Je Suis Charlie - Is HubPages in Danger?

1. 84

   Austinstarposted 9 years ago

   As an online journalistic, free speech, and opinion piece media outlet, is HubPages in any kind of danger?
   Are individual hubbers at risk for posting certain opinion and religious pieces?
   What is HP doing to protect its staff and members?
   What should we be doing to protect ourselves?
   Are there any guidelines about avoiding terroristic threats via HP?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Phyllis Doyleposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What would you expect HubPages to do to protect its staff and members other than securing their offices if need be? As for us writers, we are all over the world.  HP cannot place security guards over us. We are each responsible for what we write. Any journalist is, or should be, aware of any risks they take when writing and publishing opinions on just about anything. 
      
      I totally agree with psycheskinner: "I think keeping our relative importance in the right context is protection enough."

      replyreport
   2. 81

      peachpurpleposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      may i know what is going on here? I though that it is a freedom of speech , we write what e think best for HP, why would anyone put HP in danger?

      replyreport
   3. 66

      KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Think! It Ain't Illegal Yet

      replyreport
   4. 84

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, I'm seeing that we, as free speech writers must protect ourselves. I'm just asking what is the best way to do that?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         First assess whether you have any real risk.
         Second, if you do determine there is an actual risk take steps that make sense for you to mitigate those risks. That will relate to who you are, where you are, who is presenting the risk, what type of attack they would perpetrate, and your specific exposure and resources.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Please don't label me as a snob for pointing this out, but your expectations of Hubbers might be based on viewing some small enlightened subsection of HubPages.  I see a lot of contributions on HubPages from people who are genuinely curious, but do not seem to have much experience doing risk assessment.  Not to mention the occasional ignorant troll or provocateur.

            replyreport
   5. 63

      PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As was the actual recent case in France, it would appear that if people would refrain from criticizing or making cartoons of mohammad, their chances of survival would be better. However the downside would be surviving in a world where people are wantonly murdered for freedom of expression.

      replyreport
   6. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with PhoenixV . Sure if people would refrain from criticizing or making cartoons of Mohammad survival  would be assured. But what kind of survival?  And yes we would be surviving in a world where to criticize anyone might lead to death. And Charlie didn't just have a go at Islam. There are cartoons about bad Catholic priests doing nasty things to children. So if Rome decides to hire assassins to stop the talk then that will be okay, no more bad priests? I don't believe so. We must have our freedoms no matter what.

      replyreport
   7. 66

      KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I do not intend to be provocative here, but there is an issue we are dancing around and I think we need to honestly discuss it in "quotation marks".  There has been a march in Paris protesting the caricature of Mohammed on the cover of the new Charlie Hebdo that published 3 million copies.  This is a cause celebre, and will (one hopes) be a source of fruitful discussion on HubPages.  My specific question is, what would happen if some Hubber uploaded the image of the cover of Charlie Hebdo.  Personally, I do not find it offensive, and two weeks ago I myself might have uploaded it out of ignorance.

      replyreport
   8. 66

      KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There was an attack on Feb. 14, 2015 in Copenhagen.  It was apparently similar to the Charlie Hebdo attack in that it was aimed against artists who published cartoons of Muhammed.  It was at a was a public seminar discussing freedom of speech.  The attack has Denmark on edge.  I'll mention one detail from the report I just read.  After the shooting, the seminar continued as planned.

      replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   I think keeping our relative importance in the right context is protection enough.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would suggest that we need to re-evaluate our relative importance in light of recent events, and I'll update you on the context.  If I polled Americans to find out who they think is the American equivalent of "Charlie Hebdo", and one of the multiple choice answers I fed them was "Saturday Night Live", I would bet that there are many Americans that would agree with me that the satirical comedy program "Saturday Night Live" was the most obvious.  I'd be willing to bet that they wisely stepped up security at the live broadcast of that show on Jan. 18., as a direct result of "Je Suis Charlie".  I would note that during their entire ten-minute weekly skit called "Weekend Update", where for forty years now, they have covered every major news topic in order to make a joke about it, they did not make a single mention of "Charlie Hebdo" or any of the activities in France, and they came nowhere close to showing any image of Mohammed.  Personally, I think the image on the cover of Charlie Hebdo (which many love to celebrate and few love to upload) was ingenious.  It serves as a Rorschach test, or an ink blot test.  You can read whatever you want into it.  Many people use their own uninformed, overly-sensitive, near-sighted views and interpret it to mean, "Hey Muslims!  Look at me!  We hate you!",  I have my own interpretation of the cover, based on my own uninformed, overly-sensitive and near-sighted view.  My take is, "Hey American Bloggers!  Please talk about me, because nobody else will!"

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry! I don't hate Muslims. There are a lot of Muslims in this world and many of them are probably alright people trying to just get on with their lives. But I do believe that the killers who were Muslim were the worst kind of bullies of the religious sort. We have had mad Christians in Australia and I KNOW there have been mad Christians in the USA. The Creationists are a perfect example of people happy to make science run backwards to satisfy their concept of God. If asked do I hate Muslims I would say no. If asked do I hate religious bullies I would say yes. Would the great Muhammad have approved of the killings? One would hope that the answer would be no. No one can say for sure. I hold up a pen Je Suis Charlie in defiance of the filthy religious bullies and invite people of all faiths and people  of no religious convictions to do the same. We should teach the bullies a lesson. WE WANT THE PEN. We do not want the sword. If you want the sword and you are a religious freak then go to some country where you can get your head handed to you. But leave the peaceful countries where people want good will for everyone alone.     
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 66

            KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Sign me up.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               If you have a pen or a keyboard and would rather use such items to make the world a better place than physically harm others or get someone else to harm others then you are already signed up. Glad to have you aboard.

               replyreport
3. 82

   tillsontitanposted 9 years ago

   If we start worrying about terrorists on HP the ones who will be hurt the most are us, the writers.  Free speech, like any freedom is a right we must cherish and never be afraid to exhibit.  Any freedom right now is in jeopardy, we can't let them win!

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are right tillsontitan. We can't let the bullies win.
      
      

      replyreport
4. 86

   DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years ago

   I agree with tillsontitan--If we cower in fear, then the terrorists have already won!
   
   You cannot live in a bubble.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes DzyMsLizzy. We can't cower in fear. Not even the pope can stop people thinking for themselves. 
      
      

      replyreport
5. 80

   LeanManposted 9 years ago

   I have a whole series of hubs about living and working in Saudi Arabia. Over the years I have had threatening comments and even emails sent to me directly. But I treat then exactly as they should be treated - I ignore them!
   
   Some that don't contain profanities, more violent or sexual imagery, I have even approved in the comment sections of my hubs!
   
   Never be afraid to speak your mind if it is the truth!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would vote this up if it were allowed here in the forums! Thank you for stating this.

      replyreport
6. 82

   snakeslaneposted 9 years ago

   By the look of this Je Suis Charlie Twitter map the entire west coast and eastern seaboard of the US has shown its support, West coast Canada and most of Central and parts of South America too.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting. But what about Australia and New Zealand?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         The lands of Oz and Kiwis are terrorist free zones, right?
         
         snakeslane - can you post the link for your photo?
         Thanks,
         Lela

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            No Austinstar. You're not reading me right. I wish Australia and New Zealand were terrorist free zones. There was the terrorist murders at Martin, Place, Sydney in December of 2014. As for our reaction to what happened in Paris, there was a lot of heart felt support for the victims both in Sydney and Melbourne. I just thought you might of had a map showing southern hemisphere support for Charlie. We mourn for the victims, here too.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I was trying to use my sarcastic font, Rod. I sure wish they would get that font out there for us to use!
               No, I did not mean that Australia and NZ are terrorist free. These countries are also under attack. The Martin Place, Sydney example is but one example of nutcase terrorists wandering around the globe.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  That's okay Austinstar. I'm still smarting over the Martin Place business. Now we have this thing in Paris. And it has recently been virtually praised by the Pope of all people. But then in past issues of Charlie there were cartoons about Catholic priests not doing the right thing when it comes to children. Fair comment I say since there are officials looking into bad behavior of Catholic priests in Australia right now.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … xDnxv6eFNg

                  replyreport
         2. 82

            snakeslaneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I thought I posted this earlier when you asked, guess not:
            [URL redacted per forum rules]

            replyreport
      2. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Not many hits in Canada
         
         That's nice

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            One murder of a Canadian by a Muslim nut case is one hit too many.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Canada went with America to increase the Afghanistan opium trade and they happen to killed at least 21,000 by standing Civilians.
               
               Again, not one Canadian was killed by an Afghanistan person on our soil.
               Canada broke our peace tradition for this.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I said Muslim not an Afghanistan person.
                  
                  Security forces are on alert across Canada after a gunman attacked the nation's parliament, shooting a soldier dead before himself being killed by a parliamentary official.
                  
                  Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper declared that the nation would "never be intimidated" and said the soldier, who was standing on ceremonial guard duty outside the nation's main war memorial in Ottawa, had been "murdered in cold blood".
                  
                  The gunman has been identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Muslim convert who was born Michael Joseph Hall, who reportedly fought in Libya during the uprising which deposed strongman Moamar Gaddafi.
                  
                  He was shot dead by the parliament's sergeant-at-arms, who has been hailed a hero by MPs who were caught in the building as dozens of shots were fired.
                  
                  Soldier shot in chest while on guard duty
                  
                  The violence began about 10:00am Wednesday (local time) when a soldier Nathan Cirillo, a 24-year-old reservist serving with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada regiment, was shot in the chest with a rifle as he stood on guard.
                  
                  Photo: The gunman ... Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. (Twitter: CBC Ottawa)
                  
                  It is believed that Zehaf-Bibeau then hijacked a car and ran into the nearby parliament building where he opened fire when confronted by security staff.
                  
                  Pictures from inside the parliament showed MPs barricading themselves into a room as security guards traded fire with the gunman.
                  
                  "I literally had just taken off my jacket to go into caucus. I hear this 'pop, pop, pop', possibly 10 shots," Liberal Party member John McKay told reporters.
                  
                  "Suddenly the security guards come rushing down the hallways and usher us all out to the back of the parliament buildings."

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Rod
                     
                     Out of 600 murders a year in Canada  I'm sure most of them were done by Christians. A few muslim killing is not attacting 47 Muslim nations, even if many are highly bigoted.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        My word worthis missing

                        replyreport
                     2. 68

                        Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm sure the 600 or so a year killers you write about in Canada didn't declare themselves to be Christian or did the killings in  the name of Christ. That makes a difference.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           In Canada Christain 77.1%)  nonChristion (4%)
                           Per capita more Christian in prison than Muslim.
                           
                           More wars started in the name of God, most from the USA. People tend to believe that what they are doing is right, and their actions best serve what they believe that their god wants.
                           
                           It’s one of the main reasons I don’t care for any Religion

                           replyreport
                           1. 63

                              PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              So based on demographics you just assumed your figures?  Was the American Revolutionary War in the name of God?  Was the war of 1812?  Was WW2 a war started in the name of God? Was the Korean War in the name of God? Vietnam was in the name of God? Bigotry towards Christians is still bigotry, wouldn't you agree?
                              
                              Let me guess, you live in a demographically majority Christian country?  You don't live under sharia law in an islamic state? Have you ever lived in an islamic state? Have you ever lived under sharia law anywhere, ever?  Have you ever lived in a country with state sponsored atheism?

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 oceansnsunsetsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 All excellent points, against ideas that don't even make sense in the first place. Thanks for showing how those ideas fail. I observed the same things.  We need some more clear thinking, and less bigotry in this world.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 84

                                    Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yep, everybody needs to GROW UP and act like adults. If something offends you, change the freaking channel. Free speech is hear to stay. There is NO valid reason to kill over cartoons and ideology.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 63

                                       PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       According to these polls, large percentages of people in various countries support sharia law. Their courts sentence people to death for insulting islam or mohammad. Some courts even acquit vigilantes.
                                       
                                       These ideas and practices are not anomalies.
                                       
                                       Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike
                                       
                                       Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%)
                                       
                                       http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … ut-sharia/
                                       
                                       
                                       In Egypt, insulting Islam and its prophet can and has resulted in the death penalty. For instance, seven Egyptian Christians were sentenced to death on November 28, 2012, for their role in the "Innocence of Muslims" movie
                                       
                                       
                                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
                                       
                                       
                                       The courts have acquitted vigilantes  who killed in the belief that their victims were engaged in un-Islamic activities.[4] [5]
                                       
                                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran

                                       report
                                    2. 68

                                       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       We definitely do not want sharia law in Australia. Some mob in Lakemba, NSW might want it but the majority of Australians are for free speech and so are against it. And the death penalty?! Arrrghh! We don't have a death penalty for anything especially for speaking out  here in Australia and we certainly do not want one. Yes i agree with Austinstar. No reason to kill over cartoons. No reason at all.

                                       report
                  2. 66

                     KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     The events in Canada that Rod Marsden described took place Oct. 22, 2014.  I'm making this clarification only because Rod's post only mentions "Wednesday", which might lead someone uninformed to think that meant this Wednesday.  It occurred to me that a coroner who lives in a large metropolitan area might be exposed day in, day out to working with the corpses of car crash victims.  Many of these victims will have been killed through no fault of their own.  He's probably seen some fairly ugly gory things, including maybe even beheadings, which would keep a normal person up at night.  But he sleeps soundly, because he's been desensitized, as he has to deal with it all the time.  The coroner I'm imagining lives five miles from home.  Does he walk home covered in bubble wrap to protect him from all the killer cars?  No, he may be a coroner, but he's also a reasonable person, and a free man.  He drives home, takes reasonable precautions with his deadly vehicle, and he's probably a safer driver than most people.

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        You miss the point. the point being that a soldier in his own country doing no harm to anyone was killed for some idiot political/ religious reason. That is dead set wrong.

                        replyreport
                        1. 66

                           KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           You have a choice to make.  You get to choose your favorite USA founding father to think like.  Some people prefer to think like Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death!")  You can choose to think like that all the time, if you want.  If you choose to think like that all the time, and I say to you, "Okay, Rod, I agree.  Killing a soldier is dead set wrong.  Now, what are you going to do about it?"  You might say, "I will not allow a single infraction!  I will die for my country!  Let's go get 'em!  Yes, I'll pay for some more of those weapons!"  I choose to adopt a different mindset, even though Patrick Henry was a great man.  I choose to think more like Benjamin Franklin, who said, "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  I'll admit it's kind of long for a bumper sticker, but I sleep soundly at night.

                           replyreport
                           1. 68

                              Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I have no idea what you are on about KU37. The Canadian soldier wasn't invading anyone's country. He wasn't attacking anyone. He was simply killed in the name of some idiot's idea of religion. I know that is wrong. If he was a soldier on a battlefield fine but that was not the case. Some Muslim nut case decided to break the law. Was this Muslim nut case a soldier? You might say so but I certainly would not.

                              replyreport
                              1. 66

                                 KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 So what's your point in copy/pasting a long article about one single fatality due to a nutcase that has absolutely nothing to do with Je Suis Charlie?  austinstar's question at the top of this page describes HubPages "as an online journalistic, free speech, and opinion piece media outlet".  What "chilling effect" on freedom of expression has there been from that one single fatality in Canada or in the world?  And what about my coroner analogy?  Are you aware of the sheer numbers of fatalities due to car accidents?  Compared to, say, plane accidents or homicidal nutcases?  Or plane crashes caused by homicidal nutcases?  If you're trying to get inside the nutcase head and you are trying to suggest they have something like a "motive", I think that might be a subject for a Hub or a whole series of Hubs.  It's a very popular topic among people who spend their lives thinking like Patrick Henry.  I'm also seeing lots of comments along the lines of "Muslims in Paris are rioting to support terrorism."  That one wins this week's prize of malarkey.  They're rioting because they feel offended.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 68

                                    Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    What happened in Canada and also what happened in Martin Place, Sydney, Australia in December 2014 shows a growing world wide trend toward the same kind of violence that happened in France. Car accidents are just that. They are accidents. Cold blooded irrational religious bull dust murder is something else. Even Blind Freddy can see that! Well, maybe Muslims in Paris ARE rioting in support of terrorism. And let them be offended. It seems to me, thanks to those Charlie murders, they deserve it. In Sydney we also have Muslims acting up.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 66

                                       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Canada?  no effect on free speech.  Australia?  no effect on free speech.  Car accidents?  no effect on free speech.  Charlie Hebdo?  How many of your TV news channels in Sydney are showing the cartoon image?  All of them?  Then hooray for Australia!  In the US, not so much hooray.  Not so much cartoon.  Not so much discussion.  "I was on vacation for a couple weeks.  What?  I can't say THAT?  I didn't get the memo."

                                       report
            2. 66

               KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "Zero tolerance" of anything is not a proper way for adults to think.  That counts for STDs, vandalism, drugs, crime, terrorism, you name it.  These things are part of our modern world and are never going away.  Once you make them a fetish, the vandals have won.  (Unless you work for the CIA) you cannot spend all day searching the internet for "terrorism" and remain a sane free person.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree KU - What we need to do is what we normally do. If fighting for your freedoms interests you, then do so.
                  Seriously, a CARTOON should NOT incite people to violence, no matter the subject.
                  This is why I always say that secular laws are trying to protect citizens and religious laws are trying to control how you think.
                  We can't allow ANYONE to control how we think!

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Plus one for the all caps and the exclamation marks.  Minus one for the evasion of responsibility.

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        What evasion? Austinstar is perfectly right and she is being straight with you. We can't allow ANYONE to control how we think.

                        replyreport
                        1. 66

                           KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Rod, I might be mistaken, but I think you are the only person on this forum who has given a straight answer to the question of whether HubPages should remove a cartoon image of Muhammed.  When you say "we can't allow...", I don't think you alone can presume to speak for the entire HubPages community.  I don't know if it's majority rule, or how exactly works.  I do know that when I showed someone my own personal statement about Charlie Hebdo, hosted on a different internet domain, they were alarmed that someone might look up my address.  I don't think they were concerned about copyright lawyers, I think they were concerned about terrorists.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              That's because copyright lawyers will only issue a cease and desist. A terrorist wants to kill you over a stupid cartoon!

                              replyreport
                              1. 66

                                 KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Agreed.  We can't allow copyright lawyers control what we think, and yet we do.  We can't allow terrorists to control what we think, and yet we do.  We're still allowed to have this discussion.  But I don't think there are lots of participants joining into this discussion based on loud screechy alarm bells from CNN, NBC or FOX about the loss of freedom of expression.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 68

                                    Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Maybe there will be something on future episodes of The Simpsons. You never know...But you could be right KU37.

                                    replyreport
7. 0

   calculus-geometryposted 9 years ago

   If you are concerned about drawing negative attention, an obvious first step is to not display your real name,  real photo, and where you live. 
   
   This is not directed at the OP in particular, but I'm surprised how many users here make controversial/provoking posts, then claim they have been stalked/harassed beyond this website by people who don't like their posts, and when you look at their profiles you see all the personal info you'd ever need to stalk them.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Putting up a photo of yourself and revealing personal information is standard operating procedure for journalists and anyone that wants credibility. Yes, I do understand that this type of behavior incites psychopaths like it incites a rapist when they see a girl dressed in, what it to their eyes is, "provocative clothing". They are still psychopaths.
      I think the main point is that we stand up to these psychopaths. Perhaps get Homeland security involved? Or Immigration? I'll never understand why these people can't ignore a cartoon, or an article about them. It's just not enough reason to strap a bomb to a 10 year old girl and send her into a crowd, then blow her up along with other innocent bystanders. (African muslim attack from this week).
      We need to fight them with words. We need to destroy their ideology that promotes killing over imagined threats to a 2,000 year old book!
      We need to promote freedom of speech!!!

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. It makes me furious to have our freedoms attacked in the way they have been with Charlie in France.

         replyreport
8. 62

   ginosblogposted 9 years ago

   Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Can we have freedom of speech? Without killing?

      replyreport
      1. 66

         KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know if that is the dichotomy ginosblog is referring to.  Maybe it is, there are lots of them that are being discussed here.  Personally, I don't see easy black and white solutions to any of them, unless you prefer to be willfully ignorant to what is happening in the real world.

         replyreport
      2. 68

         Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Freedom of speech without killings sounds pretty good to me.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         pumpkincat210posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Consider this speech that JFK gave to the American Newspaper Publishers Association regarding (mostly)the press coverage of the Bay of Pigs:   [redacted]
         
         As for safety, use common sense.   Turn off your geolocation data, don't post the steps of your day on social media, only share personal information about yourself with a few people that you are close to.  Lock your doors, don't let strangers into your home, be aware of your surroundings.  You don't need to stay in your home all day and be afraid to go out, if you do, then they already have power over you.   
         The chances of being in a terror attack are very low.  Replace the word 'terrorist' with 'whackjob' and it doesn't seem as scary.  The pen is mightier than the sword..

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I have always been taught that the pen is mightier than the sword, but not mightier than automatic weapons out of the blue!

            replyreport
         2. 66

            KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Can we get some hint about the JFK redaction on pumpkincat210's post?  Do we have to do the research?  Since we're all agreeing to be "thought-police"-y, and I'm sort of new to HubPages, I'm just curious as to where we are drawing the lines.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Here is the JFK speech (Bay of Pigs) in its entirety:
               http://alphahistory.com/coldwar/kennedy … pigs-1961/

               replyreport
   2. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So ginosblog wants us to give in  to terror? No way!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I'm seeing lots of slogans and lots of exclamation marks here, and that's all well and good.  But I have a question for Rod Marsden, and for anyone else.  A question that requires a "yes/no - please explain" type answer.  If somebody uploaded the image of the cover of Charlie Hebdo that shows a caricature of Mohammed weeping under the title "All is forgiven", should HubPages remove the image?

         replyreport
         1. 31

            Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Yes.  Because that image is under copyright.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What about a photo of the (very newsworthy) issue of Charlie Hebdo which shows the cover?

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Freedom can never be absolute but that does not mean we go around murdering people. Yes. Copyright is important. It is how writers and artists get paid. If you can publish something to do with Charlie free from copyright I say go ahead.

                  replyreport
         2. 84

            Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            There is a "fair use" clause that allows covers of magazines and books to be reproduced. But it is usually only for the purposes of reviewing the magazine or the book in question. Also fair use can be applied to classrooms.
            Also, the publishing media has the final say so about what photos can and can not be published on their servers. So, you really need to ask HubPages about publishing that photo.
            Good Luck!

            replyreport
            1. 66

               KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, Austinstar, but I find your answer evasive.  You and I are both part of this community, and I think we share the responsibility of questioning HubPages T&C's and how they get interpreted and implemented.  My question is not "would they remove the image?"  My question is "should they remove the image?"  (And I will put my cards on the table and say that the intent of my question is to reveal hypocrisy.)

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, the fight against hypocrisy is huge and never ending. I can only hope you succeed.  Go for it!

                  replyreport
               2. 84

                  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Personally, I am outraged the Pope made the statement that no one should mock a person's faith! Well, are we back to the Inquisition times then?

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     That's interesting.  I don't know the answer to your question.  Your comment does not address my question.

                     replyreport
            2. 68

               Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with Austinstar. I too am outraged by what the Pope said on the issue of Charlie. Yes, it does appear we are back to the Inquisition times and KU37 wants to be a part of it. You reveal your own hypocracy KU37. And tjhanks fort clearing up the question of copyright Austinstar. Very helpful. And no one, not even KU37, got hurt, at least physically, in the process.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm looking at a Web page that starts out "Je Suis Charlie", which means "I am Charlie", the now-famous statement of solidarity with the French cartoonists who were killed.  Further down I see statements like "never be afraid to speak your mind if it's the truth", and "we need to promote freedom of speech", which the commenters have decided to punctuate with exclamation marks.  Somebody doing a quick scan might come to the conclusion that those commenters would answer "no" to my simple yes or no question.  But I think what I'm hearing now is "It depends!!!!!!!!"

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I will try to make it clear for you KU37 if at all possible though there are doubts that this  is indeed possible. I am indeed Charlie. yes. I speak my mind. I also give credit where credit is due. I do not claim someone else's writing or art for my own because that is unethical. It is also understandably against the law. Yes. Promote freedom of speech. Promote the freedom to have your say in your own unique way and to be solid behind and support others doing the same thing. You are not outraged by what the Pope said? Then you should be ashamed of yourself KU37.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Insofar as you are one person who represents the HubPages community, and I think you are, I will take that as a "No, HubPages should not remove the image."  Please let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth.  What I heard about the Pope was that his statement was somewhat confusing and self-contradictory.  The Pope is only tangentially relevant on a web page called "Je Suis Charlie - Is HubPages in Danger?"

                        replyreport
                        1. 68

                           Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           The Pope is attacking Charlie and hence the relevance on a web  page titled I am Charlie - Is HubPages in Danger? Of course the image should not be removed if there is no legal reason to do so. Since there doesn't seem to be it should stay.

                           replyreport
                           1. 66

                              KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Fair enough.  As long as the mention of the Pope isn't just a "look at this shiny object!" tactic.

                              replyreport
                              1. 68

                                 Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 WHAT? THE POPE is supporting the idea of killing people who apparently are disagreeable and it isn't a big deal?! The Pope basically saying I am not Charlie and I do not believe in the pen is a big deal!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 66

                                    KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I would suggest first of all that this part of this forum falls under my "yes/no" question about Charlie Hebdo, and your comments about the Pope might be more relevant elsewhere.  Also, I think you might be over-simplifying what he said.  You might be distilling down what he said into what you would have liked him to have said.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 68

                                       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       All things considered I would have liked the Pope to have kept his mouth shut. I used to have more respect for this current Pope than I do right now. You are strange KU37.

                                       report
                                    2. 66

                                       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Strange?  Thanks, I'll take that as a "thumbs-up".

                                       report
9. 85

   oceansnsunsetsposted 9 years ago

   We can openly and honestly discuss the ideas that support those that terrorize others for practicing their freedoms.  Can, meaning "could", and not many are doing that.  Some that are, are strangely, getting demonized for it, or we see a lot of twisting and distorting.
   
   Twisting and distorting is only needed when the truthfulness about the ideas themselves, are not willing to be looked at honestly.  Generally though, we would all agree that killing people for making cartoons is not ok.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that killing people for making cartoons is definitely not okay. I think the Pope might be cheesed off with Charlie because of cartoons depicting Catholic priests with an interest in misbehaving with children. Since there have been cases of Catholic priests in Australia, the USA and Ireland accused of such crimes what the Charlie cartoonists did on that front was definitely fair comment.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I think that is one possible motivation for the Pope to comment on Charlie Hebdo.  Another is that it happens to be the elephant in the room this week, and ignoring it could be seen as cowardly.  My (very) quick take from what I read about his comments were that they were a sort of band-aid meant to mollify the strong feelings on all sides, and meant to discourage further discussion.

         replyreport
         1. 31

            Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The remarks by the Pope are more interesting when you read his complete statements.  The Pope does not believe in the long-held Christian teaching of 'turning the other cheek' and actually condoned violence in response to an insult!: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … t-too.html

            replyreport
            1. 63

               PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I would personally like to invite the pope to get to know Jesus and also learn about the laws regarding assault and battery.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I was about to reply to Writer Fox and PhoenixV, and then checked myself before clicking 'submit'.  Defending the Pope was definitely NOT what I had in mind when I joined HubPages!

                  replyreport
               2. 68

                  Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  PhoenixV has it right. Well it seems like you have defended the Pope regardless KU37.

                  replyreport
10. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    New Zealand in its entire history had one terrorist attack on its soil, back in the early 1970s with a single fatality.  So I would say that the home soil threat there is very close to zero. That may change of course, but I would consider the terrorist threat there to be negligible.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That reminds me of the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, and the fallout of it.  I'm not from Australia, so I may be broadbrushing this narrative, but my understanding is that the Prime Minister led them pass strict gun control legislation.  He lost his position in large part because of it.  History will judge the effectiveness of those gun control measures.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Aussie gun control has been pretty tight for close on to a century and remains that way.  I don't recall the shooting having any political fall out.  Any nation with a lot of farms and a lot of vermin will have quite a few legally owned long guns kicking around.
          
          The single New Zealand terrorist incident FWIW was a bomb.  No one ever found out who did it or why.

          replyreport
          1. 66

             KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Clarification:  when I said "he lost his position in large part because of it", I meant because of having passed the gun control legislation, which was unpopular.

             replyreport
             1. 84

                psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                I got that.  But I don't recall anything of that sort happening at all.  Australia already had UK style gun control. But I was living the next country over at the time and so not paying close attention. The shooter was already breaking the extant gun control laws.

                replyreport
11. 60

    pumpkincat210posted 9 years ago

    I'm sorry I didn't know I couldn't post a youtube link.  The speech title is "the president and the press", 1961.  It should be very easy to find in search, many sites host it.  If you have time listen to the audio, he is a very strong speaker. 
    Here is a highlight:
    "Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
    This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it."
    "And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

    replyreport
    1. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       +1
       Many in the US do not seem to be aware of the extent to which the US is a global presence, and the extent to which the norms of the world are being imposed on America.  The erosion (and global normalization) of freedom of speech has been accelerating for several years, and now with Charlie Hebdo, norms are being hastily reviewed.  That speech rocks.

       replyreport
12. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    I am quite sure there are hubs right now showing these pictures.  Thy appear on many thousands of websites which may be why the terrorists focus on the smaller number of traditional print outlets.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know what they are focusing on, but I don't recall anything like Charlie Hebdo happening before in Western democracies.  It was a mass killing of journalists in particular.

       replyreport
       1. 31

          Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          It looks like it might not be over yet.  There are calls for more assassinations of cartoonists:
          
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … staff.html

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             It is definitely going to get worse - not better! Unless we put a stop to it.

             replyreport
             1. 66

                KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Some of the commenters here like dichotomies, they like things to be black and white.  Okay, then, I'll go with the obvious questions, while keeping in mind everybody's safety.  Would HubPages permit a Hubber to upload an image of a caricature of a weeping Mohammed carrying a sign that says "All is Forgiven", without removing it?  If so, does that mean we have put a stop to something?  If so, does that mean somebody has "won" something?  Does that mean somebody has "lost" something?  What will they have "won"?  What will they have "lost"?

                replyreport
             2. 66

                KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Some of the commenters here like dichotomies, they like things to be black and white.  Okay, then, I'll go with the obvious questions, while keeping in mind everybody's safety.  Would HubPages permit a Hubber to upload an image of a caricature of a weeping Mohammed carrying a sign that says "All is Forgiven", without removing it?  If so, does that mean we have put a stop to something?  If so, does that mean somebody has "won" something?  Does that mean somebody has "lost" something?  What will they have "won"?  What will they have "lost"?

                replyreport
                1. 68

                   Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   A weeping Mohammed carrying a sign saying "All is Forgiven" would be okay with me. But I don't run the HubPages and it would be up to those who do. I am not sure who it would benefit if it did get out there. I believe there is a rule with some if not all believers of the Muslim faith that you don't depict Mohammed at all. If Muslims feel then that they have lost something by having such a depiction out there then that is fair enough to me considering what has happened. The right to have your say in a democratic country like France is much more important to a lot more people.

                   replyreport
                   1. 66

                      KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      I would hope that you and I would have some say in how HubPages interprets and implements their "thought-policing".  Make a stink if you don't like it.  The rest of your comment sounds like maybe you do want to sit on the fence.

                      replyreport
                      1. 68

                         Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         No fence sitting. Freedom is for everyone. If someone wants to put a cartoon showing Mohammed doing whatever I don't mind. Like i said some Muslims would object on principle. But I am not a Muslim. I have no idea who you expect Mohammed to forgive. Is it those who were killed by the nut cases in his name or the nut cases themselves? This might have to be made clear.

                         replyreport
                         1. 66

                            KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            If you haven't seen it already, you should take a look at the image which is readily available all over the internet.  It's not at all clear who is saying "All Is Forgiven" ("Tout Est Pardonne").  It could be Charlie Hebdo forgiving Mohammed, or it could be Mohammed forgiving Charlie Hebdo.

                            replyreport
                            1. 68

                               Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               More likely Charlie Hebdo doing the forgiving. It doesn't sound like Mohammed's style.

                               replyreport
                               1. 66

                                  KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  Charlie Hebdo's style is coming up with Rorschach tests.

                                  replyreport
13. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    Such a picture would not be against the rules.  It is probably already posted on a QAP-passed hub somewhere.

    replyreport
14. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    Indeed I was able to find various hubs showing cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

    replyreport
15. 91

    Phyllis Doyleposted 9 years ago

    Like many people, especially journalists, around the world I have always believed in freedom of speech. However, there is a point which to cross will bring on anger and threats. I read in one of the articles about Charlie that Charbo's wife had said he always knew that he would be killed in the manner he was. He was aware of the repercussions yet continued printing his views - and it seems all his staff were aware of the same thoughts.I am not saying they were right or wrong. My point is regardless of what one believes, freedom of speech is and should always be allowed. But, is there a point where freedom of speech goes beyond mere opinions and causes violence?
    
    France is now going through deeply controversial opinions of what freedom of speech means. Since the Charlie massacre, people have been arrested for support of the terrorists, which has caused Muslims to question what they feel is a double standard when it comes to freedom of speech (ie: it is okay for Charlie to criticize/mock Mohammed, but not okay for Muslims who believe the terrorists "had a right" to do what they did).
    
    What I can understand from all the articles is that France will not allow "hate speech" or any speech that is threatening or indicative of violence. This I agree with. What is your opinion (anybody) on this?
    
    Let me make it clear that I strongly believe killing people for their beliefs and opinions is wrong.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       " But, is there a point where freedom of speech goes beyond mere opinions and causes violence?"
       
       Absolutely not. Words cannot lift stones or shoot guns.
       
       One example for limiting free speech, often cited, is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, at a time when movie theaters, were more prone to catching fire and lacked adequate exits, fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems. Yelling fire caused panic. However yelling fire in that situation did not cause anyone to go out and purchase an automatic weapon and come back and kill everyone. There is a big difference there.  To panic in the first situation is a reasonable or expected thing to do for humans. Going out and killing people over a cartoon requires a thought process and activity to accomplish it.  Rounding up people that are vocally support the killing, isn't causing people to panic at the present time, in my opinion. However it might in the future. Let them speak about their support of terrorism, so that we all see it and hear it for what it is.  Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be protected at all cost. People that are violent, should be held to more accountability.

       replyreport
       1. 91

          Phyllis Doyleposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for your thoughts on this, Phoenix. I agree that people who are violent should be held to more accountability.

          replyreport
          1. 63

             PhoenixVposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Just my opinions, Phyllis. Nowadays, I feel lucky to express them. I fear that might not be the case for the next generation and I hope I do not live to see that.

             replyreport
       2. 66

          KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with Phoenix V, and I would like to expand his ideas a bit.
          
          "Going out and killing people over a cartoon requires a thought process and activity to accomplish it.  Rounding up people that are vocally support the killing, isn't causing people to panic at the present time, in my opinion."
          
          I would be careful to make the important distinction between vocally supporting the killing and vocally saying they have been offended.  I think we need to listen to THEM carefully, and all the various things they might be concerned about.  And I think it's critically important that we do not put words in their mouths, words which may conform to our preconceived notions.  As for those who would kill people over a cartoon, personally I do not consider those people worthy of trying to reason with.  I am a free human being and will not let those people control my life.  I will allow the authorities to do the job I have entrusted them with.

          replyreport
16. 89

    CyclingFitnessposted 9 years ago

    Putting free speech aside for one minute. Did no no else think that in comparion to what happened in Denmark previously that something serious would happen when the cartoons were published? As soon as I heard on the news my initial thoughts were 'didn't they realise what they were doing?' as the reaction was along the lines of what i expected.
    
    Western ideals of free speech don't work in a worldwide society when others don't follow accepted rules and norms

    replyreport
    1. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If you do the research, you'll find that the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed in 2011 after they reprinted the Danish cartoons.  After political leaders riled up populations in Africa over the existence of the cartoons in Denmark, there were riots in which many people died.  The people working at Charlie Hebdo were well aware of their own danger, as well as the fact that demagogues might use the cartoons to rile up Muslims to protest.
       
       I'm curious about your phrase "accepted rules and norms."  What are these norms?  Who accepted them?  And when did that happen?

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Well, Cycling is talking about societies "accepted rules and norms" - like "political correctness".  You are talking about the free speech we attempt to have in the USA. Not all countries are as free as we are. Sad, but true.
          And we are losing those freedoms rapidly. And as usual, no one seems to care very much when their civil rights are taken away. Just as long as you don't take their Starbucks!

          replyreport
          1. 66

             KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             I think those distinctions are getting blurred as US media become globalized.  Norms/rules of speech in the US were already constricting prior to Charlie Hebdo, partly because of international pressures.  US Secy. of State in 2011 at the Organization of the Islamic Conference said that, while the 1st Amendment protects speech, the administration might "use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”  1st Amendment restrictions used to be just obscenity and inciting speech, but now wildly inconsistent interpretations of "hurtful speech" on college campuses is part of the picture. Hackers' reaction to "The Interview" is going to have a chilling effect, despite the US government's vocal/belligerent defense of Sony.  Charlie Hebdo has US traditional media stumped and/or silenced.  We're now making this stuff up as we go.

             replyreport
          2. 66

             KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             I just watched the US President's annual State of the Union speech, and it seems to me that he did not address the questions on this page directly.  In one part of his speech he said, "we stand united with people around the world who have been targeted by terrorism", mentioning Paris.  A few minutes later, in another part of his speech, he mentioned "we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims."  I'm taking it out of context, but even in context, I can't tell whether he might be referring to cartoons of Muhammed published by Charlie Hebdo, when he says "offensive stereotypes of Muslims."  I think that it was very carefully worded on his part.

             replyreport
17. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    As an illustrator I have no problem at all with "copyright lawyers" requiring people to compensate artists before displaying their work.  They can think anything they like about it, they just can't steal it.  In this case it would be a matter of seeing whether the artist has made the work public domain, or linking to a site legally displaying the work.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sounds good to me psycheskinner.

       replyreport
    2. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Does HubPages have any strong feelings about LINKING to a site that may display images that were published in ignorance of copyright law?  Do we consider that to be strictly an issue between the site owner and the potential lawyers?

       replyreport
       1. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I think that would be cool with Huboages.  Some very litigious companies tried to go after sites for even linking to plagiarized material but as I recall that didn't work out for them.

          replyreport
          1. 66

             KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Ego check, Kenny, ego check.  Okay, here goes.  This is a link to my article which I posted on the day of the attack in Paris, stating my feelings on that day.  This is what has allowed me to provoke discussion on this page with detachment and to some extent 'lord it over' everybody else whom I have implied are hypocritical.
             
             As for lawyers, my opinion is that whoever can afford the most of them runs the show.  That means look at Wall Street.  Look at the global stock market which is dominated by Chinese companies.  When they want to, they silence climate scientists.  They call the shots.  Pretty much all the shots over any laws in any country on any topic, including freedom of speech in the US.
             
             http://igibud.com/hebdo/

             replyreport
             1. 76

                Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                They do run the show.

                replyreport
18. 61

    Moderndayslaveposted 9 years ago

    First,it is announced that  France is to vote for palestinian statehood into the UN.                                http://www.ibtimes.com/french-parliamen … te-1722553           Then the Charlie Hebdo attack occurs                                                                                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/0 … 29058.html                                  Why would Islamic sympathetic groups attack a sympathetic country, Over a cartoon when the big picture is so much important? Such a well orchestrated attack, then oops I think I left my drivers license is the car. Something is not passing the sniff test. Cui bono? Who would benefit from this? Once you fear this nonsense they've won.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       KU37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I for one choose not to go down those sorts of logical rabbit holes.  You're asking rhetorical questions and using Latin phrases and they smack of "Truther" to me.  One thing happened in November.  Another thing happened in January.  Please state your narrative more clearly.

       replyreport