4 ms·

An alternate take: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/guardian-view-charlie-hebdo-show-solidarity-own-voice http://www.theguardian.com/comment

An alternate take: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/guardian-view-charlie-hebdo-show-solidarity-own-voice http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/guardia... TLDR: the decision of what a media outlet should publish belongs with that outlet and fear of violent reprisals is very far from being the only reason to not publish an item.

laurent123456 12y ago
Thanks for the link. I was wondering how they rationalize this decision of censoring themselves, but it actually makes sense, especially this part - "Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice."
- louhike 12y ago
  You should replace the example of a neonazi journalist. It is a really bad one considering a lot of people consider wrongly Charlie Hebdo as a racist journal (one of the people killed was a corrector, Mustapha Ourad, and did not have the french nationality).
bnegreve 12y ago
Maybe, but this is still what people call censorship [1], so the claim is arguably true. [1] The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. (www.oxforddictionaries.com/) Edit: (Trying to be more factual) NYDailyNews removed unacceptable parts, which is censorship according to [1]. I'm not claiming this was a good/bad decision.
pervycreeper 12y ago
What a disgraceful statement of cowardice. They didn't even sign their names to the editorial.
kenny_r 12y ago
If every media outlet shows the uncensored image there isn't a single target for violent reprisals. Collectively shouting "I'm Spartacus" protects the collective and sends a strong message.
arrrg 12y ago
The right to free speech also includes the right to not republish things you think are crap (or just not appropriate) … That seems so obvious to me. Obviously, if it’s the fear of violent attacks that leads to that behaviour then that’s problematic, but that’s a separate discussion.
usethis 12y ago
The cartoons are a very key part of this story. By censoring them, you're censoring a part of the news, which has nothing to do with the voice or stance of your newspaper.

laurent123456 12y ago

Thanks for the link. I was wondering how they rationalize this decision of censoring themselves, but it actually makes sense, especially this part - "Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice."

louhike 12y ago
You should replace the example of a neonazi journalist. It is a really bad one considering a lot of people consider wrongly Charlie Hebdo as a racist journal (one of the people killed was a corrector, Mustapha Ourad, and did not have the french nationality).

bnegreve 12y ago

Maybe, but this is still what people call censorship [1], so the claim is arguably true. [1] The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. (www.oxforddictionaries.com/) Edit: (Trying to be more factual) NYDailyNews removed unacceptable parts, which is censorship according to [1]. I'm not claiming this was a good/bad decision.

pervycreeper 12y ago

What a disgraceful statement of cowardice. They didn't even sign their names to the editorial.

kenny_r 12y ago

If every media outlet shows the uncensored image there isn't a single target for violent reprisals. Collectively shouting "I'm Spartacus" protects the collective and sends a strong message.

arrrg 12y ago

The right to free speech also includes the right to not republish things you think are crap (or just not appropriate) … That seems so obvious to me. Obviously, if it’s the fear of violent attacks that leads to that behaviour then that’s problematic, but that’s a separate discussion.

usethis 12y ago

The cartoons are a very key part of this story. By censoring them, you're censoring a part of the news, which has nothing to do with the voice or stance of your newspaper.