"Was freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of expression critically wounded in this attack, with the weapon being fear?"

Only if the media allow it, which judging by the coverage so far, they are.

When people in the media openly criticize christianity and judaism, but then self-censor on violent islamism, then yes, freedom of expression is indeed, "critically wounded".

Sincerely.

Need evidence?
Web Link

Sincerely.

Dan, thank you for the post. But This wasn't the first attack. The newspaper was firebombed in 2011 because of a cartoon on the cover of the prophet Mohammad. The publisher just wrote a column where he said he'd rather die than live like a rat. Maybe that made the animals who murdered him more determined.

Also, I listened to Wolf Blitzer's report on CNN. I did not take away from his report that he thought the paper did anything wrong or "went over the line." He did say they didn't back down after threats. In fact, he made a point of me saying they have been doing the same thing for over 100 years. (I couldn't do what I normally do, however, and monitor different channels because I'm out of the country. It bothers me to not know how and what was reported on the other news stations.)

Between this and "The Interview" hack/debacle a few weeks ago, I feel freedom of expression is being deterred. I feel like the press - news sources or satirical weekly magazines - are being told to basically sit down and shut up. Or get hacked. Or get killed.

I hope the Muslim leaders speak up soon to condemn this. I'm confident this act of terrorism is an embarrassment and horrorifying to them. We can't hold the group responsinle for the actions of a few, but we can't allow the actions of a few to stop us from expressing our feelings and speaking the truth.

Hi Gina,

Thanks for the response.

It seem pretty clear from the article that when WB characterizes the commentary from Charlie as occasionally ?over the line?, that he is suggesting that the mag might be responsible for its own demise.

Call it what you will, but that is not emphatically stating support for freedom of expression.
In fact, it suggests the opposite; that we have to limit our expression so that murderous thugs won't slaughter us for the temerity of insulting their prophet.

From an earlier town hall blog (I can't remember the author) it was discussed what happened to the silicon valley businessman who had the audacity to contribute his money to the prop 8 campaign and then was summarily fired due to the uproar.

What about his freedom of expression?

That's just two examples; there are many more.

It seems to me that there is a social/political/religious class that is doing its best to stifle any expression that they deem hateful and our major media has largely abetted them.

Maybe you can tell us why the major media has a virtual blackout on the Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi?s historic New Year?s speech in Cairo calling for an Islamic reformation?

Not a peep. Why?

Sincerely.

And more:
Web Link

The above describes policies at CNN and NBC.

Mainstream media indeed.

Sincerely.

Dan, Very interesting, and disturbing, link to the memo about not showing the cartoon "offensive to some Muslims." This is what I was talking about in my original post.

Again, I didn't take away from watching WB that he implied the Charlie staff was responsible for their own demise. I think he was saying they knew they were pushing the limits by going "over the line" of what they knew might offend a small group, but did it anyway.

As far as the social/ political/ religious class stifling freedom of expression, I would love to be able to debate that, but I agree. Why is it ok to, for example, say "Jesus Christ!" and "God damn it!" as expressions of frustration on national television? Many Christians find that offensive. But it's not ok to print a cartoon some Muslims find offensive? It's ok to state your beliefs, as long as you are part of the majority?

Finally, maybe now is the time the New Year's speech should be aired. Maybe it wasn't aired because it had no direct news tie (and, of course, there were football games and parades to cover... Don't get me started on that...). Now, unfortunately, there is a news tie.

Gina,

You wrote:

"Why is it ok to, for example, say "Jesus Christ!" and "God damn it!" as expressions of frustration...Many Christians find that offensive. But it's not ok to print a cartoon some Muslims find offensive?"

Well, exactly?!

Back in the 80's you might remember an artist by the name of Andres Serrano who created the infamous "P!ss Christ"?

There was a huge uproar among the Catholic community, with wide-spread protests at the museums that featured the work. There were death threats and lawsuits as well. I remember reading about this controversy and seeing pictures in the local media sources of the day.

But nobody was killed over it...

And the media was all too happy to report on Andreas Serrano's right to freedom of expression and reproduce the pictures.

Why doesn't the major media stand up for freedom of expression now?

Indeed.

Sincerely

Dan,

I read on another site that the Serrano image was removed from the Associated Press (AP) website. I just did a search on AP.org and it isn't there.

It is on Wikipedia. Web Link Interestingly if you didn't know the medium in which the crusifix is placed, the photo is very beautiful.

Roz

Roz,

Maybe this is why: Web Link

Gawker isn't usually a site I'd link too, but its very interesting that up until yesterday, they had coverage of P!ss Christ in their website.

All those raging Christians must have been threatening them over Andres Serranos "masterpiece"? <---sarcasm

But seriously, their hypocrisy doesn't surprise me one bit.

Sincerely.

Edit to my last..."they" = AP

Dan