Portraying the Muslim prophet, Mohammed, in any visual form is highly sacreligous for any Muslim person. 1/5 of the entire world's population is Muslim. Did the Denmark newspaper that published cartoons featuring Mohammed to be associated with terrorism know any of this? I feel that they did and were just trying to prove a point of freedom of the press at the expense of every Muslim in the world.
Can the newspaper's actions be justified? No. It was an ignorant, thoughtless display. Danish editor, Flemming Rose doesn't even feel sorry for his decision to publish the cartoons. He probably never could have imagined the intense repercussions if his action.
Are the Muslim rioters justified with all of their violence? No. They should have tried to find a solution to the problem in a peaceful manner. But any of the rioters who are deeply religious people want to let the world know how offended they are of these cartoons. They felt that it was their only option to show their feelings in a violent manner.
What should happen next? I think that if the Danish newspaper releases a formal apology, most of the rioters will be less angry. The cartoons were obviously totally irreverent to Islam overall as a religion.
Uitlizing freedom of the press or being ignorant? Why not both? The beautiful thing about freedom of speech is that you don't have to be smart or "right" to use it.
There should be limits. Say a person on an airplane yells, "Bomb!" just to prove a point of freedom of speech. They will be arrested and removed from the plane. Sometimes people need to think before they do certain things. The Denmark newspaper editor should have refrained from publishing those cartoons. Upsetting 1/5 of the world's population is not exactly small potatoes.
Saying there should be limits is very different from saying the newspaper should have refrained from publishing that material. I also think it wasn't responsible, but do you mean to say that people shouldn't be allowed to publish things of that nature?
No, they shouldn't have been allowed to publish those cartoons. They could have changed the cartoons to be more decent and not portray Mohammed as an assasin.
What? You are opbviously uninformed! One should never have to apologize for being free
It's sad when "progressives" no longer support unbridled free expression. Let's go forward, not backward to a time when we have to tip-toe around the sensitivities of religion -- be it Christian, Muslim or any other.
Any time that people target/make jokes about religions there are tense feelings. The cartoons were just out and out crude. They could have shown an Arab in association with terrorism instead of an actual caricature of Mohammed. Yes, Arabs would still be angry, but at least it's not sacreligous to draw an Arab. We don't need to abide by the rules of Islam but I think that we should all respect them.
crude speech about others is exactly what the non progressives that hold back the rest of the world do.
I have to say I'm with Peppermintfrost on this one. Being progressive doesn't mean supporting unbridled free expression. We should support a legal right to freedom of speech, but we should also have empathy and self-restraint.
Just as a bridle is used to gently guide a horse in the right direction, our own empathy and understanding of others should be used to help us decide how to use our right to freedom of speech. Nobody is saying that it should have been illegal for the newspapers to publish the cartoons, but should they at least apologize when they realized their mistake? I say unequivocally, yes.
If you read carefully, you can see that Peppermint did indeed say that they shouldn't have the right to publish the cartoons. That is what I took issue with.
OK. So I don't totally agree with Peppermint. But I think Pepper's main point was that the paper should have used some common sense and self-restraint when deciding whether or not to publish the cartoons.
I think the "crying fire in a theater" and then being arrested example is not quite apropos here. It's more like the example later in the thread of standing up in the middle of the movie and yelling "this movie sucks." If someone did that for more than a few seconds while I was in a movie I would be angry.
Rather than ruining the movie for people who paid $10 to get in and who might actually be enjoying it, someone with the right degree of empathy would instead go home and write scathing reviews of the movie on their blog! Does that make more sense?
it is not sad for progressives to supress free speech at the helping of including every person in life. It hurts the public to sequester any group, and while i don't condone the actions that arose, something needed to be done
Be they crude or not, they were expressing what was, in the eye of the publisher, a valid point: that our sensitivities to the Muslim faith have taken us too far in the direction of self-censorship. I do not agree, but we must respect his right to express himself. When we start censoring "crude" ideas, we've lost the right to protect any speech at all that doesn't correspond with the ideas of the law-makers, whoever they might be.
edit: oh.. and yes, I just started a sentence with "be they crude..."; what are you going to do about it?
People should not have the right to express their views if they hurt somebody else. Any religious Muslim who sees the cartoons feels greatly offended. It's creating a negative stereotype. I agree with freedom of speech, but people take that right too far.
And the least the editor could do would be do say an apology, but it's like he doesn't even realize that what he did made millions of people angry.
The entire role of the person, especeially the progressive, is to stand up for the rights of all. When the man 5-6 years ago published a painting of the crucifix in a bottle of urine, cries went up, and they should now as well.
The 'fire in a crowded theater' or "bomb on an airplane" argument is ridiculous in this instance. I don't see how any intelligent person can see that applying in this case.
This is an obvious case of a group of people stating fairly common opinions in a rather extreme and visual way. Call it the "criticism in a crowded theater" argument. It's ok to stand up in a theater and say, "This movie stinks." People will either agree with you, or they will pelt you with popcorn & tell you to just leave if you hate it so much.
Condemning a political cartoon akin to saying that freedom of speech is ok as long as you only say nice things. We shall, therefore, have no more satitical cartoons of King George (Bush) because, well, it isn't nice & could hurt his feelings and annoy his supporters. We shall have no cartoons with a Last Supper allegory for a Board of Directors meeting just before the COE was fired. How about a cartoon showing a battle-mad Christ leading Knights of the Crusaders into battle? Oh no, we couldn't have that political statement because it might offend. And cartoons portraying widespread reports that some a dictator may be torturing & killing his countrymen? Oh no, that would not be nice. The world is a happy place, where pink bunnies frolic safely in the streets la la la
Here's how freedom of speech works: one person is free to express an opinion, and everybody else is free to listen, not listen, agree, disagree, ignore it, or even (gasp) respond with their own free speech. The widespread over-reaction to a few bad cartoons proves that we give a lot of lip service to freedom of speech, but most people won't actually stand up for it. Shame. Freedom of speech is the first thing most dictators take away from people. Duh.
People abuse this freedom. I'm not saying that people have to be nice, but no Muslim is allowed to depict the prophet Mohammed in any manner at all. The Denmark editors were just being ignorant. If the cartoon was made in Iraq and had some profane reference to something about America you know that America would be up in arms. But a lot of people here don't feel remorse if something doesn't effect them personally. If I was a Muslim I would be enraged if I saw that cartoon. Drawing Mohammed is the equivalent of doing something ILLEGAL to the Muslim people...let alone drawing him with a missile in his turban. People who feel that the Denmark paper was justified need to learn to censor themselves at least a little bit.
Say you're in school and you don't like your teacher, so you say some stereotype in which that teacher could be categorized. You would get in trouble. What about freedom of speech? Well, people do need to censor themselves.
Being downright rude and disgracing an entire religion is just wrong. Even though it's not illegal it should not have been done.
I feel that you're trying to be tolerant, and trying to condemn the cartoons here, which is fine... even commendable, but as i posted down the page a bit I think you're confusing the issues here. The question of whether the cartoonists should have published those images is different from whether they have the right to. I think people who republish those cartoons in support of freedom of speech are making a similar mistake. If you agree with what the cartoon is saying, then by all means republish it, but republishing it in support of freedom of speech is just as ignorant as condemning freedom of speech to show that you are against the cartoons, which is basically what you are doing here. Both are the easiest, and least creative ways of expressing your view on the matter.
they have the full rights to, yes, but this is a case where content of offensive nature, on the level of personal faith. It is simply horrible taste to publish.
I agree with Jo. Pepper, you, along with so many other people, seem to be confusing two very seperate issues here: whether it is right to say something offensive, and whether someone has the right to say something offensive. When talking about this cartoon incident, it is not simple enough to just come out in favor of the cartoons or not, and people who ask you if you if you are in favor of the cartoons or not are not asking the right question. You can condemn the cartoons without saying that they shouldn't have the right to be published. Pepper, do you also think it should be illegal to satirize Jesus Christ? Should Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Satre have been jailed for their blasphemy? Should the police come and get me if I post in this thread that I think that Jesus and Muhammed were evil clowns with big red noses?
Okay, they have the right to say something offensive, but now they're facing all the repercussions that go along with doing that. Their buildings are getting burnt to the ground. I'm not saying that this is the right way to take out your anger, but I understand where the Muslims are coming from.
Any time religion is joked about there are problems. I just wish that the paper would make an apology. Even if they had the right to publish the cartoons does not mean that they cannot change their minds and feel some remorse.
Do you really think anyone really cares about the editors of that newspaper anymore? This has grown into something that is no longer in their control at all. An apology from the newspaper would be brushed aside by those who are trying to fight against the west. An official apology from the Danish government would probably help, but thats simply out of the question. Have you read that Iran's president has blamed Zionism for the cartoons?? There are other, larger issues at play here. The cartoons only served as the spark that ignited this mess.
I know that an apology wouldn't stop the rioters and whatnot, but I would like them to apologize simply so people can respect the paper and its editors a little. Right now the editors seem to be people without any consciences, at least to me. An apology would at least show that they realize that they made a mistake. If they were trying to link terrorism to the Muslim religion with the hopes of aggravating the terrorists then they failed since they upset the entire Muslim community of innocent people who were not associated with terrorism in any way.
an apology would never put an end to this. The publishers asked for it by being ignorant, and they get their punishment in this.