The magazines are in French so that presents a problem for non-French-speaking countries. There's an online posting of it with English translations here:
That would be a nice OS feature, have a text translation engine that has an OCR component for images. If you visit a website in a language you don't know, the OS would translate everything inline for you. There's Google Translate but it's not the most efficient way, Safari can take a few KB text block from the safari content with a tap, send it through and get the translation back. I assume they could use Siri to do more meaningful translations.
The app has a $90 subscription for future editions:
Question is, are they going to allow other banned political cartoonists back in as well as cartoons with nudity or are they just making a special case for Hebdo? I would have expected them to allow just a single edition of Hebdo if it was a special case because they might push the boundaries in future editions like putting a pornographic photo in and a future ban would look bad. They've opened themselves up to being put in a very awkward situation.
I really think the best way around this is to have a special area of the App Store specifically for content that people might find objectionable. The comics have images and text that aren't suitable for children to read.
Taking a liberal approach to things and maintaining decency are not mutually exclusive. You can be liberal about nudity and sex but not in a public area.
They're only polling 1,000 people per country so if their methods are not random enough, they can't be extrapolated to represent the whole country. Statistical theory suggests you can get away with such low samples but there's also issues like the respondents knowing what ISIS actually is, maybe some of them think it's like IKEA, maybe they don't know enough about what they did - the polling happened before some of the murders they committed.
There is a desire to twist the information in these issues one way or the other. A twitter campaign sparked off from Fox News reporting about Birmingham in the UK being all Muslim and nobody else allowed in:
One of the tweets was that the weather in Britain was sometimes Sunni but mostly Shi'ite. Another was that jam jars have been forced to convert to Islam by extremists:
the incredible consequence of a local event affecting an obscure -near to bankrupcy- satirical French magazine is to divide the world into two camps : #JeSuisCharlie and #JeNeSuisPasCharlie, with a no return option, once the choice is made .....
They have managed to draw a very divisive line between what should be considered acceptable or not. Some Muslims are making it clear which side they're on:
I suspect once people read the content of Hebdo that the orders will fall back to a much lower point because it's a trashy magazine but two debate issues need to be separated out so that they don't get confused. This is not about promoting obscenity, it's partly about having sane guidelines over what constitutes obscenity but far more importantly that violent response is not appropriate. The fact that the demonstrations there are saying they don't apologize for what happened in France goes beyond saying they shouldn't have to apologize, it looks like support. They also took time to burn a picture with the Israeli flag, which shows there's more to this than the magazine.
The magazines are in French so that presents a problem for non-French-speaking countries. There's an online posting of it with English translations here:
I am impressed , because they even translated the Christ / Beware of sunburn cartoon, which is the more typical of the Hara kiri / Charlie Hebdo spirit (and, you will notice, not against muslims ..). In face of this kind of humor, people divide in two clear cut camps : the ones who laugh, and the ones who feel deeply shocked. I am Christian, yet I fall into the first camp, I think it cannot be explained to some people, that's the key issue ...
Now that they have got an incredible amount of money, I think that they can afford in the future to issue an english version . But they are completely disorganized at the moment, and they need some more time for this, I think.
The comedian that was mentioned earlier who had a play banned has been arrested in France for a single Facebook post now and he could get up to 7 years in prison if he's found guilty:
Very well documented article. Only one minor correction to it : under Mr Hollande presidency, the possibility in our legal system to prosecute somebody for insulting the President of the Republic has been abolished.
One can consider that, from an historical viewpoint, this offense was a remain of the ancient "lèse majesté" offense (offense to the king, or capital offense) (which was, at that time, the more severely punished one ...).
("Bonjour Paris" is an open discussion group of native English speakers, mostly American ones, living in Paris or having some sort of connection with Paris)
Comments
It seems to be the opposite but it will vary in certain circumstances:
http://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx
Religion is a space filler. When science has no answers, religion makes them up. When people have no possessions, religion offers them hope of prosperity or charity, worst case in the after-life e.g 'the meek will inherit the earth', 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'.
People who have science and prosperity have no need for God.
At the same time, there are poor people who would think what has God ever done for them and rich people who consider they've been blessed. People at award ceremonies sometimes put God before everything, even their own family. Marissa Meyer even said her priorities were God, family and Yahoo but then said she wasn't all that religious so mainly the latter two.
There's a profile of the killers here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-profile-of-suspected-killers-said-and-cherif-kouachi-who-shot-12-people-dead-9964153.html
They were educated, they weren't well-off. "Kouachi’s lawyer Vincent Ollivier said at the time that his client’s profile was more “pot-smoker from the projects than an Islamist. He smokes, drinks, doesn’t sport a beard and has a girlfriend before marriage”".
"Cherif and his older sibling Said, 34, were reportedly believed to have been hiding out in a social housing complex in Reims."
"Cherif, 32, had been sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for helping to transport fighters for the alleged purposes of jihad from France to Iraq, for which he served 18 months, the Associated Press reported. He had said he was inspired to do so after witnessing images of CIA torture from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
Even though he was a known and convicted terrorist, they couldn't keep him locked up forever. These people were educated and driven by their own belief of the importance of what they committed murder for, which I'm sure is common among murderers.
I'd expect wealthy religious people to be more passive and poor religious people to be more fundamentalist because people who have possessions have something to lose and little to gain from violence. Although it seems like certain groups of wealthy Christians are heavily fundamentalist, they are in speech but not actions and their brand of fundamentalism differs greatly from the texts they read e.g anti-poor, intolerant of others, pro-wealth, pro-war, yet pro-life (pro-life but anti-quality-of-life).
People stick to ideas that further their own interests and distort those ideas according to what gives them the best emotional response, even to the point that it's not in their own interests. This is evident when you see the female killer posing in a bikini, read about their drinking and promiscuity. Osama Bin Laden's hideout had pornography in it.
One thing that I've noticed in religion is when people fall on hard times or something bad happens to them, they assume they are being punished by God and repent. When they do well, they thank God. They assume that God is infallible, omnipotent etc without realising that this is an image they create. If you don't criticize someone who does you wrong, you're the one making them infallible.
<...>
I'd expect wealthy religious people to be more passive and poor religious people to be more fundamentalist because people who have possessions have something to lose and little to gain from violence.
<...>
Marvin, you are a niece person, but you just don't get it. The major threat does not come from poor people, but from cheese !
Ye of little faith.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/14/377201227/controversial-french-comedian-arrested-over-facebook-post-on-paris-attacks
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/15/erin-pkg-marquez-comedian-dieudonne-arrested.cnn
"Dieudonne's alleged crime: writing "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly" (I am Charlie Coulibaly) on his Facebook account."
Coulibaly is the surname of one of the gunmen.
"Inciting terrorism is a crime with a five-year prison term in France; inciting terrorism online can lead to seven years in prison."
France's Ambassador to the US said:
"That's a debate that we have had with our American friends for some time, because of your First Amendment.
"For a long time, for instance, we have a debate on the Internet, because you accept on the Internet that you could have hate speech ... while it's forbidden in France.
"In France, the speech is free, but [not] if it could lead either to a crime, or if it could be seen as libel. But this is of course under the control of the judge. It's for the judge to decide whether the red lines have been crossed."
They've arrested 54 people since last week for what they say is 'defending terrorism' in what they've said or written.
A Muslim wrote an article here on the subject, which seems to have struck a chord with some people as it has 162,000 likes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html
He brought up the fact that Angela Merkel was on the unity march but Germany has laws that imprison people for denying the holocaust, the following person was imprisoned for it in one of the countries that has that law:
http://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,,1715580,00.html
It's obvious that it would be an offensive thing to say but so might denying other historical events, which wouldn't result in a prison sentence. A Jewish newspaper photoshopped all the women at the march out claiming it's undignified to show women in the media:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ultraorthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-angela-merkel-out-of-paris-solidarity-march-photograph-9975364.html
One interesting reference in the Huffington article was to Maurice Sinet who worked for Charlie Hebdo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siné
The president Nicolas Sarkozy's son Jean Sarkozy was in 2008 marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a Jewish heiress of a large electronics chain. The cartoonist made a cartoon that said he was converting to Judaism for financial reasons, the cartoon was rejected, he stood his ground and he was fired for it and won a settlement for wrongful dismissal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
A cartoonist made the following drawing about the apparent double standard:
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/54326/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
It doesn't quite cover the problem, which is that it's not about particular religions but what is being said in each instance. The difficulty is that without being in the target audience, you can't always know what's more or less offensive. They can tell you but someone can say they have a major fear of something but have only convinced themselves of that and when presented with it, they actually aren't. Christians are taught to be offended by blasphemy but even when Ben Affleck was defending Islam on TV, he replied to the statement 'Islam is the motherload of bad ideas', using the phrase 'jeeezus' without a moment's hesitation and nobody mentioned it. In the Christian religion, that's supposed to carry a death sentence (assuming you don't just pick and choose which passages to take seriously):
"anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death."
Without any sense of irony, this is followed up with:
"Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+24
Some major US publications declined to reprint the Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-franceshooting-usa-media-idUSKBN0KH08T20150108
"Online news sources the Daily Beast and Slate published the cartoons, but major U.S. publications, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters and the Associated Press, did not. Some said their guidelines call for avoiding publishing images or other material intended at offending religious sensibilities.
Bill Marimow, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, told Reuters: “We will not under any circumstances run the cartoons. The idea of gratuitously insulting tens of millions of Muslim people rather than describing something in words is not a close call.”"
The French ambassador talked about immigration and what is contributing to the problem:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/14/377262623/french-ambassador-to-u-s-outlines-predicament-of-immigration
"Araud says France's high jobless rate poses a threat, because "as usual the immigrants are the first victims of unemployment, so they have a rate of unemployment of 20 percent, which means that you have a lot of these youths — Muslim youths — who are excluded from the social life."
He outlines an arc that some of those young people follow after committing petty crimes: "They go to prison, and in prison they are radicalized. They find a sort of raison d'etre in religion."
"The French authorities have been expecting for some time a terrorist action. We have 5,000 radical youth; we have 1,200 young people who are in Syria or are coming back from Syria. They are trained. They are radicalized. I say 1,200 – [it] means we have identified 1,200. There are more than that."
"France is a country of 65 million inhabitants. There are between 5 and 6 million Muslims. And I guess 99.9 percent of Muslims are peaceful citizens. All the polls are showing their commitment to France. They are French; most of them are born in our country. So the message that we have to send to them is, they are part of the nation. They are a full part of the nation."
1200 radicalized individuals could cause a lot of harm and the people who ordered the original group to attack have said there will be more like it. It's looking like this is going to be a defining event in how people deal with free speech. It gets said often that this is about terrorism and nothing more but there were acts of terrorism committed during major wars and wars are not all fought for the same reason of simply waging war. There's always the driving force of some unresolved contention.
In this case, it's not just free speech itself but the unevenness in how it's regulated and there's obviously a heavy influence from the ongoing war between Muslims and Jewish people and who's getting better treatment than the other from different countries. There would be some progress from figuring out what the people driving it want. The republishing of the cartoons could end up being exactly what some Muslims want as it will add fuel to global jihadism. Thousands of moderate Muslims could see these actions and become less moderate.
I managed to get this on the French iTunes Store... during a few seconds (but seems to be withdrawn so far). Unable to download the App. Will probably reappear within the next days.... at least on the French site. Unable to guess concerning the others.
But careful, American people. This will lead you to depravation !
Warnings are very clear : sexual content, nudity, humor vulgar or blasphematory !
I eat my humble pie. Is this what you say, in English ?
Edit : now managed to download the last issue of Charlie Hebdo. I did not think I would live such an experience; Thanks, Apple !
@Marvin the Martian not the Martian, impossible to correct grrrrrrrr!!! : you would be a good journalist
Concerning Mr Nolan Peterson (the FoxNews guy who said that parts of Paris were as unsafe as Bagdad) , he somehow backpedalled and admitted he went too far. See :
http://www.blueforcetracker.com/article/To-the-people-of-France
And I take this opportunity to correct this, too :
No, 27% of young French DO NOT have a declared sympathy for terrorists ! This poll is a total invention !
But see also this :
Some complements :
Mr Lassana Bathily, who saved the life of several people within the Paris Kasher shop, is a muslim employee. (because of this, he will be granted fast track French citizenship (He comes from Mali)).
One of the policemen in charge of protection at Charlie Hebdo premises (Mr Ahmed Merabet), who was killed together with the journalists he was protecting, was muslim
Also noteworthy is that Salman Rushdie expressed support fort Charlie Hebdo (and he knows about religious persecution ...)
http://www.albawaba.com/blog_roundup/salman-rushdie-charlie-hebdo-642084
Warnings are very clear : blasphematory !
I don’t get why that’s a warning… Then again there’s no freedom of speech over there, so I guess it might have to be a requirement.
I don’t get why that’s a warning… Then again there’s no freedom of speech over there, so I guess it might have to be a requirement.
Man, that’s embarrassing. And people wonder why I advocate for the expansion of the United States.
Charlie Hebdo people (the surviving ones ...) are not na¨ive, and know that among the multitude of people having expressed support ("Je Suis Charlie"), some do not fully understand or agree with Charlie Hebdo spirit, whereas for others, perfectly knowing what it is all about, it is more a question of tactical positioning.
Still, the incredible consequence of a local event affecting an obscure -near to bankrupcy- satirical French magazine is to divide the world into two camps : #JeSuisCharlie and #JeNeSuisPasCharlie, with a no return option, once the choice is made .....
At today's funeral of Charb, Luz (the second in charge Charlie Hebdo editor said to the audience : You said you are Charlie, now prove it, with you drawings, your words !
Again, on this site mainly dedicated to Apple, I want to say how much I have been impressed by Apple courageous attitude, of relaxing their usual restrictive policy about "offensive" (and even blasphematory !) content in favor of Charlie Hebdo. I would have expected not less for this company I cherish so much, but I would have never bet on such a radical change. Congrats , Apple ! Congrats, Tim !
The magazines are in French so that presents a problem for non-French-speaking countries. There's an online posting of it with English translations here:
http://animalnewyork.com/2015/heres-newest-issue-charlie-hebdo/
That would be a nice OS feature, have a text translation engine that has an OCR component for images. If you visit a website in a language you don't know, the OS would translate everything inline for you. There's Google Translate but it's not the most efficient way, Safari can take a few KB text block from the safari content with a tap, send it through and get the translation back. I assume they could use Siri to do more meaningful translations.
The app has a $90 subscription for future editions:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/charlie-hebdo./id957966299?mt=8
Question is, are they going to allow other banned political cartoonists back in as well as cartoons with nudity or are they just making a special case for Hebdo? I would have expected them to allow just a single edition of Hebdo if it was a special case because they might push the boundaries in future editions like putting a pornographic photo in and a future ban would look bad. They've opened themselves up to being put in a very awkward situation.
I really think the best way around this is to have a special area of the App Store specifically for content that people might find objectionable. The comics have images and text that aren't suitable for children to read.
Taking a liberal approach to things and maintaining decency are not mutually exclusive. You can be liberal about nudity and sex but not in a public area.
The poll numbers do seem a bit high. There was polling done by ICM and found high numbers in different countries:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/16/islamic-state-arab-nations-britain-support_n_5995548.html
They're only polling 1,000 people per country so if their methods are not random enough, they can't be extrapolated to represent the whole country. Statistical theory suggests you can get away with such low samples but there's also issues like the respondents knowing what ISIS actually is, maybe some of them think it's like IKEA, maybe they don't know enough about what they did - the polling happened before some of the murders they committed.
There is a desire to twist the information in these issues one way or the other. A twitter campaign sparked off from Fox News reporting about Birmingham in the UK being all Muslim and nobody else allowed in:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/foxnewsfacts
One of the tweets was that the weather in Britain was sometimes Sunni but mostly Shi'ite. Another was that jam jars have been forced to convert to Islam by extremists:
They have managed to draw a very divisive line between what should be considered acceptable or not. Some Muslims are making it clear which side they're on:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910126/Muslims-stage-angry-protests-Charlie-Hebdo-s-Mohammed-cartoon-Boko-Haram-terror-leader-hails-Paris-massacre.html
I suspect once people read the content of Hebdo that the orders will fall back to a much lower point because it's a trashy magazine but two debate issues need to be separated out so that they don't get confused. This is not about promoting obscenity, it's partly about having sane guidelines over what constitutes obscenity but far more importantly that violent response is not appropriate. The fact that the demonstrations there are saying they don't apologize for what happened in France goes beyond saying they shouldn't have to apologize, it looks like support. They also took time to burn a picture with the Israeli flag, which shows there's more to this than the magazine.
Man, that’s embarrassing. And people wonder why I advocate for the expansion of the United States.
Why? That screengrab was from a news source in the USA.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/1-killed-3-injured-shooting-french-satirical-paper-article-1.2068486
The magazines are in French so that presents a problem for non-French-speaking countries. There's an online posting of it with English translations here:
http://animalnewyork.com/2015/heres-newest-issue-charlie-hebdo/
I am impressed , because they even translated the Christ / Beware of sunburn cartoon, which is the more typical of the Hara kiri / Charlie Hebdo spirit (and, you will notice, not against muslims ..). In face of this kind of humor, people divide in two clear cut camps : the ones who laugh, and the ones who feel deeply shocked. I am Christian, yet I fall into the first camp, I think it cannot be explained to some people, that's the key issue ...
Now that they have got an incredible amount of money, I think that they can afford in the future to issue an english version . But they are completely disorganized at the moment, and they need some more time for this, I think.
The comedian that was mentioned earlier who had a play banned has been arrested in France for a single Facebook post now and he could get up to 7 years in prison if he's found guilty:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/14/377201227/controversial-french-comedian-arrested-over-facebook-post-on-paris-attacks
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/15/erin-pkg-marquez-comedian-dieudonne-arrested.cnn
"Dieudonne's alleged crime: writing "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly" (I am Charlie Coulibaly) on his Facebook account."
Coulibaly is the surname of one of the gunmen.
"Inciting terrorism is a crime with a five-year prison term in France; inciting terrorism online can lead to seven years in prison."
<..>
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently
Very well documented article. Only one minor correction to it : under Mr Hollande presidency, the possibility in our legal system to prosecute somebody for insulting the President of the Republic has been abolished.
One can consider that, from an historical viewpoint, this offense was a remain of the ancient "lèse majesté" offense (offense to the king, or capital offense) (which was, at that time, the more severely punished one ...).
You can now judge by yourself ! (English and Spanish versions available) :
(when you visualize the content, you have to tap on the text or the image to display the text in english)
About the so-called NOGO zones :
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Eating-drinking-in-NO-GO-2414721.S.5962285944462655490?view=&gid=2414721&type=member&item=5962285944462655490
("Bonjour Paris" is an open discussion group of native English speakers, mostly American ones, living in Paris or having some sort of connection with Paris)
its great that apple supports freedom of speech