"Though 'obscurantism' may be a word that is, well, obscure, to Americans, [Macron] is right. The line between the fight for freedom..."

"... and the surrender to hatred is absolute. The assault on Rushdie only clarifies its contours."

Writes Adam Gopnik, reacting to what Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, said on Friday evening:

“For 33 years, Salman Rushdie has embodied freedom and the fight against obscurantism. He has just been the victim of a cowardly attack by the forces of hatred and barbarism. His fight is our fight; it is universal.”

That comes at the end of "Salman Rushdie and the Power of Words/Efforts are bound to be made to somehow equalize or level the acts of Rushdie and his tormentors and would-be executioners. This is a despicable viewpoint" (in The New Yorker).

Charlie Hebdo appropriates the death of George Floyd to mock Meghan Markle and the Queen.

Via The Sun:

1. The headline translates to "Why Meghan left Buckingham...." and the speech bubble says "because I couldn't breathe anymore." 

2. Now, for the first time, I'm thinking about whether the Queen shaves her legs.

3. Is the image outrageous? But Charlie Hebdo wants to be outrageous... so it is immune to any criticism people might choose to lob. Still, the question remains: How outrageous is it and what are the elements of outrageousness?

4. The most outrageous part — if I consult my own sensitivity — is the appropriation of the pain surrounding George Floyd for a comical presentation. The second most outrageous part is connecting Markle to Floyd because she is black. 

5. Those outrageous things are not, however, purely gratuitous, so it's not just a case of laughing at George Floyd and finding it worth pointing out that Markle, too, is black. What's not gratuitous is the radical contrast between what happened to Floyd — suffering and death on the street, under the knee of a cop — and what happened to Markle — palace life insufficiently pleasant.

6. It's important that Charlie Hebdo avoided using stereotypical features in drawing Markle, but unfortunate that the drawing doesn't look much like her. I'm interested in the window pane image on Markle's cheek. I believe this is the classic cartoon way to signify shininess. I guess Markle indulges in the makeup convention of dabbing shiny highlighter on the cheekbones. It would be a real stretch to connect that to the racial slur "shine." The slur has to do with the occupation of shining shoes — though Markle's face is right next to the Queen's shiny shoe — and not to some notion about how black people look. 

7. It's important to be able to make fun of public figures. Markle is actively using accusations of racism to fend off criticism. This might work, for her and for many others, if the fear of these accusations is too intense. In that light, Charlie Hebdo is doing us a service, taking the heat, and — if you think about it the right way — contributing to racial progress.

"'I am Charlie' gave birth to 'I am not Charlie,' giving rise to a question that demands picking camps: Are you or are you not Charlie?"

"The answer puts people on either side of France’s major fault lines, including freedom of speech, secularism, race, national identity and, of course, Islam... Today, someone who is Charlie is likely to be white and supporter of the caricatures’ publication. At its extreme, the person may back a strict secularism that at times is a cover for anti-Islam. Someone who’s not Charlie is often nonwhite and opposes the cartoons’ publication. The person could go as far as justifying Islamist terrorism or a ban of all criticism of religion. Once a slogan that transcended political cleavages, 'Je Suis Charlie' has now been largely embraced by the right and created splits on the left.... This fall, in the wake of the three recent attacks, Mr. Macron emphatically defended the republication of the caricatures as the 'right to blasphemy.' That stance led to protests in Muslim nations, was met with criticism or silence in the West, and left France isolated...."

From "Once a Slogan of Unity, ‘Je Suis Charlie’ Now Divides France/After the 2015 terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, “I am Charlie” became a unifying slogan of free speech. Now it fuels divisions in an increasingly polarized country" (NYT).

"They will not pass. Obscurantism and the violence that goes with it will not win. They won’t divide us."

Said French President Emmanuel Macron — at the crime scene — quoted in "Teacher in Paris suburb decapitated, allegedly after showing cartoons of prophet Muhammad in class" (WaPo). 

What exactly is "Obscurantism"? Wikipedia says: 

Obscurantism and Obscurationism describe the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise, abstruse manner designed to limit further inquiry and understanding. There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge; and (2) deliberate obscurity—a recondite literary or artistic style, characterized by deliberate vagueness. 

The term obscurantism derives from the title of the 16th-century satire Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum (Letters of Obscure Men, 1515–19), that was based upon the intellectual dispute between the German humanist Johann Reuchlin and the monk Johannes Pfefferkorn of the Dominican Order, about whether or not all Jewish books should be burned as un-Christian heresy. Earlier, in 1509, the monk Pfefferkorn had obtained permission from Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1486–1519), to burn all copies of the Talmud (Jewish law and Jewish ethics) known to be in the Holy Roman Empire (AD 926–1806); the Letters of Obscure Men satirized the Dominican arguments for burning "un-Christian" works. 

In the 18th century, Enlightenment philosophers applied the term obscurantist to any enemy of intellectual enlightenment and the liberal diffusion of knowledge. In the 19th century, in distinguishing the varieties of obscurantism found in metaphysics and theology from the "more subtle" obscurantism of the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and of modern philosophical skepticism, Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."

"The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."

Think of this teacher! Who was he? What was his name?! It's not in the Washington Post article, but here, here's a later-published article in The Guardian: "Teacher decapitated in Paris named as Samuel Paty, 47."

"Too much is too much!" says the severed head of Theresa May on the cover of the new Charlie Hebdo.

Via AdWeek, where Richard Horgan says: "From a U.S. perspective, it’s impossible not to think of the wrath that descended upon comedian Kathy Griffin last week for her posed, bloody Trump image shot by Tyler Shields."

Charlie Hebdo addresses the American election.

"Obama — an ordinary citizen once again."

IN THE COMMENTS: Mid-Life Lawyer said:

Thanks to Obama led leftist agitators, this probably is the impression of the USA that many citizens of other countries have of us. 

WaPo columnist says: "Although Muhammad is not depicted, the idea of religion in some form as a villain certainly comes across" in the cover of the Charlie Hebdo marking the anniversary of the massacre.

Here's the cover, drawn by Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau:



The WaPo piece is written by Michael Cavna, "creator of the 'Comic Riffs' column and graphic-novel reviewer for The Post's Book World." There's no detail to his idea that the character on the cover represents "the idea of religion in some form as a villain." The words are translated as "One year on: The assassin still at large." So that guy is "the assassin," but the only indication of religion is the pyramid with the eye. Can we get some analysis? That's not a Muslim symbol at all as far as I can tell. It has more to do with Freemasons than anything else. And it's on the U.S. dollar bill (and the Colorado state seal and the seal of the city of Kenosha, here in Wisconsin). I'm just guessing the cartoonist meant to attack religion in general and to be very obviously not about Islam.

What does this new Charlie Hebdo cover really mean?

The text translates: "They have weapons. Fuck them. We have champagne!"

One interpretation is: The French are resilient. They retain joie de vivre through all adversity. The champagne flows in and right out of the bullet-riddle body but life goes on. There's more champagne. They can never stop us.

But there's an alternate interpretation: We are oblivious. We party on as if we are not dying. We're in the last steps of a dance that cannot continue. The intake of champagne can't possibly match the outflow of champagne/blood. Stop playing and get serious.

"Is he Islamophobic? 'Yes, probably. One can be afraid,' he replies."

"I ask him again: you’re probably Islamophobic? 'Probably, yes, but the word phobia means fear rather than hatred,' he says. What is he afraid of? 'That it all goes wrong in the west; you could say that it’s already going wrong.' Does he mean terrorism? He nods. Some might say that’s a tiny percentage of people, I begin ... 'Yes, but maybe very few people can have a strong effect. It’s often the most resolute minorities that make history.'"

From a Guardian article titled "Michel Houellebecq: ‘Am I Islamophobic? Probably, yes'/Michel Houellebecq is the ageing enfant terrible of French literature. His new book imagines a France ruled by Islamists and he has been under 24-hour police protection since the Charlie Hebdo attack. Does he really hate women and Muslims or is he just a twisted provocateur?"

Here's the part about women:

Some French media have asked if the novel’s title ["Submission"] really refers to the position of women.... Houellebecq had originally thought feminists would take issue with it. “In fact, they haven’t taken it that badly,” he says. “That’s why people are unpredictable.”

Why does he think the issue of women in the novel hasn’t sparked a bigger response? “I don’t know. It’s possible that in truth there aren’t really that many feminists.” Is he a feminist? “No, no.” A misogynist, as has been levelled against him? “No, no, not that either,” he says. “But it’s possible that feminism has slightly disappeared from women too ... It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anyone expressing a feminist opinion. I can’t remember the last time. In France, anyway.”

Iceland abolishes the crime of blasphemy.

The reform was proposed by the Pirate Party:

The bill said it was "essential in a free society that the public can express themselves without fear of punishment".

As three members of the Pirate Party stood before parliament on Thursday, each said: "Je Suis Charlie", an expression used globally to express solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo victims.

The Church of Iceland supported the reform, but it was opposed by the Pentecostal Church, the Church of Iceland's eastern province, and the Catholic Church of Iceland, which said:

"Should freedom of expression go so far as to mean that the identity of a person of faith can be freely insulted, then personal freedom - as individuals or groups - is undermined."

Get that? Somebody should go to prison so that somebody else should not suffer the loss of freedom that consists of have one's "identity" insulted. That's the thinking there. The Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association offered the assurance that hate speech is still a crime. It's only blasphemy that's been legalized.

I was interested to see the list of the religions of Iceland. 80% are Lutheran, 5% are other Christian denominations, and 5% are Asatru.

Asatru? Here's an article from last February: "Iceland's Asatru pagans reach new height with first temple."

"Have We Learned Anything From the Columbia Rape Case?"

This is a longish NYT Magazine article by Emily Bazelon. Is there anything new here or is this more of a summary of a problem — a conflict — that those of us who've been following the story already know?

1. How Nungesser's parents felt at graduation: It was "devastating," they say, "especially... an exhibition at a university gallery...  that included Sulkowicz’s prints of a naked man with an obscenity and of a couple having sex, inked over a copy of a Times article about Nungesser." I'm a little confused by the word "prints." Prints like etchings or lithographs? Sulkowicz — in email (I think to Bazelon) — called the "prints" "cartoons."

2. Sulkowicz's email gives some insight into the kind of rhetoric she is purveying: "What are the functions of cartoons? Do they depict the people themselves (a feat which, if you’ve done enough reading on art theory, you will realize is impossible), or do they illustrate the stories that have circulated about a person?" Suddenly, I'm thinking about the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other incidents involving cartoons depicting Muhammad. Maybe those who get murderous over cartoons just haven't read enough art theory. And I'm put off by the assertion that if only people would read the right amount of a prescribed sort of material, we'd necessarily believe a particular sort of thing. It's saying: The only reason you don't already agree with me is that you're ignorant.

3.  And I don't even understand how those 2 sentences in Sulkowicz's email addressed the pain experienced by Nungesser's parents. Aside from the parenthetical, which is an assertion, the 2 sentences are 2 questions, but the first question sets up the second question, and the second question is an either/or question, within which the first option is negated by the assertion in the parenthetical. Therefore, Sulkowicz really is saying her cartoons "illustrate the stories that have circulated about a person." So her art work is an illustration added to a NYT story that gives graphic reality to the allegations that were made about Nungesser.

4. I wrote "gives graphic reality to" because I was straining to avoid the word that normally comes to mind: depict. Not having read enough art theory to realize that it is impossible to depict Nungesser himself, I thought the use of that word might make me look ignorant to those who have done the homework. But, for the record, "depict" means "To draw, figure, or represent in colours; to paint; also, in wider sense, to portray, delineate, figure anyhow." Anyhow! As in "The solar progress is depicted by the Hindoos, by a circle of intertwining serpents." R. J. Sulivan View of Nature II. xliv. 288  (1794). (Definition and quote via the unlinkable OED.)

5. Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger avoided shaking Sulkowicz's hand at graduation and the university has taken the position that it wasn't actual shunning but the mattress getting in the way. Bazelon doesn't come out and call bullshit, but she links to the video so we can decide for ourselves.

6. Because we don't have the transcript of Columbia's disciplinary proceedings, "even the procedural disputes between Sulkowicz and Nungesser are lost in the land of she-said-he-said." Sulkowicz says she was asked "ignorant and insensitive questions." (That's Bazelon's paraphrase.) But we're not seeing the actual context. And Sulkowicz and Nungesser are saying different things about whether their friendly Facebook conversations were admitted as evidence. It's frustrating to have this matter become so public — through Sulkowicz's performance art — and then be deprived of the transcript, but Columbia has to protect student privacy and to encourage other students to feel secure that their privacy will be protected if they need to file a complaint or if they are accused.

7. Columbia is trying to improve its procedure: "Students are now permitted to bring a lawyer to their hearings, and if they can’t afford an attorney, the university will provide one. The university also hired new investigators and other staff members and gave training on how to hear cases to the administrators who serve as panelists."

8. Sulkowicz says "the system is broken because it is so much based on proof that a lot of rape survivors don’t have." And: "Even if you have physical evidence, you can prove that violence occurred but not that someone didn’t want the sex to be violent." Presumably, she wants to fix the system by avoiding the need to prove things that are too hard to prove. Here, that would be the mental element that accompanies the sexual act. But how can you possibly get rid of the need for that evidence?

9. Some people say, get rape cases out of university proceedings and into the criminal justice system. Bazelon's response to that is: "[I]n the eyes of the government, universities have this responsibility because of an important principle rooted in the federal law, Title IX: If a rape prevents a victim from taking full advantage of her education, then it is a civil rights violation as well as a crime." Quite aside from what statutory law requires, universities may properly see themselves as having a role in making the campus environment a safer and friendlier place. Bazelon refers to counseling, academic accommodations, assurances that alleged assailants won’t contact complainants, and education about prevention of sexual assaults.

10. Bazelon mentions early on that Nungesser is suing Columbia, but she doesn't connect that to other issues she discusses. She doesn't say that his lawsuit is based on Title IX (though, as you see in point #9, she says that Title IX causes universities to want to remain involved in providing remedies to victims). And she talks about Bollinger's avoidance of Sulkowicz at graduation (point #5, above) without saying that Bollinger is a named defendant in Nungesser's lawsuit.

"If PEN as a free-speech organisation can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organisation is not worth the name."

"What I would say to both Peter [Carey] and Michael [Ondaatje] and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them."

Said Salman Rushdie (after whom somebody has come).

"What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must."

"Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.... Writing satire is a privilege I’ve never taken lightly. And I’m still trying to get it right."

Says Garry Trudeau.

The Atlantic instructs Iran on the difference between cartoons depicting Muhammad and cartoons about the Holocaust.

Here's "The Hypocrisy of Iran's Holocaust Cartoon Contest/The regime's response to Charlie Hebdo was intended to highlight Western hypocrisy regarding free speech. Instead, it casts a spotlight on the growing problem of anti-Semitism."

And, of course, this article isn't really a lecture aimed at Iran. The argument has no power — I assume — to persuade Iran that that there are 2 different kinds of speech, that one can tout free-speech values about one and not the other, and it's hypocrisy to regard the 2 kinds of speech as the same. It's an argument aimed at those of us who support free speech and think it's hypocrisy not to protect the offense to religion and hate speech and lies about history.

[W]hile Holocaust denial didn't begin with Iran, Tehran's contribution to the practice has been especially shameful... Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest arrives amid worsening anti-Semitism across Europe.... The Iranians who organized the cartoon contest believe that shunning Holocaust denial means Western commitment to free speech is shallow. The real hypocrisy, though, is that by the deliberate offense of the world's Jewish population, the cartoonists are mocking a group that in many ways is as threatened and marginalized as they are.

Charlie Hebdo deliberated offended Muslims, so how is Iran hypocritical to "mocking a group that in many ways is as threatened and marginalized as [Muslims] are? I don't see an argument based on hypocrisy. I see an (undeveloped) argument that Muslims ought to identify with Jews.

ADDED: What would it take to develop that identification argument? How would you paraphrase what the Atlantic writer, Matt Schiavenza, is saying to Muslims? It's something I hesitate to put into words.

"So Charlie Hebdo was nothing like the Onion, eh? Did the New Yorker writer see..."

"... the Onion's article 'No One Murdered Because Of This Image' — with an illustration showing several religious figures, including Jesus, in an orgy, with genitals and breasts on display?," asks John Althouse Cohen (challenging Adam Gopnik). Jaltcoh continues:

While it may be ironic to imbue Charlie Hebdo with too much nobility or piety — attitudes that would seem to be the opposite of what the publication stands for — I actually think it's important to revere the irreverent. We've certainly been doing that with the Marx Brothers for 80 years, for instance. It's a strength, not a weakness, for a society to be able to not take itself too seriously.

Now, I don't find Charlie Hebdo particularly funny (what little I've seen of it), and maybe they haven't always exercised the best judgment about how to walk the fine line humorists often need to walk between being outrageously funny and causing pointless outrage. But there's no way to make sure that all comedians always show the most sensitive judgment; by their very nature, they're sometimes going to slip up and land on the wrong side of the line. This will occasionally cause offense. But that's just the price of living in a world with humor and satire — which serve a vital role in puncturing pretense, deflating pomposity, giving us permission to laugh at authority figures.

Humorists are like the child in "The Emperor's New Clothes," who points out what everyone else is thinking but no one else has the nerve to say: the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. And if anything in the world is ripe for this kind of treatment, it's religion!

My question: If there's a "price of living in a world with humor and satire," what do you say to those who see the price as too high? That is a price that varies from person to person, depending on how much they hold sacred, how strongly they feel the offense, and whether they believe that God calls upon them to take action. For some of us, the price is dirt cheap, nothing at all. For others, it's everything — it's their eternal soul.

In case it's not obvious, I don't think that murder should be seen as a way to save your soul, but what do you say to people who believe they are not murderers, but soldiers in a just war? As John puts it: "the enemy has been revealed by its decision to carry out summary mass executions, and to arrogate worldwide jurisdiction." Yes, this is why we need to see that we are looking at a military enemy. They are invaders. But if these terrorists instead held the power of government in France — or wherever they conduct these killings — then they would have jurisdiction, and they might, through law, criminalize blasphemy and punish it with the death penalty. You may think that's despicable, but it's part of our tradition too:



("'An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy' as enacted in 1697 in 'His Majesty's PROVINCE of the MASSACHUSETTS-BAY in NEW-ENGLAND' (1759 printing).)

"Even by the standards of Yemen, where violence, uncertainty and a weak central government are endemic, the power vacuum has produced a serious crisis..."

"...  that threatens to tear the country apart, allow a resurgent Qaeda room to expand and accelerate a sectarian conflict between the Houthis, who are a Shiite sect, and Sunni tribes and militants."

It also may undermine the United States’ antiterrorism operations in the region, since the ousted president was an ally of Washington.

Still, the mood here remained calm, almost festive at times, as hundreds of Houthi supporters — bitter opponents of Al Qaeda — gathered in the district of Al Juras, their main stronghold in the capital, to condemn the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. It was the local Qaeda franchise that claimed credit for planning the attacks at the newspaper and a kosher market that left 17 dead in Paris this month.

“God is great, death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews, victory to Islam," scattered groups chanted as they strolled back to their cars.

It's only Yemen. Are you paying attention to what is arguably — as opposed to 11 deflated footballs — the most important news story of the week?

"We are convinced that religion has no place in the political arena, that once religion injects itself into the political debate, the political debate becomes totalitarian."

Said Gerard Biard, the editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, explaining the nature of the magazine's attacks on religion to Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" yesterday.

The transcript from yesterday's show is not available, and the NBC website, with 2 article on the interview — here and here — has only a few quotes — the one I transcribed above, but another one that uses the word "totalitarian":

The editor told Todd that "religion should not be a political argument." He said if religion enters the "political arena, it becomes a totalitarian argument. Secularism protects us against this, secularism guarantees democracy and assures peace. Secularism allows all believers and not-believers to live in peace and that is what we defend."

Chuck Todd looks strangely confused during the interview, and both articles at the NBC website have an "Editor's Note," calling out the French-to-English interpreter for mistranslating "liberté de conscience" as "freedom of religion" instead of "freedom of thought" or "freedom of conscience." And he shifted to the panel discussion on the show, Todd said that much of the interview was "left on the cutting room floor." So, we need not only the usual show transcript, but a transcript of the whole interview, in both English and French.

Biard was saying something that is objectionable to many Americans and contrary to our free speech values. If you think you might not agree with me, remember that today we are celebrating the birthday of The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose most famous speech ended:

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

                Free at last! Free at last!

                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Could that be translated or even mistranslated into secular language? That's what Biard wants people to do and insists must be done to avoid totalitarianism.

"Right after the French Revolution, France abrogated its old laws making blasphemy a crime—and so Charlie Hebdo’s blasphemous depictions of Muhammad are not a crime."

"At the same time, France’s press laws, which date to the late nineteenth century, make it a crime to 'provoke discrimination, hatred, or violence toward a person or group of persons because of their origin or belonging to a particular ethnicity, nation, race, or religion.' In other words, you can ridicule the prophet, but you cannot incite hatred toward his followers. To take two more examples, the actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted and fined for having written, in 2006, about France’s Muslims, 'We are tired of being led around by the nose by this population that is destroying our country.' Meanwhile, the writer Michel Houellebecq (whose new novel was featured in the issue of Charlie Hebdo that came out just before the attack) was brought up on charges, but acquitted, for having said in an interview that Islam 'is the stupidest religion.' Bardot was clearly directing hostility toward Muslim people, and was thus found guilty, while Houellebecq was criticizing their religion, which is blasphemous, but not a crime, in France."

From the New Yorker article "Why French Law Treats Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo Differently."

It's really painful to wince for 3 and a half minutes, but I'm afraid you must look at this.

"Secretary of State John Kerry is in Paris after the White House apologized for not sending a high-ranking official to a massive unity rally after the terrorist attacks there," and he's using James Taylor to convey the message "You've Got a Friend."

I love James Taylor, so this is really difficult for me. But of all the douchebaggery in the history of the world... this takes the gateau!

AND: I felt compelled to write some parody lyrics, but then I heard Meade typing away. "Are you writing parody lyrics?" I ask. More typing. Meade: "First!" I see he's written:

I'll come running
to appease you again

Is parody even needed:

Close your eyes and think of me and soon I will be there
to brighten up even your darkest nights.

I'm overwhelmed by the absurdity of the idea that on one's darkest nights, it would help to visualize John Kerry.

Hey, ain't it good to know that you've got a friend?
People can be so cold.
They'll hurt you and desert you.
They'll take your soul if you let them,
Oh, but don't you let them.

Indeed. Kerry was cold. Don't let him take your soul! Is that what our dear James was thinking as he sang those holy words with his honestly bald head so steadfastly bowed down?

ADDED: James Taylor has helped Obama before. There was this from October 2012:



Can't you just feel the moonshine?

"The French authorities are moving aggressively to rein in speech supporting terrorism..."

"... employing a new law to mete out tough prison sentences in a crackdown that is stoking a free-speech debate after last week’s attacks in Paris. Those swept up under the new law include a 28-year-old man of French-Tunisian background who was sentenced to six months in prison after he was found guilty of shouting support for the attackers as he passed a police station in Bourgoin-Jalieu on Sunday. A 34-year-old man who on Saturday hit a car while drunk, injured the other driver and subsequently praised the acts of the gunmen when the police detained him was sentenced Monday to four years in prison. All told, up to 100 people are under investigation for making or posting comments that support or try to justify terrorism..."

The NYT reports. 

(Photograph at the link shows the coffin of one of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre: It has cartoons drawn all over it.)