Charlie Hebdo: Should satire only target people in power? | Channel 4 News
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Will Self, who teaches contemporary thought at Brunel University, tells Channel 4 News that free speech comes with responsibility and satire should only target people in power. Cartoonist Martin Rowson says “total freedom of expression is ludicrous."
More on the Charlie Hebdo attack: bit.ly/1I101Zw
Subscribe to Channel 4 News: bit.ly/1sF6pOJ
Top stories: bit.ly/1wdbIG1
"Should satire only target people in power?"
This proposition is so ridiculous that it deserves not just satire itself but complete derision.
bullshit, 'satire' of minority groups is just a thin veil for hate speech, just like Nazi propaganda demonising jews.
ufewl
And that's all the more reason for it to be protected by freedom of speech.
colourmegone Just saying, white people mocking an oppressed group of people is the exact opposite of the spirit of satire.
Haaris Qureshi
The spirit of satire is to deflate pomposity and expose hypocrisy. If an "oppressed group of people" are guilty of these then there's no reason not to use satire to point it out.
The whole thing boils down to the freedom of speech and ideas. Please watch this video and its Part 2:
Christopher Hitchens: "Freedom of Speech (2006)" - Part 1 of 2
Link: czcams.com/video/4W4zBRLenL8/video.html
colourmegone So why then did a tribunal in Lyon sentenced Bruno Gollnisch to a three-month, suspended prison-term and a fine of €5,000 for the offense of contesting information about the Holocaust. What the FUCK happened to freedom of expression there?
Extremely disappointed with Will Self.
If Will Self is ever physically attacked for his writing: I shall sit at his hospital bedside, whilst the doctors are deciding whether or not to turn off the life support and play this back to him.
the UK is lost. these guys bring their heritage to shame
Will Self .... spot on!
Seems to me that will self only wants his version of satire to exist. Other people's satire can be slaughtered by religious groups because they're not in power.
They do have power and it is being abused therefore , if governments do nothing then the satirists and others need to act.
Free speech paradox: Free speech is allowed to condemn and make fun of everything. But free speech must be absolute and cannot be condemn. Hypocrites
An even simpler way of putting this is to say 'I'm utilising my free speech to say that you can't say that'
@@zetandpeligaming true that 😅😂
Absolutely love Will Self... Completely wrong about this though.
He is spot on
Kick up not down😉
I believe in free speech but, I think Will Self shouldn't be able to speak under threat of prison!
distrust of mob mentality, and contempt for politicians is not sneering; look it up
I like Will Self criticizing Charlie Hebdo for not criticizing powerful people, while he does not dare criticizing radical Islamism. Obviously he knows that it is much more easy to criticize dead cartoonists than criticizing Islam...
Will Self is right
Kick up not down
☝😉
👇
freedom is not absolute; you don't have freedom to shout 'fire' in a theatre
words, when used in rhetoric, have consequences.
Seems like a false and rather shallow equivalency to equate absolutism when it comes to the free expression of ideas with that which proscribes certain forms of expression according to religious dictates. Self’s contention is likewise superficial in asserting that satire should only be directed at those in power or “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” as they say.
I think he made a fair point. Some ideas enjoy more freedom than others. Charlie Hebdo self censored when it came to Israeli war conflicts. As Self said, they don't attack the powerful as they're part of the bullying mob rule. Charlie Hebdo played their part in the downfall of de Gaulle. Their output wasn't comedy but more a form of political badgering of minorities. It went too far and they brought their problems on themselves. Enough said.
John Trollinger You’re not really considering the complete spectrum of their output when you suggest it was all “political badgering of minorities” as they frequently attacked the Vatican, the French government, various politicians, etc. As for “self-censoring” my understanding that it wasn’t of “Israeli war conflicts” but one instance where they sacked someone for a vicious anti-Semitic attack against the son of the French president (not sure if that’s the complete story behind the firing). Yes, I suppose they did bring it on themselves to a certain extent, but that certainly doesn’t warrant the murder of 12 people as you unsympathetically seem to feel.
*****
Just look at who they target. Study their "complete output". How often do they attack Israel? That's what I mean by self censoring. Their output went beyond comedy and was far to controversial. Best not to antagonize minorities. There's a thin line between comedy and abuse. Will Self put his point across very well. Not only do I have sympathy for the Paris victims but also the people in Sirte, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Donbass, Rainbow Warrior etc etc.
John Trollinger Not looking terribly hard: hichamhamza.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/shoah_hebdo2-b65b11.jpg
Plenty more where that came from.
Goodness, wouldn't want to "antagonize minorities"... Heaven forbid! Can't ever do that in free society. Well, enjoy it while it lasts.
*****
Try harder.
I'm amazed that I ever used to respect Self. He's almost incomprehensibly vacuous.
What an absolute coward Will Self is. Freedom of Speech must be absolute.
Will Self really is an unprincipled coward.
+WillB85 He's one of the most appalling left-wing thinkers in existence. That sneering, vacuous voice of his, the inverse relationship between the number of big words he uses and the number of actual ideas he has, the dreadful, regressive terror he has of rationalism, science and Enlightenment values in general...it's notable that, despite clearly regarding himself as some kind of renegade, original, contrarian iconoclast, he is in fact stultifyingly unoriginal. His positions on pretty much any political issue you care to name are mirrored in slightly less florid fashion by Russell Brand. In the same way that I can tell exactly what an American hard-right-winger's going to say about the major political topics of the day before they've even opened their mouths I can similarly tell exactly what someone like him, Russell Brand, John Gray, etc. is going to say before they've said it. As a left-wing liberal it is incredibly disappointing to have a large tranche of the left dominated by group-thinking air-heads like Self.
@@thesprawl2361 😅😅😅😅
1. Will Self has argued very brilliantly and lucidly.
2. And Martin Rowson's final point about the need for Muslims to develop a thicker skin even to ABUSE disguised as 'free speech' is equally critical moving forward.
+abrokenlife It's not "abuse disguised as free speech". It's satire, and Islam received its share just like every other sector of French society(far less than Catholicism received in fact). The people who dragged the good names of a group of cartoonists through the dirt, in many cases less than twenty-four hours after their murder, hadn't even seen the cartoons to which they referred.
The left's frequently despicable reaction to the Charlie Hebdo killings will go down as(hopefully) the moment when it hit rock-bottom in its craven, apologetic, appeasing relationship with conservative and extremist Islam.
Will Smith should not have stop the drugs.
10 out of 10 Will Self. As opposed to that cartoonist who wants to show how good at french he is.
He's referring to the 68ers, it's a particular segment of a generation and they are referred to as soixante-huitards because of the connection with France.
I agree with the base of Will Self's argument - that, like any right or privilege, free speech does and must come with responsibilities. But, for me, these apply to personal insults, or ad hominen use of free speech; in other words, I don't feel that attacks on a person's character, or things written or said to deliberately insult a person or people, are legitimate uses of free speech.
Where I think Self has failed to acknowledge a distinction, and where I believe free speech is not burdened by such responsibilities, is when it concerns ideas. Ideologies and doctrines, whether they be religious, political or even scientific, should not be exempt from free speech. Therefore, we should not feel restricted by anything when we attack faith. As long as we are playing the ball and not the man, so to speak, then we have nothing to feel bad about.
Will Self gets it right. Remember Rainbow Warrior?
See how the French government treat freedom of speech.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_(1955)
no tell us about it
Will Self s always so strange and interesting.
he was a bit rude last time he came on C4N
what you mean intelligent can talking sense? yes it is a new experience to see that in the media.
I recall him being shut down for bad mouthing one of the guests.
because he thinks for himself.
I have to disagree with Will here, it's good to see religious believers provoked, prodded and cajoled.
Though the end results are often despicable and sadly end in violence, it does demonstrate how simian these "God's" who are afraid of the human tongue, or pen really are, and how primitive they encourage their followers to be.
What an embarrasing apologist.
Will Self the contrarian strikes again
Two far Left guardianistas agreeing with each other. What a surprise.
simply because non Muslims have no equivalent in terms of sheer respect that we have for our Prophet Mohammed may peace be upon him.
😂😂😂😂
If I was a religious leader in Islam, I would be asking serious questions of these supposed believers, I mean if you have to resort to your most primitive human impulses to defend the honour of your "God", how weak and imaginary does that portray your god to be? How worldly, vain and irreligious must one be to go to such lengths?
It's as though the killers don't even believe in the God, (his attributes, eternal punishments "he" bestows, judgement day and so on) themselves, and have to resort to using Western weaponry to achieve a satiation their "God" is powerless to grant them, and if "He" did exist would surely find reprehensible...But then I've read the Quran and blood lust, war and destruction is certainly inherent to the book.
👏👏👏👏...