Althouse: "The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it..."

January 9, 2015

"The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it..."

"... If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.... "

Writes David Brooks.

ADDED: The terrorists want to be martyrs, but they made martyrs out of the satirists they reviled.

59 comments:

Big Mike said...: The terrorists want to be martyrs, but they made martyrs out of the satirists they reviled.

Ironic, ain't it?; 1/9/15, 12:53 PM
Achilles said...: David Brooks wrote that? I guess the house conservative has a bit of his soul left buried deep in there somewhere that pops up every now and then.; 1/9/15, 12:53 PM
Tarrou said...: To non-liberal westerners perhaps. But there will be streets and UN-funded schools named after the perps all over the middle east.; 1/9/15, 12:55 PM
Achilles said...: "The terrorists want to be martyrs..."

And the only lesson we need to learn from these attacks is we should help them become martyrs in large numbers violently and abruptly and displayed to the public as a "teachable" moment.; 1/9/15, 12:56 PM
Fritz said...: Like a broken clock.; 1/9/15, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: My wife was complaining yesterday that I was supportive of Bill Maher during his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

I explained to her that we have competing principles and in this case, freedom is the higher principle.

The two competing principles are

1) Don't offend people.

2) You have the freedom to be offensive.

And that if we have to choose sides, while we hate how offensive Bill Maher is and he violates our principle #1, we should still take his side because he agrees with us on principle #2. That principle #2 is elevated above principle #1.

This is actually pretty common for people to do. Have competing principles.

Paul Ryan was once mocked for saying on the House floor, "I will vote for this bill even though it violates my principles, to uphold my principles."

Not an exact quote.; 1/9/15, 1:00 PM
chillblaine said...: These college students and their speech codes are entering civil society and will try to impose their intolerance on the rest of us. Reason reports that 51% of Democrats favor hate speech criminalization.; 1/9/15, 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: And the only lesson we need to learn from these attacks is we should help them become martyrs in large numbers violently and abruptly and displayed to the public as a "teachable" moment.

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

Or to put a US spin on it, That was the reason the M1911A1 pistol was created:

To give Muslim Huks the opportunity to meet Allah...; 1/9/15, 1:03 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Point of Information: When Theo Van Gogh was murdered his killer left a note on his body (pinned there by a second knife) threating violence against others, including a personal threat against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali went into hiding and ultimately emigrated to the US, but she continued her criticism against Islam and radical Islamists. Last year liberal arts school Brandeis intended to give Ali an honorary degree but after criticism from CAIR, the Brandeis Islamic Studies dept, and some leftists students the school withdrew the offer and disinvited her from speaking at the graduation ceremony.
If anyone tells you that liberals or leftist academics believe in free speech, challenging ideas, or standing up to threats of violence with the power of ideas, remind 'em of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.; 1/9/15, 1:10 PM
Larry J said...: eric said...
My wife was complaining yesterday that I was supportive of Bill Maher during his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

I explained to her that we have competing principles and in this case, freedom is the higher principle.

Not that I'm making the comparison, but your comment reminds me of what Winston Churchill said after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Churchill was a staunch anti-communist, but when Hitler invaded, he immediately offered help to Stalin. When questioned about it, Churchill said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

This is actually pretty common for people to do. Have competing principles.

Indeed.; 1/9/15, 1:11 PM
n.n said...: Ironically, liberal society is a remarkable work of satire, perfectly depicted by the comic projections of journalists at Charlie Hebdo. The French terrorists would have earned more from parodying the journalists at Charlie Hebdo than occupying their office. The French will tolerate a lot, but they have little interest to normalize Hebdo's peculiar outlook.; 1/9/15, 1:12 PM
Nonapod said...: Suppression of ideas is the first milestone on the road to hell. The kids on these college campuses need to become tolerant of ideas they don't agree with. They shouldn't be afraid to be challenged.; 1/9/15, 1:13 PM
Known Unknown said...: Bill Maher is an awful human being, but not as awful as some want to make us believe.; 1/9/15, 1:15 PM
damikesc said...: Brooks --- and this is rare --- is right. There is little difference in the brain-dead mobs of college students and the brain-dead mobs of Islamists.; 1/9/15, 1:16 PM
Peter said...: Whether a college student got away with taping a Charlie Hebdo cartoon on their dorm room door, or on a window, would depend on who/what was the target of the cartoon?; 1/9/15, 1:21 PM
Jaq said...: Yeah, but what about the crease in Charlie's trousers?; 1/9/15, 1:22 PM
Gahrie said...: The terrorists want to be martyrs, but they made martyrs out of the satirists they reviled.

Yes, but the terrorists are still considered martyrs by those they were trying to inspire.

In this case, both sides have their martyrs. The problem is, their martyrs will inspire more acts of terrorism. our martyrs will inspire more self censorship on Islam and terrorism by western media; 1/9/15, 1:24 PM
Sebastian said...: Yes, the victims are martyrs, but martyrs to a fading faith.; 1/9/15, 1:28 PM
Matt Sablan said...: It was a thing I'd been thinking about.

Look, I'm going to admit it: I'd never buy their magazine. It's not my cup of tea; I'd not care if they published it anyway though. Given the level of heckler's veto that we tend to allow in America, could it have survived here? Probably, it just wouldn't have been welcome in a lot of places.; 1/9/15, 1:47 PM
Humperdink said...: From Mark Steyn: "I can't claim to have known Georges Wolinski, the 80-year-old cartoonist among the dead on Wednesday, but I met him briefly, a few years ago. Via Laura Rosen Cohen, I learn of the strange, circular journey of his life and death. His father was a Polish Jew who fled to Tunisia to lead a life free of pogroms. Georges was born there in 1934. Two years later, his dad was murdered, and the family moved again, this time to France.

And on Wednesday, like his father, the son was killed.

Wolinski père fled Jew-hate in Europe to be murdered in the Muslim world.

Wolinski fils fled Jew-hate in the Muslim world to be murdered in Europe, by Muslims."; 1/9/15, 1:47 PM
buwaya said...: CH mainly slagged the right wing, Israel and the Catholic Church before they fairly recently got into Muslim bashing. So they would have done quite well on a US college, at least till a few years ago.; 1/9/15, 1:54 PM
William said...: No matter who the true martyrs are, the Islamacists have won the argument. The Prophet now inhabits a ridicule free zone that is not granted to Jesus, Moses, Joseph Smith, Buddha, nor even Barack Obama......There will be a million print edition of Charlie Hebdo, but after that edition, the magazine will wither and die. In a public forum, writers will become extremely circumspect in their criticism of things Islamic. We will all become Ben Affleck.; 1/9/15, 1:59 PM
buwaya said...: Its a numbers game to a degree, its all about attrition, in tribal war.

The terrorists over the last couple of days knocked off some important targets, not easily replaced (left wingers willing to slag them) and may have seriously degraded the power of resistance of French society (and across Europe and the US). All the bluster today will fade, and over the next few years there will be fewer daring to openly resist.
Their guys can say what they like with no consequences, ours have to shut up.

And they killed off 16+ people, many high value.
In exchange they lost 3-4 low value guys.
They won.; 1/9/15, 2:02 PM
Unknown said...: "Just to keep it into perspective, I don't think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the United States as they are in France. They are different. In fact, one thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage," Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said on the Friday broadcast of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports.

The gendarme killed did not have a weapon. Civilian use of weapons is highly restricted. I don't think I have the imagination to pose circumstances exist that would not cause this guy to try to undercut the 2nd amendment, just as there does not seem to be any set of circumstances where the progressive mind set would extend the first amendment to a conservative perspective. Partisan politics trumps natural rights.; 1/9/15, 2:07 PM
n.n said...: buwaya:

Exactly. The journalists at Charlie Hebdo were notoriously prejudiced and narrow-minded. If we still had fair-minded psychiatrists, their behavior would be diagnosed as juvenile projection. They reveled in their intolerance of anything outside of their church. They enjoyed provoking people with whom they disagreed. Forward and dead stop, it seems.; 1/9/15, 2:07 PM
Libertarian Advocate said...: How perversely ironic that Louis Brandeis, after whom the college was named, was both a Zionist and one of the great promoters of Freedom of Speech of any justice who served on SCOTUS. The school's current administration should resign in shame.; 1/9/15, 2:09 PM
Roughcoat said...: To give Muslim Huks the opportunity to meet Allah...

Not Huks. Moro tribesmen.; 1/9/15, 2:09 PM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...: The terrorists want to be martyrs, but they made martyrs out of the satirists they reviled.

They would only submit to martyrdom when it was impossible for them to continue dishing it out.

I think we've found the First Law of Islamic Martyrdom.; 1/9/15, 2:14 PM
Known Unknown said...: . They are different. In fact, one thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage,

Maybe that's the reason there's a lot less (terrorist) carnage here?; 1/9/15, 2:16 PM
KLDAVIS said...: I would have welcomed them wholeheartedly to the University of Chicago. And, based on yesterday's statement, it sounds like the University would have tolerated them.; 1/9/15, 2:16 PM
Big Mike said...: Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

But who is doing the calling? People committed to free exchange of ideas? People with open minds? Or the sort of people who, if they could lay hands on fully automatic rifles, would use them the same way there were used at Charlie Hebdo?

Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others.

Most of us. Not 21st century liberals, but most of us.

Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths.

Most of us. Not the sort who'd look at "piss Christ" and call it art. But most of us.

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

Jim Treacher, for instance.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes.

Amen. Er, am I allowed to type a religious sentiment in the US in the 21st century?

Je suis Charlie; 1/9/15, 2:26 PM
buwaya said...: True, the Huks were communists of the 1940s-60s (USSR aligned) and mainly restricted to Christian people of Central Luzon. The 1911 was already the standard pistol of the Philippine military at the time.

The 1911 was designed to deal with juramentados (Spanish term) for the Philippine Muslim brand of amok berserker. The problem was recognized in 1899-1905 when the US replaced the Spanish garrisons on Midanao and Sulu, and attempted to keep order there.

The Huks were not particularly known for amok, though all the Malay peoples are prone to it. I recall several very scary cases in my time. Its amazing how many people one amok can kill with a knife in a public market. There is a famous sequence of newspaper photos of an incident(from the 1970s) of an amok attacking a policeman, who fired several shots with a .38, but the amok got to him anyway.; 1/9/15, 2:27 PM
Big Mike said...: FWIW here's the incident that really convinced the American military authorities they needed a bigger caliber handgun:

"Antonio Caspi a prisoner on the Island of Samar, P.I. attempted to escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine.

1. Bullet entered chest near right nipple, passed upward, backwards and outwards, perforated lung and escaped through back passing through edge of right scapula.

2. Bullet entered chest through left nipple, passed upwards, backwards and inwards, perforating lung and lodging in subcutaneous tissues.

3. Bullet entered chest near left shoulder, passing downwards and backwards, perforating lung and lodged in back.

4. Bullet entered through palm of left hand and passed through subcutaneous tissues and escaped through wound on anterior surface of forearm.

Treated at military hospital, Borongan, Samar. Turned over to civil authorities cured, Nov. 23, 1905."

(emphasis mine) These were shots at essentially point blank range.; 1/9/15, 3:05 PM
Dan Hossley said...: You want to see intolerance? Challenge the ruling climate change orthodoxy. The High Priests of AGW come after you with pitchforks.; 1/9/15, 3:35 PM
Marty Keller said...: The promulgation of hate crimes legislation was a major milestone in the de-Americanizing of America. For the first time ever thought itself became criminal. While hate crime trials have not crowded the dockets, the incubus that inspired them has continued to contaminate our culture, and the threat of assault against "improper speech" has skyrocketed, aided and abetted by Twitter and other instruments of the internet that permit anonymity. (Case in point: Rolling Stone's UVA "rape" "story".) The Kouachi brothers' murder spree--like those of bin Laden and crew, and the ISIL terrorists (dare we mention Yassir Arafat?)--were inspired by that same incubus: fear of Other, defense of the tribe, hatred of modernity.

Our postmoderns--all on the Left--have been unable to make the proper distinctions, bewitched as they are by the heady joy of oppressing the oppressors. This myopia has made too many of them ally with the premoderns. Thus David Brooks' point.

This war has been going on for centuries; it will not abate in our lifetimes.; 1/9/15, 3:43 PM
buwaya said...: Ref the tradition of CH in French politics, see Simon Schama's "Citizens" - the left wing Paris press of the 1700's acted in very much the same way and in the same style.; 1/9/15, 3:54 PM
Freder Frederson said...: The High Priests of AGW come after you with pitchforks.

Yes after Islamist terrorist attacks, those denying AGW are routinely slaughtered in the street.; 1/9/15, 3:58 PM
Jaq said...: No Freder, but warmies do dream about it openly.; 1/9/15, 4:10 PM
Carnifex said...: One day people will learn. For muslims there is only Islam, and apostasy. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. I hope that day doesn't come too late.; 1/9/15, 4:12 PM
Jaq said...: Seriously Freder, watch it. Look at the production values. This was made with real money.; 1/9/15, 4:13 PM
Jaq said...: The left is always about killing off those who don't go along eventually.; 1/9/15, 4:14 PM
Freder Frederson said...: No Freder, but warmies do dream about it openly.

Do you really think that video was made by "warmies"?; 1/9/15, 4:17 PM
buwaya said...: Yes its was made by warmies - these guys.

http://www.1010global.org/uk
They seem fairly serious "activist" sorts.
commissioned this guy -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Curtis

Who is a lefty and who did it for free.; 1/9/15, 4:42 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Yes its was made by warmies - these guys.

I stand corrected. Just goes to show you how quickly attempts at satire can go awry.; 1/9/15, 5:01 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Oh, bologna.

The terrorists were willing to die. Were the cartoonists? Did they go to work in the morning willing to die for their beliefs? I doubt it.

That doesn't make the terrorists less evil. They are evil. They must be killed.

But the posing about brave journalists and satirists is nonsense, because they are the easiest people in the world to intimidate. Let's see if Charlie Hebdo or any other publication returns to satirizing Islam next week. Or next month. Or next year. Writers talk a lot, but very few are really brave enough to face death. There aren't many Orwells out there. Writers are already intimidated by politically correctness when nothing is at stake but their careers. We expect them to stand against the jihad? Please.

The people who are willing to die win a contest of wills.

Don't depend on writers, satirists, or intellectuals to defend our freedom. It's never happened. Look for the men (yes, men) who mindlessly sign up to follow the flag because it's the right thing to do, and that's good enough.; 1/9/15, 5:09 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: It was the French cops who busted down the door knowing there were killers waiting for them on the other side that ended the terrorist attack. It was the cops guarding the paper who died first.

Best remember that.; 1/9/15, 5:11 PM
buwaya said...: It was satire of course, but there is an underlying thread of hatred and rage.

This is the sort of situation where it is revealed. Personal truths, what we really think, are only revealed through unconscious lapses.

At bottom it is tribal symbolism, which works just fine when played to tribe A, because they imagine it shows the defeat or humiliation of tribe B as humor.

In that context its humorous satire. Show it to tribe B and it isn't humorous, its a threat, because it is, because it reveals whats under tribe A's mask.

We are vicious creatures. Most humor is really cruelty artfully arranged.

10:10 was fine with it until after the release, when it was airing on the UK/Australian public TV, when it started getting pushback.; 1/9/15, 5:12 PM
Seeing Red said...: SOD OFF SWAMPY!; 1/9/15, 5:52 PM
Seeing Red said...: 10:10 removed the mask. It always ends in death if you don't conform.; 1/9/15, 5:53 PM
sean said...: Notice how Prof. Althouse has no good answer to Brooks, so she changes the subject. I would be ashamed and embarrassed to work at a university and babble about free expression. I don't think any university professor has the moral standing to discuss that topic.; 1/9/15, 5:57 PM
Revenant said...: It was the cops guarding the paper who died first.

This isn't meant as a condemnation of the dead cops, but rather of the French police:

They weren't guards, they were window dressing. CH asked for police protection, and what they got was a couple of unarmed guys standing around. This, despite the fact that CH had been firebombed and repeated death threats had been made.

Individual police acted heroically. The police, as an institution, were about as worthless as teats on a bull.; 1/9/15, 6:06 PM
kcom said...: "But the posing about brave journalists and satirists is nonsense, because they are the easiest people in the world to intimidate. Let's see if Charlie Hebdo or any other publication returns to satirizing Islam next week. Or next month. Or next year. Writers talk a lot, but very few are really brave enough to face death."

Yes, let's see. Because I think Charlie Hebdo had plenty of opportunity to back down and did not. They didn't act like the pussies at Yale University Press, the New York Times and almost all others. They knew, seriously knew, that they were at risk and kept going. It's not brave in the exact same way as police or soldiers doing an armed assault, but it's still brave. Especially as compared to their peers and the requirements of their profession. I'm saddened that more journalists don't step up and defend the heritage they inherited. The free press is doomed otherwise. Sure it's not fun being at risk but you should play the hand you're dealt. Folding is not an option. When the greatest generation was called to defend democracy it sure wasn't fun for them either. But they didn't fold like a cheap tent. They stepped up.; 1/9/15, 7:07 PM
kcom said...: Also, Charlie Hebdo is said to be printing one million copies of their next edition, compared to the usual 60,000. We'll have to see what the content includes, but let's just say that it doesn't give the appearance that they've decided to join the surrender monkeys.; 1/9/15, 7:10 PM
n.n said...: Try publishing a parody of Charlie Hebdo in Europe or America, and liberals would scream bloody murder, while committing bloody murder in privacy. Hebdo was renowned for holding up a mirror to people outside his church, but would become absolutely apoplectic if the mirror was turned toward him.

#LesTerroristesSontPro-choix; 1/9/15, 7:28 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: Maybe that's the reason there's a lot less (terrorist) carnage here?

"Allah Ak..."

BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!

Thud.

[eject][reload]

"Hello, 911? I have been involved in a shooting. I was in fear for my life. Please send the police and emergency medical care."

And you're god-damed right I practice that drill. If you're going to say "Allah Akbar" in my presence, before you press the button on your suicide vest, you better fucking say it fast.; 1/9/15, 8:57 PM
RecChief said...: for once Brooks is right. Also, the Washington Post asked why France's strict gun laws didn't save the cartoonists at Charlie. I should tell them that strict gun laws work by making guns illegal, just like we stopped everyone from using drugs by making them illegal; 1/9/15, 9:55 PM
kcom said...: Hell, why do we need gun laws anyway since murder is already illegal? Didn't that end the problem?; 1/9/15, 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: So, NOW Brooks is willing to point the lurking control and totalitarian issues of many on the Left, and just how far they've advanced in our institutions.

Yet, when Obama was running, won, won again and steadily made his intentions known through policy choices...that Obama basically supports these ideas and people as part of his political coalition, Brooks hasn't had the same courage to jeopardize his 'conservative you can take home to NPR and the NY Times gig'

Does writing for money and reputation do this to everybody?

When will he be standing on this principle again, just as a heads up?

This can be serious business. Deadly, even.; 1/10/15, 7:29 AM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: I think it is Rush who says, 'reading the liberal media so you don't have to.' Thanks for finding this. Mr. Brooks wore me out with choosing TNC for the first Sydney award for the reparations article. Looking into his articles to find what it was that bothered me, I enjoyed the Netanyahu article.; 1/10/15, 9:55 PM