Having read dozens of online pieces, from a wide array of sources, telling me in one way or another that the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hedbo, provoked the terrorist attack that killed 12 innocent people – 10 of them magazine employees – and injured 11 others, I have to say that I disagree….partially.
Let\’s start with the fact that France has a free press, and magazines can satirize and/or disdain and/or offend anyone they want. Which is as it should be.
Let\’s also point out that the people responsible for this attack are the people who did the attacking. No one forced them to break into Charlie Hedbo offices and start killing as many people as they could, or to kill two policeman – one of whom was on the ground, injured, with his hands up in surrender (not the Michael Brown kind, the real kind) and mercilessly executed in cold blood anyway (like Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu as they sat, docilely, in their police car).
But there is another issue here. One of incitement/encouragement.
While Charlie Hedbo had every right to publish what they did, and while the Islamic terrorists are solely responsible for the murders, it is also true that, by putting up material guaranteed to enrage Muslim fundamentalists, the magazine incited and encouraged the murderers to act.
Let me say, again, that I in no way question Charlie Hedbo\’s right to publish what they did. I am saying – as Jay Carney very correctly did years ago in his capacity as President Obama\’s Press Secretary – that there is a difference between exercising your rights and exercising good judgment.
The people who put up that material certainly knew that doing so entailed a risk. They took the risk and have suffered unspeakable consequences for it.
Personally, I hope that every broadcast and print venue on the planet will now put out examples of Charlie Hedbo\’s material. The more the merrier. That way, freedom will be served and no one venue will become a lightning rod for murderous fanatical lunatics. You can\’t “avenge the prophet” with an attack on a single source when there are 1,000 of them.
Incidentally, not to muddy the waters here but, conceptually, isn\’t this identical to a physically attractive young lady walking down the street with her shorts so high you can see the bottom part of her backside, and her boobs barely covered? She has the right to wear extremely provocative clothes, and someone who decides to try molesting, even raping, her is 100% at fault for doing so. But hasn\’t she played a part by doing everything she could to incite and encourage their prurient interest?
What you just read is the kind of stuff that arouses extreme anger among some people – like, for example, self-righteous students at college campuses and unconditional liberal/leftists….
….who, when they are among themselves and have no need to “prove” their PC credentials, probably have plenty to say about who is dressed hot and who is not.
Actions have consequences, folks.
