Remember those Danish cartoons that portrayed Muhammad in a bad light? Remember how Middle Easterns were so offended by them that the Danes received protests and boycotts and bombings? Remember how, despite all this controversy over the cartoons, almost all major American news organizations did not run them as not to "offend anyone"? Yeah, because who needs to see the cartoons that sparked a huge international event to be able to be informed about it...
So, American media still practices some bizarre self censorship. Recently, they did it again - over a popular comic stip starring a penguin.
This strip and this strip were deemed by 25 US papers, including the Washington Post, to be too offensive to run.
Amid all the questions about free speech and editorial integrity and the like that these strips raise, I ask you - what in the world is funny about these two comic strips? I mean, I kind of get the joke in the first one - but what the crap is going on in the second? I don't see how this would be taken as offensive to Muslims really, because I can't really tell if the strip is making fun of them or the American guy or what the punchline is or whatever.
So, I want to hear you guys's opinion. Should the US press self-censor for propriety's sake? Do we still have freedom of speech if we aren't allowed to say things that may be offensive? Can anyone tell me what in the world is funny about the second cartoon?
I will tell you one thing: when the Corperate Media no longer allows us to see unfunny comic strips about penguins and Muslims.
The terrorists have won.
We don't have a democracy.
We have a no-penguin-ocracy.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
