The author refers to cartoons of catholic nuns masturbating as
malicious slander. Only if the author has hang-ups about
the normality of human sexuality can I understand a view of
this as malicious slander.

Is it malicious slander to say that he himself most probably
masturbates or that every animal on the planet is sexual
and enjoys sex.

Some people just don't like having reality thrust into their consciousness. That's why they were killed because of those cartoons.

The pope should allow the wearing of condoms when millions are dying
from aids. If he did put a condom on and pose for a photo so what.
if God made his penis what could be wrong with it.
It is just humans and the way they like to make things taboo
that is the problem, I can't see God being at all shocked.

If you believe in creation he gave us our sexual organs didn't he
so why should we be ashamed of them. This again is just human
squeamishness about sex. Nothing to do with God.

Religion always wants to make sex the biggest sin and taboo, even
more than murder and child abuse. It is certainly true of the muslim fundamentalists. Whacking women with rods if they show and inch of ankle. They need to grow up and face some reality.
They'd rather kill first.

Any way you look at it humiliating moderate Muslims while we are fighting extremism is more than a tad stupid.
The media is full of morons that don't think past their own financial gain even if it does mean inciting global violence.
The lampooning of the prophet Mohammad on the latest cover of Charlie Hedbo after the bloody violence that occurred there a few days ago made me realise that the people that work at the magazine/comic are absolute dead set morons.

The author also sets up a false dichotomy for the title “real heroes of freedom of expression” between the Charlie Hebdo staff and Steven Sotloff and James Foley, the journalists beheaded by IS. Much though Sotloff and Foley deserve our admiration, and their families our compassion, I don’t think they were killed for “speaking truth to power”, as Jamil claims. They were killed because they were western targets who would attract media attention, much like aid worker David Haines and mountaineering guide Hervé Gourdel. Their work took them to dangerous places, and their courage deserves respect. But in this case, I doubt it was the content of their work that got them killed – unlike the CH staff.

On a completely different, but also very much related note re the function of the mainstream media in manufacturing consent (Chomsky) and protecting the interests of the rich and powerful FASCISTS that really run the entire world why not check out this video - it goes for 3 and a half hours.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/assassination-studies-1/everything-is-a-rich-mans-trick

The long segment on the assassination of JFK is particularly fascinating - especially the role of a certain member of the BUSH clan who was carrying on the very dark legacy of his father Prescott whose activities during WWII are described earlier in the video.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if the recent Paris murders were a false flag operation to serve who knows what purposes of the behind the scenes players.

Re these FASCISTS, some people actually pretend that what is broadly called the left is responsible for all of the worlds troubles.

Leftism equals fascism, or so the fantasy goes.

You can have whatever laws you like in your muslim society and you have to afford us our preferences too. Perhaps a cartoon of muhammed having sex with a nine year old girl would be offensive to you but as he actually did it I cannot see why?
We in Australia would not only find that offensive but the act illegal in Australia. Perhaps this can assist you understand why we cannot get excited about you being offended.

@Loudmouth, Posted Thursday, 15 January 2015 5:17:15 PM
Joe
Yes I can see the differences you mention.
I respect the right to offend and insult, but I draw the line at incitement to violence. And slander is slander.
In my opinion the Charlie Hedbo cartoons crossed the line from the first to the second and third. They were, again in my opinion, an incitement to violence. They were also slanderous, not only to a man long dead but also to all those who hold him in the highest esteem.
The editorial board of CH let the cat out of the bag when they fired one of their own for not apologising after making an apparently anti-Semitic remark. And all the while they kept on with their puerile cartoons whose only purpose could only have been to offend and incite.
I do not consider the cartoonists at CH to be exercising free speech, but to be using free speech to offend and incite.
As for the nine year old girl, get over it. This was fifteen hundred years ago. Look to the royal families of Europe and the way they acquired brides not so long ago. Look to tribal societies today.