Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Google The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online Politics

Google Fund To Pay For 1 Million Copies of Charlie Hebdo 311

BarbaraHudson writes The Register is reporting that money set aside from a deal with France's publishers is going to pay for the printing of 1 million copies of next weeks' Charlie Hebdo, "Eight of the 12 people killed were journalists attending an editorial meeting, however, a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack. They have vowed to do a massive 1 million copy print run next week – Charlie Hebdo's circulation is normally around 60k. The cash will come from €60m fund (€20m per year over three years) that supports digital publishing innovation. The fund was set up in 2013 following negotiations between Google and the French government as a remedy to demands from European publishers that Google pay for displaying news snippets in its search results.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fund To Pay For 1 Million Copies of Charlie Hebdo

Comments Filter:
  • Availability (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    OK, so how do I get a copy as I'm outside France? Time to prove that the pen is mightier than the AK-47.

    • Re: Availability (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2015 @10:47AM (#48787025)

      The shorter than usual survivor edition is being sold internationally next Friday. I heard that Easons will stock it in Ireland. Google to see if your country has a retailer for it?

    • More than that, isn't that weekly in French? Or will they do English editions as well?
  • Excellent. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quenda ( 644621 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @10:28AM (#48786943)

    I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha [google.com] on the front cover.
        And a few Jesus & Moses gags inside for balance.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2015 @10:37AM (#48786987)

      I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha [google.com] on the front cover.

      To be fair, the marriage wasn't actually consummated until Aisha was nine.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's all within the rules of Allah!

        Recently, the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia (our ally) informed that there is no age restriction on consuming women as long as they are physically developed enough to withstand the weight of the groom.

        http://wunrn.com/news/2009/01_09/01_12_09/011209_saudi.htm

        Ah, talk of coincidence, the Captcha word is "violator", lol.

        • You should look up thighing. Its not safe for work but given the knowledge of that, what you present doesn't surprise me. Make sure you search youtube for it too. There was a cool video where a female news repirter went off on some guy who was describing it as if it was manly or something.

          I've talked with several Arabs and Persions who say they were disgusted at the idea so it should not be assumed they all are like that.

        • the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia (our ally) informed that there is no age restriction on consuming women as long as they are physically developed enough

          I don't think that even the more extreme versions of Islam allow you to eat women.

      • To be fair, when the Bible speaks of Mary and Joseph as being betrothed [jewishencyclopedia.com], at the time it meant they were married (Erusin [wikipedia.org]), but not yet cohabiting (Nissuin [wikipedia.org]).

        a betrothed couple is regarded as husband and wife. Similarly, the union can only be ended by the same divorce process as for married couples. However, betrothal does not oblige the couple to behave towards each other in the manner that a married couple is required to, nor does it permit[16] the couple to have a sexual relationship with each other. Erusi [wikipedia.org]

    • Don't Christians believe that God raped Mary when she was around 12 or 13? A prophet acting as was normal for the people of his time is understandable, but an all-knowing immortal god doesn't have the ignorance and culture excuse.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        Don't Christians believe that God raped Mary when she was around 12 or 13?

        Which bit of the Virgin Birth don't you get? Anyway, that totally misses the point. Christians believe some crazy stuff, but don't start threatening you if you ask a question like that, or joke about it. Down Brown doesn't get firebombed for writing about Jesus & Mary Magdalene.

        BTW, it was the custom for Jewish girls to be betrothed at that age, (ie puberty) and same in Mohammed's time.
        His marriage to Aisha at 6 would have been for political reasons, not because he had a preference. None of that is ve

        • the bigger issue is people getting shot for publishing satire, regardless of how "offensive". The line for "free speech" is not "offensive", its "provoking attacks, or otherwise denying people their rights".

          And no, christians generally don't shoot people for saying bad things about Mr Jesus, even if they do bitch and complain(again their right to bitch and complain).

          I think the only other group to follow through with threats in the modern age in the west is probably the Jews, another group that needs to

  • I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.
    • I was thinking the same thing. When i first saw the headlines i thought "why in the hell would they do something like this for a company like that?". Then i realized that the only connection to google was that they agreed to pay the french years ago and that money is being used now.

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koan ( 80826 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @10:31AM (#48786961)

    Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?

    That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the cens
      • What are you even babbling about?
        • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Half-pint HAL ( 718102 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @10:55AM (#48787075)

          On Wednesday, Sia launched the video for her single Elastic Heart. In it, Shia LaBeouf is in skin-colour briefs, play-fighting with a 12-year old dancer and actress by the name of Maddie Ziegler.

          Some consider it controversial and claim it is a depiction of child abuse. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have made the headlines had it not been that the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred on the exact same day.

          It is my contention that if we weren't now all crying for freedom to offend, we would all instead be crying for the censorship of offensive material. That's the human race now.

      • No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.

        Come off it. Even trying to compare a non-existent video with a series of murders by terrorists - troll much?

        • Did I imagine this video [youtube.com]? Did I imagine these reactions [take40.com]? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.
          • Did I imagine this video [youtube.com]? Did I imagine these reactions [take40.com]? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.

            From the article: "Watching it, I realised that the intensity (Sia’s “emotional content”) was the reason it was jarring – the mere fact that the video wasn’t carefully benign, cheaply titillating or just plain boring, like so much else in the genre. In Elastic Heart, the grown man and the young girl are alive with feelings for each other, running the gamut from amusement and play through to fury to despair. What isn’t there is sexuality. In fact, it baffles me how anyone

            • I don't find it sexual. My point is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that had this not come out on the same day as the attack happened, the tabloid press would have whipped up a confected outrage, and people would be baying for blood. People who had never watched the video would be demanding that broadcasters refuse to air it, and debate would be stymied by people's refusal to watch the video for themselves because they are already convinced it's paedophilia.

              • Fair enough. The chattering class always needs something to chatter about - just like they were calling for the ban on "The Last Temptation of Christ" even before it was released. People are sheeple :-)
            • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
              Men aren't even allowed to do that with their sons, and sons are discouraged doing that with their dads. A man who is nice to boys, must be a pedophile. We don't even need to say "gay pedophile" because the "gay" is assumed, thanks to Catholics. I'm constantly "inappropriate" with a child that I have no legal or blood relation to. I married his mum before he was 1. I treat him no differently than his brother who I do share genetics with. But someone could easily portray it as inappropriate.

              We look lo
      • Is this some reference to age of Mohammed's bride? If yes, then you are off by several years - he married Aisha when she was six and started fucking her three years later.
      • by Livius ( 318358 )

        So, you're applauding the fact that society now has it's priorities straight?

        • Nope. Our current outrage won't magically conjure up consistency.
      • Re: So... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @12:18PM (#48787525) Homepage

        Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.

          I agree wholeheartedly, and I never said otherwise. I was responding to koan's post [slashdot.org] and his suggestion that the appropriate response to the killings was to repeatedly publish offensive images. Now that I do disagree with. My point was that we will collectively still call for the banning of material we find offensive while simultaneously standing up for the right to publish material that others find offensive. I fully believe that if the CH attack hadn't happened on the same day as the Sia video launch, we w

    • I was wondering if any malware writers would like to help.

      Lots of malware will scan the infected computer for E-mail addresses so that it can send out spam.

      Suppose someone wrote a virus which scans infected computers for E-mail addresses with common muslim first names [slashdot.org], and sends a randomly selected offensive Mohammed cartoon to that person. One of 10 cartoons that comes bundled with the malware, for instance. (Google has many to choose from.)

      This would have the simultaneous effect of trolling (getting other

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2015 @11:10AM (#48787145)

    Google's giving them $300K, but the government is giving them $1.2M. [mashable.com]

    While freedom of speech is a law that needs to be upheld, how many people would be happy with the government (or google?) giving an organization like stormfront a million dollars to publish pictures of Obama with a tail and a banana in one hand?

    • by Xenna ( 37238 )

      This is freedom of speech paired with freedom of religion *and* freedom from persecution rolled in one issue.

      Your Obama cartoon is just plain old racism.

      • But it's worth asking: if a group of terrorists barged into the offices of Stormfront and killed their magazine's top staff members, would we feel the "right" action in response to this atrocity was to buy millions of copies of said magazine, and publish as many racist cartoons from that publication as possible?

        Charlie Hebdo published some pretty awful shit. Like a cartoon comparing raped sex slaves to welfare queens. There was no level of "down" they weren't prepared to punch to.

        Fuck the terrorists, b

    • After Obama-worshiping radicals have first murdered several of their executives? A lot, I'd wager.

  • ... until everyone is willing to say "yes, it was Islam, and we are done letting more of you into our countries," then all the hashtags and belated "I am {victims}" (they sure weren't Charlie Hedbo before it happened, when it might have mattered) and candlelight vigils and "oh nos, watch out for imaginary backlash" isn't going to do anything to stop this.

    This is an evil death cult, and they don't care what we think, except to use an excuse for more murder.

    • Over a quarter of the world's population are muzzies. If Islam really is how you describe then there would be a much different world. If we are to look at the death figures, our governments are by far the grim reaper.
    • most of the world is sadly in one death cult or another, be it islam, Christianity, Judaism etc etc. yes the world would be better off without them but that isn't going to happen.

  • by ikhider ( 2837593 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @02:42PM (#48788539)
    Insulting the prophet does not carry the death sentence as during his life he was insulted, and worse. These attackers had Islamic precedent to draw from and had they looked it up, would not use the cartoons as justification. I submit to you that there is another reason behind this: http://www.independent.co.uk/v... [independent.co.uk] There is no justification for the murders, but we can grasp to understand the underlying issues.
  • by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @03:29PM (#48788793) Journal

    I thought Print was dead...

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...