Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

This one just started.

 

Wow! Forty-six out of 1.8 billion! I'm impressed.

 

If the Pope condemned a crime by a Catholic, would you say, wow, one of out three billion?

 

IF!

 

I honestly don't know how you have the time or energy, YF. I mean, I have more free time most days for 8 people, but damn.

 

To the Editor:

The decision of The New York Times to report on the murders in Paris of journalists who worked for Charlie Hebdo while not showing a single example of the cartoons that led to their executions is regrettable. There are times for self-restraint, but in the immediate wake of the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory, you would have served the cause of free expression best by engaging in it.

FLOYD ABRAMS
New York, Jan. 8, 2015

The writer, a First Amendment lawyer, represented The Times in the Pentagon Papers case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/after-the-terrorist-attack-in-paris.html

 

Al Jazeera English is definitely not Charlie:

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate [sic]—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ls-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support

 

NPR can't reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, because doing so might be misleading:

But just because offensive images are part of a story does not mean a news organization must publish or post them with its news reports.

In this case, posting just a few of the cover images of the Prophet Muhammad that Charlie Hebdo published could be misleading. The images the magazine has put on its cover, for example, might be less offensive to some viewers than the more graphic cartoons that have appeared inside the magazine. Those include caricatures of a naked prophet.

Photos showing just a few of the magazine's covers could lead viewers to mistakenly conclude that Charlie Hebdo is only a bit edgier than other satirical publications. But a comprehensive display of Charlie Hebdo's work would require posting images that go well beyond most news organizations' standards regarding offensive material. At NPR, the policy on "potentially offensive language" applies to the images posted online as well. It begins by stating that "as a responsible broadcaster, NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience."

At this time, NPR is not posting images of Charlie Ebdo's most controversial cartoons – just as it did not post such images during earlier controversies involving the magazine and a Danish cartoonist's caricatures of the prophet. The New York Times has taken the same position. The Washington Post's editorial board has put one of Charlie Hebdo's Prophet Muhammad covers on the print version of its op-ed pages, but not online. News editors at NPR and other organizations continually review their judgments on these types of issues when the materials are potentially offensive because of their religious, racial or sexual content. That review process will continue.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...mpaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

 

Slavish devotion.

 

LOL:

It would have given great offense, had anyone known it was there.

For the first half of the 20th century, an eight-foot-tall marble statue of the Prophet Muhammad overlooked Madison Square Park from the rooftop of the Appellate Division Courthouse at Madison Avenue and 25th Street.

Sixty years ago, the statue was quietly removed, in an episode that now looks, in light of recent events in Paris, like the model of tact, restraint and diplomacy.
...

“They probably didn’t know he was there,” George T. Campbell, the chief clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department, said in 1955, when the statue was finally removed out of deference to Muslims, to whom depictions of the prophet are an affront.

(For the same reason, The New York Times has chosen not to publish photographs of the statue with this article.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/n...-taken-down-years-ago.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

Darn you for responding to speculation for facts.