8 ms·
Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo
- zirkonit 12y agoJe suis Charlie.
- b_emery 12y agotranslation: "I'm Charlie"
- zirkonit 12y agoAnd the slogan of solidarity to the victims of the tragedy, for the unaware.
- nakedrobot2 12y agoNone of you are Charlie. You did not stand up to firebombs and death threats and keep on working. You're not Charlie, sorry. And neither am I.
- freehunter 12y agoPerhaps you don't understand what solidarity means. You don't literally have to be the same as the person in order to believe in what they stood for.
- balabaster 12y agoClearly you've never seen Spartacus
- b_emery 12y agoThanks, I am the unaware!
- balabaster 12y agoNous sommes tous Charlie
- JumpCrisscross 12y ago"We are not all Charlie. Much of Europe, which, as a political entity, is not fully grappling with the totalitarian madness of Islamism, is not Charlie. Certainly much of journalism is not Charlie. Any outlet that censors Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of fear of Islamist reprisal is not Charlie. To publish the cartoons now is a necessary, but only moderately brave, act. Please remember: Even after Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011, it continued to publish rude and funny satires mocking the essential ridiculousness of the Islamist worldview. That represented a genuine display of bravery. CNN, the Associated Press, and the many other media organizations that are cowering before the threat of totalitarian violence represent something other than bravery." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/we-are-not-all-charlie-hebdo-attack/384319/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/we-...
- tjradcliffe 12y agoJe suis Charlie: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704 If you're not, too bad. But all you have to do is stand up. You can do it whenever you want, however you want, but you can always do it.
- junto 12y agoI know it would be inflammatory, but I can think of an extremely provocative Google doodle "cartoon" that would put the cat amongst the pigions and make a statement about Google's position on free speech in this particular matter.
- RadioactiveMan 12y agoIf a cartoon puts Google employees in a position where they could be targeted by threats or violence, it would be an awful move.
- JumpCrisscross 12y agoAgree. Charlie Hebdo was a small shop. Everyone understood what was happening and had visibility into what was going to be done. Charlie Hebdo could take risks with its team because they were so close to each other. Google's senior management taking that decision on behalf of its vast and global team may be less tenable.
- nailer 12y agoThere's already an Isis message published to their followers to find and kill staff of another Silicon Valley tech giant for percieved slights. So the threat wouldn't be new, but taking a stand publicly would.
- eterm 12y agoIt would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention. You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". You are suggesting that free speech should not be exercised if there is any threat or violence. That is not free speech.
- peeters 12y ago> You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". It's not "giving in" when you would never do something like that in the first place (without the threat of violence). It's just continuing to not do it.
- themartorana 12y agoBravo. In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. and around the world, it's on the U.S. and its citizens to protect free speech and/or show their support for those who have been silenced around the world. If Google does that by donating some money, the message is still very clear and, at least from me, quite appreciated. Freedom is never free, and human life, sadly, seems like the ongoing and unending price.
- blazespin 12y agoThis is not about free speech. There is no such things as "free speech" (look what happen to Snowden, for example). Try to publish plans for a nuclear bomb, for example, and see where free speech gets you. Try doing this extreme parody on sacred cows of the US and not expect a visit from the SS - sacred cows, such as certain family members of political entities. This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it. Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc). What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate. That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that. edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that. Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point. I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race. Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion. The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.
- samstave 12y agoWonderful. What a tragedy. While there are many tragedies happening recently, it's great to see how the world reacted to this, but still underscores how poorly the world reacts to other incidents like the recent slaughter of 2,000 people in Africa by Boko Haram.
- pm90 12y agoThe "world" as most people on HN define it consists of the more stabilized parts of the Earth, perhaps because the participants in both HN and media come from those parts. So, I'll hazard a guess that the "world" cares more about French editors being slaughtered because it brings the violence uncomfortably close to home. Also, perhaps more people of the "world" can relate to the French editors than poor African villagers. It's a sad state to be sure. Until we have some kind of common ground, it is harder to feel empathy. I will admit that I was much more shocked by this attack than the slaughter that you mention, which I even now know little about.
- boracay 12y agoPeople don't really care about fighting extremism, they just want to be right. The whole things is just a charade. Not because we suddenly want to stand up for free speech and civil rights. But because we are so terribly afraid of being just as wrong as the extremists. That we would know of, if not instigated, the terrible faith of hundreds of thousands of muslims in the last decade and didn't really do anything about it.
- samstave 12y agoYeah, I agree with what you're saying. As I get older, I get pretty depressed about certain aspects of the state of the world. I have three kids, and I want them to experience the wonderment and beauty of the world that I saw growing up.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 12y agoFrance has been a Google v. the traditional press ground zero for some time [1]. One hopes the press will react to Google's gracious move positively. I expect denouncements. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/france-google http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/france-goo...
- Ensorceled 12y agoI would be incredibly shocked and surprised if the French press had anything negative at all to say about this. This seems to be a time of solidarity in the French press and they'll be welcoming any and all support.
- moultano 12y ago"Je suis Charlie" is on the homepage of https://www.google.fr/ https://www.google.fr/
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoNot for me (UK)
- id 12y agoYou probably need to set the language to French.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoThat was it; thanks.
- Ensorceled 12y agoAre you actually going to google.fr or google.co.uk?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- id 12y agoThere is also a black ribbon on some other Google homepages. The black ribbon has been displayed in the light of similar events before. Je suis Charlie: https://www.google.com/images/hpp/jesuischarlie68x68.png https://www.google.com/images/hpp/jesuischarlie68x68.png Black ribbon: https://www.google.com/images/icons/hpcg/ribbon-black_68.png https://www.google.com/images/icons/hpcg/ribbon-black_68.png
- nakedrobot2 12y agoInteresting figure. In Google-land, why $300K and not $1M? I don't want to say that it's not a lot of money, I'm just wondering how someone arrived at this sum.
- StavrosK 12y agoYou can ask that question about any sum, making the answer "why not 300K?"
- joeyyang 12y agoIt's €250,000 ($296,000).
- sho_hn 12y agoAs I understood the article's implication here, the objective is to help the magazine accomplish it's impending much larger print run and cover expenses related to that, so perhaps the sum was negotiated along practical rather than symbolic concerns. Which would make sense since it's the easiest to explain and justify.
- matteotom 12y agoPossibly some combination of taxes and internal company policy? ie, they have $x they donate per year, and can get a $y tax write off for donating to a company/non-profit(?) in another country, so they donate $300,000.
- coldtea 12y agoProbably: "We were given a budget of $2m in this department ("innovative press" etc). We want to fund this other N projects in 2015, what can we give to Charlie?"
- tim333 12y agoI think it's to cover the costs of Charlie printing a million copies of the next edition rather than the usual 60,000.
- ldng 12y agoCharlie Hebdo was going under. They'd already made a call for donation in November. It's not Google directly. Google finance a fund for press innovation (IIRC, that was set up to settle some trial). This found decide to match the 250,000 euros donate by some french press association to arrive to a total of 500,000 euros. (Can't find the article I read this afternoon right now. I'll edit when I found the source.) The money is needed to be able to print 1 million issues of Charlie Hebdo for next week instead of the usual 60,000. To publish, whatever happened/happens.
- mkawia 12y agoIt's awful what happened to them . But they are racist/bigot cartoonists . Imagine if someone attacked Rush Limbaugh it would be bad for freedom of speech but it won't change that he's a bad person like these cartoonist. Here are those girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wj8pQ_7T--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/tdc5t2tmvpkfpovubygc.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wj8pQ_7T... here is black Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2Ea5CAgX--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/q2ydp3x50xtcektdwz2n.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2Ea5CAgX... Freedom of speech and all that stuff ,but these people are awful
- Oletros 12y ago> But they are racist And you're lying
- mkawia 12y agoIf you can categorically say they didn't draw those cartoons ie a black person as a monkey , Then yes I'd wrong .
- violoncello 12y agoThe symbol on the left is the logo of Front national and the text says something in the lines of "Racist Assembly". I don't speak French but I think you might be missing something, sir.
- erispoe 12y agoThey did this cartoon to denounce the way the French Minister of Justice was mocked in some conservative demonstrations around marriage equality and access to assisted procreative technologies as a monkey. People were shouting "Taubira (the minister's name), eat your banana" at these demonstrations, and this cartoon denounces that. The name is even a wordplay on the name of the French main far-right party.
- bronson 12y ago
- chvid 12y agoGoogle could of course also put one of Charlie's "controversial" cartoons on its front page. The one with Mohammed crying and saying "it is hard to be loved by idiots" seems relevant. No? This is how censorship works: the threat of violence already limits what even the biggest and strongest "champion of free speech" can do.
- facepalm 12y agoWhy don't you start by posting it on your Twitter stream?
- chvid 12y agoBecause I am not Charlie. I don't have that courage.
- garrettgrimsley 12y agoC'mon, its easy! http://a54.idata.over-blog.com/3/88/02/15/2010-101112/charlie_hebdo_c_est_dur_d_etre_aime_par_des_cons_cabu.jpg http://a54.idata.over-blog.com/3/88/02/15/2010-101112/charli... Note: please direct all death threats to my uni email.
- facepalm 12y agoNot sure if that is wise :-/
- garrettgrimsley 12y agoAh yea, good point. Use garrettgrimsley@gmail. The uni email notifies me each time I get an email from an address on my spam list, which soundly defeats the purpose of the spam list!
- happyscrappy 12y agoIslamists are consistently in the running for stupidest worldwide, they are their own worst enemy. They seriously could not be more damaging to their cause. Pretending that these acts have nothing to do with Islam will be the death of the left and The National Front are now electable.
- dang 12y agoUrl changed from http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-donating-300-000-to-charlie-hebdo?cid=cm_gglchr_nw_cdn_dt_ag_101224 http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-donating..., which points to this.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ck2 12y agoNo-one deserves death or prison for speech/art. That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world. I don't get the point of satire. It just makes people who already agree pat themselves on the back and the people you are mocking will double down to spite you. It's not intellectually clever, it is just bullying in another form. You want people to change without war, then you need dialog. Satire is not dialog, it is a one-way street.
- Ensorceled 12y agoSome people are swayed by rational argument and some are not. Some people are swayed by emotional argument and some are not. Some people are swayed by satire and some are not. Satire, it general, is not intended for the people being satirized, it's intended to enlighten the audience about the true nature of those being satirized. This satire, in particular, was meant to illustrate to the French audience that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Islam already knows that it is not. Just because you, personally, seem confused by satire to the point of bewilderment and anger doesn't mean satire is not an effective tool in convincing others on important topics and issues.
- ck2 12y agoSee how we are having a conversation and you are trying to convince me of something? I have to believe that is the best way to make the world work eventually, or at least get people to stop killing each other. If I was to then start calling you names or mocking what you hold dear, the outcome is guaranteed to end badly. Now if you are saying satire is the way give the non-deep thinking third-parties cartoons like people read the funny-pages, I still do not see how that solves anything. If the cartoon is what it takes to make them grasp something then you are not dealing with something rational.
- mkawia 12y agoThere's good satire. Religious even ,it can even be blasphemous and it will all be a non religious person being non religious-sy. But inciting people and/or depicting people as terrorist only ends up bad and nothing's good ever comes out of it .
- jayess 12y agoYou can also subscribe to the magazine in the US through Amazon, although it's $186.25 a year: http://amzn.to/17n94Hc http://amzn.to/17n94Hc
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- NotGoogle 12y agoGoogle is not donating to Charlie Hebdo. A fund not managed by Google that Google has to pay into as a result of being fined by the French government is giving the money to help ensure the continuation of its publication. From article: "The press innovation fund was set up in February 2013 to settle the dispute between Google and the French government over whether the internet group should pay to display news content in its search results. Financed but not managed by Google, that money will go to support the survival of the weekly."
- andyjohnson0 12y agoThe Guardian has announced that they are donating £100k to Charlie Hebdo [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/553298181568884737 https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/553298181568884737
- xster 12y agoI think we all agree that this support is very heartwarming and meaningful but also makes one think who's donating to all the drone strike victims for whom not only freedom of expression but freedom is existence is continually threatened? I agree that empathy is obviously not a zero sum game but find that it's also unfortunate that the media's subtle nudge on public sentiment is tipping an already unbalanced situation into more unbalance.