En ymmärrä miten se liittyy sananvapauteen, että onko satiiri älykästä/huonoa. Ei siitä tarvitse kaikkien pitää tai arvostaa, mutta ei kai se ole mikään syy olla julkaisematta lehteä, vaikka se olisi miten huonoa taidetta/viihdettä. En Charlie Hebdon pilapiirroksia ole nähnyt, mutta ilmeisesti sinä olet perehtynyt tarkemmin lehteen, koska osaat arvioida sitä. Montako numeroa olet lukenut? Epäilen yrittikö lehti edes ikinä esiintyä minään älymystön lehtenä, joka kavahtaa rahaa sekä rahvaita tehden vain tinkimätöntä taidetta älyköille.
Stephen Fry sanoi tuosta hyvin
kirjoituksessaan:
"But what has that to do with anything? I remember all those years ago when the fatwa was declared on Salman Rushdie, plenty of British writers and commentators who absolutely should have known better claimed that
The Satanic Verses ‘really wasn’t that good’, the implication being that it was therefore hardly worth making a stand against the death sentence laid on its author. As it happens (not that it
matters of course) …
The Satanic Verses is one of the great post-war comic novels. Similar horrible nonsense was spouted recently by some on the subject of the Sony film
The Interview. ‘Oh, it’s actually rather poor.’
The now largely forgotten writer, broadcaster and Christian apologist Malcolm Muggeridge destroyed his legacy as a serious and interesting man in fifteen footling minutes on television in which he languidly described
Monty Python’s Life of Brian as ‘tenth rate’ … as if that were a reason to stop it being screened. Utterly disingenuous. He wanted to stop it being screened because he was ‘offended’ by its ‘blasphemy’ and so he offered the same non-argument as those advanced by his fellow Festival of Light founder Mary Whitehouse of hilarious memory: “Oh I’m not shocked, oh no. In fact I found it rather boring.” Of course you did darling, and therefore we must certainly censor it right away. Bah! These days
Life of Brian regularly comes top in all time best comedy film polls and Muggeridge might only be warmly remembered for being the MI5 officer who debriefed in kindly manner P. G. Wodehouse and his wife in Paris after its liberation in 1944.
So let no one think that in order to be defended against censorship of
any kind, let alone the terminal horrors of Wednesday 7th January, a work of art or a film or a novel or a cartoon need be ‘first rate’ (whatever that means)."
Silla ei tosiaan ole mitaan merkitysta olivatko ne piirrokset hauskoja tai laadukkaita. Ainoa asia milla on merkitysta on se etta Ranskassa ne ovat laillisia ja se on kaikkien hyvaksyttava. Lain muuttaminen tapahtuu aanestamalla ja poliittisesti vaikuttamalla, rynnakkokivaarilla sita ei saavuteta. Rynnakkokivaarilla saavutetaan vain ja ainoastaan taysin vastakkainen reaktio.
