Thank You for the interesting comments.

I've just come across the following link
that presents another perspective to our
discussion - I'd like to see what you all think
about the article:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/charlie-hebdo-total-freedom-of-expression-has-little-chance-of-survival-in-an-imperfect-society-20150112-12mgih.html

Interesting, Foxy.

Here is an interesting link too, which gives posters here the opportunity to be practical and specific as to what satirical cartoons they reckon should be allowed(sic) if they were in charge. Or should all remain mute?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/acehs-sharia-law-raped-and-beaten-then-formally-whipped-20150109-12kucb.html

Hi Foxy

Interesting article. I think it confuses two different things, though – what one ought not to do, and what ought to be forbidden by law. Many of the US examples are not of things that are against the law, but of things that are “not done”. It is fair enough for US social conventions to make veteran or 9/11 jokes taboo, and for organisations and institutions to impose standards and conventions on members. I think racist, sexist and similar comments are despicable and deserve condemnation. But I don’t think they should be banned by law. There probably have to be some limits with genuine hate speech, as there are with libel and defamation. In my view the test in all cases is whether real damage is done or threatened, not merely “offense”.

It also depends on context and medium. Many of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons would be way out of place in mainstream media. They are deliberately transgressive and calculatingly offensive. But the people who buy the magazine know that. I don’t buy pornography, but I do not object to it being available for those who do.

I don’t agree with the article’s view that only certain groups can be mocked. While I agree in principle that it’s poor form to mock the weak and vulnerable, in practice there is no consensus on who these are. Too many groups claim the immunity of victim status. Protecting institutional religion or long-dead prophets will take us back to the days of blasphemy laws.

Incidentally, a Google search for “9/11 jokes” returns more than nine million hits, though the article says no one in the US tells them. So far as I know, no-one has ever called for these to be banned. Black humour can even be therapeutic.

Hi, o sung wu

I hope you don’t feel you need to withdraw from the thread. Your insights are valuable, especially given your experience. I don’t always agree with you, but you pull us back to reality, and that’s a good thing

Thanks for that RHIAN I do appreciate your sentiments, for sure !

Dear Rhian,

Thank You for your comments.

I think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be allowed
in this country if the Editors were of course
willing to have them published. I don't think that a
religious cartoon causing religious offence
would be covered by the Racial Discrimination Act of 18C -
as Islam is not a race and of course there is still
free speech exemplified under 18D which protects artistic
work or fair comment.

Therefore I don't think that freedom of speech is under threat
in this country as things currently stand.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

Dear otb,

We should all be grateful that we have a
secular government in this country and that
religious laws have no legal status in
Australia.