NPR Ombudsman Describes Charlie Hebdo Attack as a “Bombing”
Shooting, bombing, details, details. What difference at this point, does it make?
The point of the NPR piece is that the First Amendment of the Constitution shouldn’t protect people who ridicule Islam. That would be bad enough, but as Allahpundit notes, they have no idea what they’re talking about…
I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would. It is one thing to lampoon popes, imams, rabbis and other temporal religious leaders of this world; it is quite another to make fun, in often nasty ways, of their prophets and gods. The NPR editors were right not to reprint any of the images.
None of this is to justify the bombing. That was far worse still. But France itself is now undergoing a soul searching about how it treats its Muslim minority.
Yeah, that bombing at Charlie Hebdo sure was awful. People in France should be wary of a Muslim backlash after that bombing. Just because these bombers were Muslims doesn’t mean all Muslims are bombers.