Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/charlie-hebdo-staff-publish-next-week-1m-print-run

by greenvaio • 12 years ago

244 119 12 years ago

theguardian.com

zirkonit2• 12 years ago

Je suis Charlie.

b_emery2• 12 years ago

translation: "I'm Charlie"

zirkonit2• 12 years ago

And the slogan of solidarity to the victims of the tragedy, for the unaware.

balabaster2• 12 years ago

Nous sommes tous Charlie

JumpCrisscross3• 12 years ago

"We are not all Charlie. Much of Europe, which, as a political entity, is not fully grappling with the totalitarian madness of Islamism, is not Charlie. Certainly much of journalism is not Charlie. Any outlet that censors Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of fear of Islamist reprisal is not Charlie. To publish the cartoons now is a necessary, but only moderately brave, act. Please remember: Even after Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011, it continued to publish rude and funny satires mocking the essential ridiculousness of the Islamist worldview. That represented a genuine display of bravery. CNN, the Associated Press, and the many other media organizations that are cowering before the threat of totalitarian violence represent something other than bravery."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/we-...

tjradcliffe2• 12 years ago

Je suis Charlie: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704

If you're not, too bad. But all you have to do is stand up. You can do it whenever you want, however you want, but you can always do it.

junto• 12 years ago

I know it would be inflammatory, but I can think of an extremely provocative Google doodle "cartoon" that would put the cat amongst the pigions and make a statement about Google's position on free speech in this particular matter.

RadioactiveMan2• 12 years ago

If a cartoon puts Google employees in a position where they could be targeted by threats or violence, it would be an awful move.

JumpCrisscross3• 12 years ago

Agree. Charlie Hebdo was a small shop. Everyone understood what was happening and had visibility into what was going to be done. Charlie Hebdo could take risks with its team because they were so close to each other. Google's senior management taking that decision on behalf of its vast and global team may be less tenable.

eterm• 12 years ago

It would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention.

You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". You are suggesting that free speech should not be exercised if there is any threat or violence. That is not free speech.

sho_hn3• 12 years ago

Google's homepage isn't a satire magazine, and this would affect users who had no hand in these events. I don't think an escalation of adversity like that would be productive.

The right to free speech doesn't justify bad manners.

sampo• 12 years ago

The right to free speech doesn't justify bad manners.

Yet it protects your rights to have bad manners.

tjradcliffe2• 12 years ago

I've read two responses to these events that nicely cover this question from what amount to opposite sides, although the distance between them is small:

1) Ross Douthat in the NYT, saying "In this sense, many of the Western voices criticizing the editors of Hebdo have had things exactly backward: Whether it’s the Obama White House or Time Magazine in the past or the Financial Times and (God help us) the Catholic League today, they’ve criticized the paper for provoking violence by being needlessly offensive and 'inflammatory' (Jay Carney’s phrase), when the reality is that it’s precisely the violence that justifies the inflammatory content." http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we...

2) This piece by Juan Cole: "Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination." http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-sa...

While I appreciate what Cole is saying, I come down on Douthat's side. When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... secondary.

So I personally think that "escalating" by making more fun of murderous nutjobs is a pretty good move to make, even if it will be offensive to some less murderous people, because making fun of and belittling hateful murderers is more important to me just now than not giving offense: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1704

That said, I'm just as happy for Google to stay on the side of good taste. There are sound business reasons for doing so, and they have absolutely no obligation to piss off 20% of the world's population, even granted that almost 100% of that 20% are as peaceful as anyone else. It shouldn't be fear that stops them, but good business sense.

themartorana• 12 years ago

Bravo. In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. and around the world, it's on the U.S. and its citizens to protect free speech and/or show their support for those who have been silenced around the world.

If Google does that by donating some money, the message is still very clear and, at least from me, quite appreciated.

Freedom is never free, and human life, sadly, seems like the ongoing and unending price.

blazespin5• 12 years ago

This is not about free speech. There is no such things as "free speech" (look what happen to Snowden, for example). Try to publish plans for a nuclear bomb, for example, and see where free speech gets you. Try doing this extreme parody on sacred cows of the US and not expect a visit from the SS - sacred cows, such as certain family members of political entities.

This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it.

Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc).

What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.

That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.

edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that.

Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point.

I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race.

Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion.

The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.

rlucas• 12 years ago

That's a particularly poor example (plans for a nuclear bomb) if you're trying to make the case that, at least in the US, there's "no such thing[]" as free speech.

In fact, it was a form of plan for an atomic bomb that is the textbook case about prior restraint of speech in the US.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressiv...

loceng• 12 years ago

Do you honestly think plans on how to build a nuclear bomb is reasonable and in the best interest of society? Banning porn videos with consenting adults that contain spanking in them is unreasonable. Easily accessible information on a step-by-step guide to building a bomb that can kill millions of people, is IMHO, not reasonable.

dmix3• 12 years ago

This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea

There already exists a rationalization in almost every Western country's law that there is a distinction between hate speech (that incites violence) and ordinary free speech. This is obviously a highly contentious issue among smaller-gov/progressive types but one that is not super relevant to the Charlie Hebdo issue which you are replying to.

It is semi-relevant if you factor in the UK's enforcement of offensive language on sites like Twitter and compare it to their politicians outraged reactions. But again, not super relevant - since that doesn't happen in the USA or (I believe) France which are involved in Google -> Charlie Hebdo investment.

So your argument is needlessly polemical and I support the downvotes.

notdonspaulding• 12 years ago

    > What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe
    > in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its
    > Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing 
    > to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate.

What is "free speech" if not exactly this?

    > That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire.
    > Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that.

I agree. Even if you were to make free speech the norm everywhere, that wouldn't make this particular speech any more valuable.

bostonpete• 12 years ago

It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it.

You don't have to fundamentally disagree with religion in order to believe that parody should be protected speech.

Free speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. It doesn't imply a right to disclose any and all information about about any person or organization that you may have access to, or to make extreme threats, or to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. Just because a literal interpretation of the phrase "free speech" might imply such a meaning to you, that's not how the term is conventionally used or interpreted.

happyscrappy4• 12 years ago

In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S.

What efforts have been made to reduce free speech?

wavefunction• 12 years ago

There are constant and ongoing efforts by groups and individuals to restrict the freedom of speech in America as practiced by others. Timely examples are the "ag-gag" bills being pushed by corporations and the servants in the government to cover-up the abuse of animals at corporate facilities:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farmin...

There are many other efforts like this but aimed at all sorts of "causes."

longlivegnu• 12 years ago

Why are the efforts in the hands of the U.S.A.? It feels odd, especially when the U.S.A. could very quickly take a policy on censorship.

tim3332• 12 years ago

I don't think the efforts are in the hands of the US particularly. It's pretty much global.

happyscrappy4• 12 years ago

I am not sure where you are getting your info on the US but it would be extremely difficult to enact a policy of censorship. It is political suicide to even suggest it and would need a constitutional amendment.

samstave2• 12 years ago

Wonderful.

What a tragedy. While there are many tragedies happening recently, it's great to see how the world reacted to this, but still underscores how poorly the world reacts to other incidents like the recent slaughter of 2,000 people in Africa by Boko Haram.

pm90• 12 years ago

The "world" as most people on HN define it consists of the more stabilized parts of the Earth, perhaps because the participants in both HN and media come from those parts. So, I'll hazard a guess that the "world" cares more about French editors being slaughtered because it brings the violence uncomfortably close to home. Also, perhaps more people of the "world" can relate to the French editors than poor African villagers.

It's a sad state to be sure. Until we have some kind of common ground, it is harder to feel empathy. I will admit that I was much more shocked by this attack than the slaughter that you mention, which I even now know little about.

boracay• 12 years ago

People don't really care about fighting extremism, they just want to be right.

The whole things is just a charade. Not because we suddenly want to stand up for free speech and civil rights. But because we are so terribly afraid of being just as wrong as the extremists. That we would know of, if not instigated, the terrible faith of hundreds of thousands of muslims in the last decade and didn't really do anything about it.

samstave2• 12 years ago

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. As I get older, I get pretty depressed about certain aspects of the state of the world. I have three kids, and I want them to experience the wonderment and beauty of the world that I saw growing up.

JumpCrisscross3• 12 years ago

France has been a Google v. the traditional press ground zero for some time [1]. One hopes the press will react to Google's gracious move positively. I expect denouncements.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/france-goo...

Ensorceled3• 12 years ago

I would be incredibly shocked and surprised if the French press had anything negative at all to say about this. This seems to be a time of solidarity in the French press and they'll be welcoming any and all support.

moultano• 12 years ago

"Je suis Charlie" is on the homepage of https://www.google.fr/

oneeyedpigeon2• 12 years ago

Not for me (UK)

id2• 12 years ago

You probably need to set the language to French.

Ensorceled3• 12 years ago

Are you actually going to google.fr or google.co.uk?

id2• 12 years ago

There is also a black ribbon on some other Google homepages. The black ribbon has been displayed in the light of similar events before.

Je suis Charlie: https://www.google.com/images/hpp/jesuischarlie68x68.png

Black ribbon: https://www.google.com/images/icons/hpcg/ribbon-black_68.png

nakedrobot22• 12 years ago

Interesting figure. In Google-land, why $300K and not $1M?

I don't want to say that it's not a lot of money, I'm just wondering how someone arrived at this sum.

StavrosK• 12 years ago

You can ask that question about any sum, making the answer "why not 300K?"

joeyyang• 12 years ago

It's €250,000 ($296,000).

sho_hn3• 12 years ago

As I understood the article's implication here, the objective is to help the magazine accomplish it's impending much larger print run and cover expenses related to that, so perhaps the sum was negotiated along practical rather than symbolic concerns. Which would make sense since it's the easiest to explain and justify.

matteotom• 12 years ago

Possibly some combination of taxes and internal company policy? ie, they have $x they donate per year, and can get a $y tax write off for donating to a company/non-profit(?) in another country, so they donate $300,000.

coldtea• 12 years ago

Probably:

"We were given a budget of $2m in this department ("innovative press" etc). We want to fund this other N projects in 2015, what can we give to Charlie?"

tim3332• 12 years ago

I think it's to cover the costs of Charlie printing a million copies of the next edition rather than the usual 60,000.

ldng• 12 years ago

Charlie Hebdo was going under. They'd already made a call for donation in November.

It's not Google directly. Google finance a fund for press innovation (IIRC, that was set up to settle some trial). This found decide to match the 250,000 euros donate by some french press association to arrive to a total of 500,000 euros. (Can't find the article I read this afternoon right now. I'll edit when I found the source.)

The money is needed to be able to print 1 million issues of Charlie Hebdo for next week instead of the usual 60,000. To publish, whatever happened/happens.

mkawia5• 12 years ago

It's awful what happened to them . But they are racist/bigot cartoonists . Imagine if someone attacked Rush Limbaugh it would be bad for freedom of speech but it won't change that he's a bad person like these cartoonist.

Here are those girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wj8pQ_7T...

here is black Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2Ea5CAgX...

Freedom of speech and all that stuff ,but these people are awful

Oletros7• 12 years ago

But they are racist

And you're lying

mkawia5• 12 years ago

If you can categorically say they didn't draw those cartoons ie a black person as a monkey , Then yes I'd wrong .

isaacremuant2• 12 years ago

Well... Considering the word racist is thrown around so easily it's debatable when it can be applied to whom.

What we do know is that they were purposely offensive, even in the fact of possible threats.

That means they maybe lacked judgement or respect or other things.

Orthogonal to that, we have the ideal expectation that one should be able to write/draw absolutely everything without being punished with violence.

Of course, that should apply to speech no matter what the issue and, sometimes, it seems that "freedom of speech" or its prosecution is decided based on who the governments consider the enemy.

Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increas...

dang2• 12 years ago

And you're lying

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, even when somebody says something false.

louhike2• 12 years ago

They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed. They criticized and made fun of misbehaviors in religious practices (like fanatics, people using their power, etc.). They had lawiers of North Africa origins (even though atheists) when they went to court because of drawings with Mahomet.

gizmo2• 12 years ago

They most certainly used racist caricatures on a consistent basis. Of course it's tragic (and completely unacceptable) when people use violence to silence speech, but let's not whitewash Charlie Hebdo's islamophobic tendencies.

For a more detailed argument see for instance this article:

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-char...

nemo4• 12 years ago

They are not racists, you are sadly misinformed.

I'm guessing you didn't really check carefully. They do mock Islam (and Judaism), and also publish flat-out racist cartoons. They're not mutually exclusive. They publish a lot of offensive cartoons, like the one linked to by the OP depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens. They should be free to do that without getting murdered by fanatics.

Devid2014• 12 years ago

But they are racist/bigot cartoonists .

Even if this would be true, this is still no excuse for killing peoples. In no way there could be any excuse for such a awful terror act.

mkawia5• 12 years ago

yeah ,I phrased that wrongly .

MichaelGG• 12 years ago

Acceptable responses include:

  - laughter
  - eye rolling
  - calling them assholes
  - shunning people that enjoy the toons
  - holding a protest and claiming they'll all go to hell
  - etc

Unacceptable responses include:

  - shouting religious slogans while executing cartoonists

orblivion• 12 years ago

Given that freedom of speech is paramount, I think that the only way this is relevant is that it makes "je suis Charlie" a questionable slogan.

chvid2• 12 years ago

Google could of course also put one of Charlie's "controversial" cartoons on its front page. The one with Mohammed crying and saying "it is hard to be loved by idiots" seems relevant.

No?

This is how censorship works: the threat of violence already limits what even the biggest and strongest "champion of free speech" can do.

facepalm2• 12 years ago

Why don't you start by posting it on your Twitter stream?

chvid2• 12 years ago

Because I am not Charlie. I don't have that courage.

happyscrappy4• 12 years ago

Islamists are consistently in the running for stupidest worldwide, they are their own worst enemy. They seriously could not be more damaging to their cause. Pretending that these acts have nothing to do with Islam will be the death of the left and The National Front are now electable.

dang2• 12 years ago

Url changed from http://www.twcc.com/articles/2015/01/08/g/google-is-donating..., which points to this.

ck23• 12 years ago

No-one deserves death or prison for speech/art.

That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world.

I don't get the point of satire. It just makes people who already agree pat themselves on the back and the people you are mocking will double down to spite you. It's not intellectually clever, it is just bullying in another form.

You want people to change without war, then you need dialog. Satire is not dialog, it is a one-way street.

Ensorceled3• 12 years ago

Some people are swayed by rational argument and some are not.

Some people are swayed by emotional argument and some are not.

Some people are swayed by satire and some are not.

Satire, it general, is not intended for the people being satirized, it's intended to enlighten the audience about the true nature of those being satirized.

This satire, in particular, was meant to illustrate to the French audience that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Islam already knows that it is not.

Just because you, personally, seem confused by satire to the point of bewilderment and anger doesn't mean satire is not an effective tool in convincing others on important topics and issues.

ck23• 12 years ago

See how we are having a conversation and you are trying to convince me of something?

I have to believe that is the best way to make the world work eventually, or at least get people to stop killing each other.

If I was to then start calling you names or mocking what you hold dear, the outcome is guaranteed to end badly.

Now if you are saying satire is the way give the non-deep thinking third-parties cartoons like people read the funny-pages, I still do not see how that solves anything. If the cartoon is what it takes to make them grasp something then you are not dealing with something rational.

mkawia5• 12 years ago

There's good satire. Religious even ,it can even be blasphemous and it will all be a non religious person being non religious-sy.

But inciting people and/or depicting people as terrorist only ends up bad and nothing's good ever comes out of it .

aikah2• 12 years ago

That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world.

Nothing is sacred,that's the positive change to the world. Everybody will have, sooner or later, to acknowledge the fact that religions are no different from fairy tails.

ck23• 12 years ago

If we are going to dismember religions, let's first start with the largest that has done the most damage across the entire world. Then we can work our way down the list.

jayess• 12 years ago

You can also subscribe to the magazine in the US through Amazon, although it's $186.25 a year: http://amzn.to/17n94Hc

NotGoogle• 12 years ago

Google is not donating to Charlie Hebdo. A fund not managed by Google that Google has to pay into as a result of being fined by the French government is giving the money to help ensure the continuation of its publication.

From article: "The press innovation fund was set up in February 2013 to settle the dispute between Google and the French government over whether the internet group should pay to display news content in its search results. Financed but not managed by Google, that money will go to support the survival of the weekly."

andyjohnson0• 12 years ago

The Guardian has announced that they are donating £100k to Charlie Hebdo [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/553298181568884737

xster• 12 years ago

I think we all agree that this support is very heartwarming and meaningful but also makes one think who's donating to all the drone strike victims for whom not only freedom of expression but freedom is existence is continually threatened?

I agree that empathy is obviously not a zero sum game but find that it's also unfortunate that the media's subtle nudge on public sentiment is tipping an already unbalanced situation into more unbalance.

Google Is Donating €250k to Charlie Hebdo

Related Stories