Comments for Index on Censorship the voice of free expression Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:21:37 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Freedom of expression is non-negotiable by Stellaris Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:21:37 +0000 The only freedom of press that exists nowadays is the freedom to walk to the Newsagent and buy a newspaper. What you read is the expression of those who pay for the publication and who express their superiority over the “others” -namely the oppressed minorities.

Comment on Padraig Reidy: Enough of the “moderate Muslim” by flayman Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:10:34 +0000 I prefer “liberal Muslims” to “moderate Muslims”, though I would not demand that any Muslim takes a risky stand against extremism for two reasons: 1) They risk the “takfir” label, which is serious and dangerous; 2) Muslims are by far the greater victims of Islamic terrorism than non-believers. We ought to remember that before we demand that Muslims apologise for or even condemn Islamic terrorism.

Comment on Stand up for free speech. Publish Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons by christopher charles Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:10:02 +0000 Freedom of free speech should not be synnomynous with bigotism and ignorance, it must feel great making loads of money whilst sitting in a well guarded room insulting everyone and everything and fueling the same fires of anger that these “artists” are themselves creating. I believe in a bit of censorship, I hate waking up in the morning, reading the news and hearing all the macabre bullshit that I never had an influence in creating. Half of these sick twisted idiots who encourage freedom of speech are the very same ones preaching the justification of hatred, ignorance and senseless chatter whether they perceive themselves to be actively involved in it or not. Freedom of speech? How about Freedom of silence? Mind your own business should be the order of the day. STFU.

Comment on Don’t just click – speak out for free speech by Hedd Thomas Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:25:11 +0000 It’s a relief to finally read an article that tackles the main point. Thank you. Everyone else is skirting around it as if freedom of expression is toxic. It’s very upsetting.

However, I wonder why you left out the end of Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man: “but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.” I doesn’t take anything away from last week’s atrocities because Charlie Hebdo didn’t break the law, but it also makes the author look like she’s skirting around something else.

It’s interesting to note that France, all EU countries and indeed the European Convention on Human Rights includes this caveat. Contrast that to the US Constitution which rightly has free expression as its FIRST Amendment (not the 11th as in the French or the 10th as in the ECHR) and begins, “Congress shall make NO law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Comment on 2 Feb: Index magazine debate: Do we need a First Amendment in the UK? by bexsentance Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:02:00 +0000 Wouldn’t that first require us to have a Consitution?

Comment on Don’t let free speech die by HoffmanMichaelA Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:09:27 +0000 Two men in Britain were jailed for distributing my cartoons mocking the cult of Holocaustianity. I could never get Index on Censorship interested in their case or in my “Tales of the Holohoax” cartoons. 

It seems there are banned cartoons and then there are cartoons banned by the anti-banning groups. Maybe I will have to be shot before you will have the courage to mock the supreme idol of our times, the gas chambers and draw attention to my work. My cartoons are online here:

An account of the men jailed for distributing “Tales of the Holohoax” is here:

Comment on Padraig Reidy: Laugh? I nearly died. Of hunger by Niall0 Sat, 10 Jan 2015 03:15:10 +0000 From Niall O’Dowd Methinks this column censored my thoughts pretty good. I never said to ban the sitcom. I said it was a terrible idea. Your piece oozes with playing  the irish American stereotype. You may need to censor yourself on that one
. I actually have a history on censorship as the only media outlet for years to carry Gerry Adams and a UDA columnist when both were banned worldwide. Where were you wonderful gentlemen on Section 31 I wonder?  .
But yes I think there are limits–as there are indeed to the First Amendment.I think a sitcom would be the ultimate trivialization of the most horrendous event of the 19th century. I think  limits should have been observed by Charlie Hebdo.There is nothing funny abut lampooning a struggling and desperately poor underclass as Muslims are in France. Thomas Nast did it to the Irish portraying us as pigs in the 19th century.Read David Brooks today in the NY Times .He doesn’t want to be Charlie Hebdo either

Comment on Freedom of expression is non-negotiable by mondold Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:22:03 +0000 Don’t get me wrong: I’m not defending Dieudonné or trying to find an excuse for Tuesday’s attacks or making a parallel at all between both events.
My point was just that the Charlie Hebdo attack was not an attack against free speech but against innocent unarmed individuals. And the events over the week have proven my point: to viz, the murder of the police officer (not particularly the symbol of free speech),  the Montrouge murder of a police officer and now the hostage taking in a kosher supermarket in Vincennes.
Talking about these events as if they were attacks against free speech is besides the point and prevents a debate about the real social issues that these events pose in France and maybe even elsewhere. My point about Dieudonné was just to illustrate the varying conception that the French have of freedom of expression. Whatever your political background, it’s undisputable that hate laws pose a real issue in terms of freedom of expression but that debate never took place in France.

Comment on Freedom of expression is non-negotiable by GRM65 Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:37:26 +0000 Satire can be a clever tool for awakening
thinking about issues in a different way.
After viewing many Charlie Hebdo cartoons I
wonder if it is time for some sound, respectful, responsible, insightful and
accepting of differences thinking.
Violence and murder in any form is never the
answer. Think long and hard about the calls to uphold freedom of expression. Desperate
people perform desperate acts, and they, also, are forms of freedom of
expression. When we compartmentalise freedom of expression we close down
It is
understandable that grief follows tragic events. Now it is time to stop and ponder.

Comment on Stand up for free speech. Publish Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons by SNCFsucks Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:53:44 +0000 There needs to be a more sophisticated and principled discussion of this issue. Only through principled discussion can it be shown that the MSM’s failure to publish the Mohammed cartoons is contrary to their journalistic duties. With press freedoms come the duty to exercise those freedoms.

So, the 5 truths:

* The main-stream media has a DUTY
in western democracies to enforce its own free press and free speech rights.
* The Charlie Hebdo cartoons ARE
* Without the cartoons, there would
be no news about Paris terror attacks today.
* The cartoons themselves are
newsworthy and must be published.
* By self-censoring and
deliberately abdicating the exercise of their own free speech rights, the
main-stream media, collectively and individually, spits on the graves of all
who have ever fought / died / sacrificed to achieve those freedoms.
If MSM outlets wish to self-censor
due to fear of reprisals etc (which is not necessarily unreasonable), then
those MSM outlets have a DUTY to:
* disclose their complete
principled argument for holding that fear
* explain the full extent of that fear
* acknowledge that they have deliberately chosen to relinquish their free press
rights in respect of publication of the cartoons.
Unfortunately for the public, MSM
outlets’ have failed to discuss this self-censorship issue with integrity,
transparency and completeness – they have failed to uphold the duties that come
with free press rights.