Guardian publishes article which opposes free speech award for Charlie Hebdo

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/i-admire-charlie-hebdos-courage-but-it-does-not-deserve-a-pen-award

Comparing Neo-Nazis to religious caricatures?

The comments below say it all.

(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username1258398

Unless I'm mistaken, they just took the piss out of religion, they didn't actually report anything important

Reply 2

Everglow

It's an opinion piece, so it's unlikely representative of The Guardian as a whole.

With that said, I think the following chunk from the article is quite fair comment:

I was horrified by the tragic murders at the Charlie Hebdo office; I have nothing but sympathy for the victims and survivors. I abhor censorship of every kind and I despise the use of violence as a means of enforcing silence. I believe that Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish whatever they wish.

But that is not the same as feeling that Charlie Hebdo deserves an award. As a friend wrote me: the First Amendment guarantees the right of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, but we don’t give them an award. The bestowing of an award suggests to me a certain respect and admiration for the work that has been done, and for the value of that work and though I admire the courage with which Charlie Hebdo has insisted on its right to provoke and challenge the doctrinaire, I don’t feel that their work has the importance – the necessity – that would deserve such an honor.

Supporting the free speech of Charlie Hebdo does not necessarily have to mean supporting what they write or believing they are deserving of a prestigious award.

Reply 3

Lady Comstock

Original post by Reluire

It's an opinion piece, so it's unlikely representative of The Guardian as a whole.

The Guardian specifically commissioned this opinion piece, and has not (as far as I am aware) commissioned any which take the opposite view.

Supporting the free speech of Charlie Hebdo does not necessarily have to mean supporting what they write or believing they are deserving of a prestigious award.

It was the "Freedom of Expression Courage Award", not the "Sugar-coated, Inoffensive Journalism Award". By continuing to publish their caricatures, and protest censorship despite death threats, and ultimately dying because of their refusal to give in to religious fascists, Charlie Hebdo are absolutely deserving of this award.

The author is almost saying that Charlie Hebdo do not deserve it because they were offensive to a religion. This is essentially saying that a "Freedom of Expression Courage Award" should not be awarded to an organisation which does not self-censor so as to avoid offending a religious minority. So, sorry, but it absolutely is opposing free speech.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 4

Lady Comstock

Original post by StrangeBanana

Unless I'm mistaken, they just took the piss out of religion, they didn't actually report anything important

That's not what the award is for.

Nevertheless, they do have editorial pieces and reports. Charlie Hebdo is not a comic book.

Reply 5

miser

I don't think they particularly deserve an award for their long-term work. If not for the attacks, we wouldn't be considering it, and it seems condescending to award them for victimhood.

However, they do deserve recognition for their defiance in response to the attacks. In that respect, they distinguished themselves from the majority of Western media.

Reply 6

username1258398

Original post by Lady Comstock

That's not what the award is for.

Nevertheless, they do have editorial pieces and reports. Charlie Hebdo is not a comic book.

It's called the "Freedom of Expression and Courage Award". It should be for actual reporting, not mocking people's beliefs - regardless of what anyone thinks of those beliefs.

Well, I think we all know they didn't win it for their editorial pieces, they won it because of what happened in January.

Reply 7

Lady Comstock

Original post by miser

Good thing the award isn't for your first paragraph then...

And a large amount of awards are for victimhood, particularly military awards. It's about the qualities that are shown in the face of victimhood.

Reply 8

Lady Comstock

Original post by StrangeBanana

What it 'should be' is immaterial. It is for showing courage in the face of censorship.

I question your reference to what it 'should be'. There are plenty of awards for quality journalism. Why should the specifications of this particular award be changed? Because you don't agree with the recipient?

Reply 9

Good bloke

Original post by StrangeBanana

It's called the "Freedom of Expression and Courage Award".

Noted. And remembered.

It should be for actual reporting, not mocking people's beliefs - regardless of what anyone thinks of those beliefs.

The award name does not mention reporting. It mention "expression". This certainly covers reporting, art, music, fiction and comment. So, why do you seek to exclude the challenging and criticism of religions?

Reply 10

Good bloke

Original post by miser

They have been threatened more than once over many years, culminating in the latest murderous attack and still published. Surely this is the very definition of what the award (and remember its name) is meant to reward?

Reply 11

Feline_Nymphet

Original post by Lady Comstock

What's your obsession with no censorship? Are you afraid that the freedom to be obnoxious and insensitive is threatened? What do you mean "courage?"

Reply 12

username1258398

Original post by Lady Comstock

What? If an award should be awarded for a particular kind of journalism, then it shouldn't be awarded for other types. That's the definition of "should", right there. :curious:

And I'm sure there are plenty of awards for satire as well, which is what this is. Changed from what? Was this award previously awarded for satire? I've tried to find previous recipients of the award, couldn't find any. Please link if you have!

Original post by Good bloke

Noted. And remembered.

The award name does not mention reporting. It mention "expression". This certainly covers reporting, art, music, fiction and comment. So, why do you seek to exclude the challenging and criticism of religions?

Okay.

It is awarded by PEN International, which is a literary organisation. I don't seek to exclude criticism of religion, don't try to imply bias on my part just because we disagree.

Reply 13

Lady Comstock

Original post by Feline_Nymphet

What's your obsession with no censorship? Are you afraid that the freedom to be obnoxious and insensitive is threatened?

I doubt any liberal-minded, rational person would find themselves unconcerned by censorship.

The freedom to be obnoxious and insensitive is a fundamental part of free speech. Do you believe such speech should be outlawed? The reason why free speech is almost unrestricted is because offensiveness is subjective. The moment you start trying to define it is the moment the Qur'an is banned for its offensiveness, the moment homosexual charities are banned for offending religious groups, etc.

What do you mean "courage?"

I was referring to the award's title.

In the general sense, Charlie Hebdo most certainly showed courage. It continued to publish its satire despite death threats and attacks on its office, by religious fascists attempting to censor it, and paid the ultimate price by exercising its free speech and protesting censorship.

Reply 14

Feline_Nymphet

"Courage?" What's "courageous" about insulting people? What an implicit (yet still quite obvious) machination to guilt trip people who actually have home training and who show common decency. And why has this been brought up? Who really cares? Did any of you even read it before this crap happened? :colonhash:

Reply 15

tomfailinghelp

Original post by miser

Gosh, this isn't a very green response!

PRSOM though

Reply 16

Good bloke

Original post by StrangeBanana

It is awarded by PEN International, which is a literary organisation.

Then why do you say it should be awarded for reporting.

I don't seek to exclude criticism of religion, don't try to imply bias on my part just because we disagree

You disagree that Charlie Hebdo's writers, artists and staff have been courageous in the face of threats of violence and actual murder? :eek:

Reply 17

Lady Comstock

Original post by StrangeBanana

What? If an award should be awarded for a particular kind of journalism, then it shouldn't be awarded for other types. That's the definition of "should", right there. :curious:

The award seeks to recognise bravery in exercising free expression. The award is not restricted to any type of journalism.

Are you proposing that it should be restricted to a certain type of journalism? Would that not contradict the spirit of the award? That bravery in exercising free expression should only be recognised by organisations which cowardly self-censor their free speech to appease the sensitivities of others, with such people ranging from hand-wringing liberals to fanatical murderers?

The award specifies no type of journalism or outlet for free speech.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 18

ThatPerson

Original post by Lady Comstock

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/i-admire-charlie-hebdos-courage-but-it-does-not-deserve-a-pen-award

Comparing Neo-Nazis to religious caricatures?

The comments below say it all.

I thought this was a liberal newspaper?

The Guardian published this as an opinion piece in the "Comment is free" section. It is not representative of the view of the Guardian itself. The newspaper regularly publishes views that are opposed to its own for the sake of balance.

They have published an article (see here) on Salman Rushdie defending the decision to award Charlie Hebdo.