Should we publish the Cartoons here in the USA?

The more I read about all of this, the more I find it incredibly questionable to allow a small minority of people to threaten the rest of the world and their freedom of speech.

So, I think a simple poll, should the US newspapers publish the Muhammed Cartoons?

Or should we cower behind the fear that it may offend some Muslims?

Personally, I say publish em, can't let your way of life be effected by a few overly sensitive people.

If they don't like the cartoons, they can choose to not look, freedom of speech & press is sacred to this country, IMHO.

And if you think we should not publish them, why?

DD

 

I totally disagree, it is newsworthy and therefore should be shown to the people as such, and let them decide.

I have edited my post to say US newspapers.

Political & religious cartoons have been a staple in this country for centuries, and it is not time to bow down to some upstart overly zealous religion, I wouldn't want to back away from Christian cartoons, nor any other religious cartoons, they are satirical, and meant to be as such.

They should publish them to show the world that we will not be pushed around in our freedoms.

DD

 

Agreed, but these cartoons have already been published, why should we US citizens be sesnored from the world news?

I have not even seen any of them, and would like to see for myself exactly how offensive they are, in comparison to other cartoons.

I think censorship is wrong in this case, and allowing one religion that is involved in a good percentage of the violence around the world to bully other free countries because of sensitivity is simply wrong.

DD

 

The problem is that the Muslim countries have no problem whatsoever publishing anti-semantic, or anti-christian cartoons. They are seriously hypocritical, and it is time to push back !

Here is an example of a cartoon published throughout the arab world.




Others found here

"As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, the Arab Press exercises almost no self-censorship in the publications of cartoons which involve gross stereotypes of Jews.

Not a week goes by in the Arab world without a "political" cartoon portraying Jews as either blood-suckers, Nazis, or the indiscriminate killers of Palestinian children."

 

RMTex, do you think they are newsworthy? How can anyone make a judgement about them if they have not seen them? I have googled them and I can not believe now that people are killing people over these silly cartoons.

Unbelievable how little life is valued over some interpetation of an ancient manuscript. Boggles the mind.

DD

 

The right attitude, a brave man

Why I Published Those Cartoons
February 21, 2006
Flemming Rose Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A public relations stunt.

Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously - and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

At the end of September, a Danish stand-up comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.

This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press to get more positive coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.

One cartoon - depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban - has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

Flemming Rose is the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten. This essay was adapted from a longer version that first appeared in The Washington Post and can be read at www.courant.com/cartoons..

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly why we HAVE to publish them, we can not be bullied by extremists.

Dang I should have made this a public Pole...GRRRRR

DD

 

Well no one is stopping people who WANT to see them but a good number of people do not have internet access, my point is should the newspapers publish them?

I graduated with a degree in journalism, and I can guarantee that my professors at Texas State would be appalled by the cowardly behaviour of editors here in the USA, these are NEWSWORTHY items, and should be published.

If it is ok to publish cartoons that might be offensive to Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Nihlists, then Muslims are fair game too.

DD

 

The question is not whether they published the cartoons, it is "Why they made the choice NOT to publish them"

That is the crux of the matter here, if they choose they were not newsworthy then of course, but clearly that is not the case as people are getting killed around the world based upon these cartoons, therefore it is obvious that the reason they are not printing them is their fear, and that is a MAJOR problem.

What if they were afraid of publishing the Watergate story? What if they were afraid to publish the bishops fondling of alter boys? What if they were afraid to publish stories about Jews running Hollywood?

See, they aren't......they should not bow down to the Muslims extremists either.

DD

 

Um, do you honestly believe this? I mean if that was the case, why have any pictures in any newspaper....come on man....that is just reaching.



Please understand, I am flabbergasted by all of this outrage over the cartoons, and can not understand in the least how people can..

A. Kill others over them

B. Be intimidated by extremists

Best cartoon I have seen yet !



DD