Should we publish the Cartoons here in the USA?

DD you’re taking a completely culturally biased position, as I hope you know. It’s not for you to decide what is offensive for them. Someone on the other side is almost certainly mirroring what you’re saying and feels that it’s silly to think that antisemitic or anti-Zionist cartoons are offensive so why not post them? And you are clearly saying that you don’t think that’s right, so it seems to me that you are applying a double standard here.

And I don’t think it’s necessary to see the cartoons unless you have the knowledge to question whether they are in fact in contravention of Islamic law or customs. If we are agreeing that depicting Mohamed is against Islamic law, then why do you need to see it? What more information would you gain? We’re not debating the artistic quality of the images, only the content which seems to be agreed upon. Publishing them would be gratuitous and inflammatory, IMO. (As a trivia note, a small neocon rag in Alberta has published them and been widely condemned for doing it. I’m not sure how many copies actually hit the street though.)

And of course all free speech has its limits, even in the US and Canada, so that can’t be an excuse in itself. There would have to be a good reason to publish them. Given that these are clearly offensive to Muslims and what they contain does not seem to be in question, what good reason would there be to publish them? I can’t think of one.

 

I understand your point but I would also point out that the cartoons were not so much an insult to Muslims or to be offensive to them, but to shed light on the perceived hypocrisy of some of the Muslim beliefs. This is done every day in political and social commentary cartoons of all persuasions. IMHO

I can see how different backgrounds and environments could cause people to have different perceptions of the cartoons. As you say, hopefully one day we'll be able to learn true tolerance.

Peace

 

Exactly what laws of islam do the law of the land conflict with???

 

I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say that Islamic law is fruitless, but I don’t think not printing those cartoons is an infringement on western law. I think it’s in accordance with western law and customs. We don’t print p*rn in main stream media or antisemitic images, or other images or racist statements that are highly offensive to other cultures and religions, so why would we in this case? Mohamed is their prophet after all. How is us crossing over into their territory and posting things about their prophet that were only ever intended to be insulting a right of ours? And remember that if it’s a right of ours it’s a right of theirs too. And are you further suggesting that freedom of religion should not be allowed in the US? Freedom of religion implies that a certain degree of respect and tolerance is owed to that religion, I think you would agree.

 

Who are the "they"?!!!

You seem to be somewhat confused, DaDa. What would be the point of publishing those cartoons in American papers unless the goal is to offend Muslim-Americans, who haven't rioted or killed anyone in response to those Danish cartoons, but in fact condemned the violence? If your goal is to disrespect your fellow Americans living in the States, then it seems to me more like a continuation of your yearning for all things anti-Islam (you're certainly no stranger to saying some extremely offensive things about the religion on these boards, so I can understand why you would be itching for these cartoons to be re-published all across the country).

I am OK with publishing them if at the same time those papers are willing to publish Jews wearing Nazi uniforms and Blacks jumping around on trees...they're all stupid stereotypes of various ethnic/religious groups.

The question I have is this: Are American papers able to publish anti-Semitic or anti-Black cartoons? If not, then the same standard must be applied across the board. If you're going to publish one, you must be willing to publish others as well.

Anyways, I simply don't care one way or the other, it wouldn't help our image or our cause in the Middle East, but I am sure a few Americans such as yourself and others would get a good kick out of it.

Oh, forgot to mention, a couple papers in the States I believe have already done so, I believe a Philly paper was one of them.

 

You're playing right into the MAN's hands by asking if other minorities will get disrespected as much as Muslims. The problem and question isn't why there isn't offense of other groups, it should be why there is offense in the first place.

 

DD,
you brought up the point that muslims publish offensive and racist cartoons in their papers. When was the last time you saw one of those in the USA? When was the last time an AMERICAN muslim did that? By publishing the cartoons, your offending American muslims, and are getting back at someone who isnt involved in this in the first place, and infact for the most part has been against the protests etc etc.

 

I agree.

 

I think it should be pointed out the outrage isn't because the cartoon makes fun of Muslims as a race, it's the fact that Muhammad is on there. They supposedly wouldn't tolerate a cartoon depicting Jesus either, at least in their country anyway.

Secondly, why did you call it an "upstart religion"?

 

I’ll ask again, why would they need to be published for context? What would publishing them add? As far as I know there is no dispute about whether they show depictions of Mohamed or whether showing a depiction of Mohamed is offensive. So what important information would publishing them add? If they don’t add any important information then I think you would agree that it would be bad journalism to print them. That would be akin to posting pictures of child p*rn, for example. You don’t need to see it to understand the issue, and posting the actual image would be bad journalism to say the least, and a criminal offense as well.

 

Should the cartoons be published here in the US?

I don't know about should be published but they shouldn't be banned.

I believe in freedom of speech and the press and if newspapers or other media choose to publish then they should be allowed to. OTOH before they do I would consider why they are publishing them and to what ends. Yes these are newsworthy but at the same time a lot of the publishing and display of these cartoons seem to be more about sticking it to Muslims. That clearly was the case when that Italian minister showed his T-Shirt with them on it.

I look at it this way. I believe people should have the right to say and write "gook", 'chink', 'chinaman', 'n^&&er' (how come I can write 'gook' but the filter stops 'n^&&er'?) or any other offensive language or symbol. I would hope that people consider carefully why they are doing it and the possible results of offending people.

 

its civilized where we live. we're not going to burn down pizza huts.

 

its still pretty damn old

 

Good point. When something is published that uses the N word it is usually not spelled out in full because it’s not necessary and to do so would be offensive. Likewise I suggest that it’s not necessary to publish the cartoons for people to understand the issue. A more extreme example that I used above is child p*rn. You don’t need to show actual pictures for people to understand the issue and in fact publishing them would be considered very wrong in our society.

 

That sounds nice in the abstract, but in reality it's only invites problems. If you publish something based on whether someone will take offense, then you have made them your de facto editors. And, let's be perfectly honest, this is not just about economics. The newspapers may have some fear of subscription cancellations, but they are not unaware of what happened to Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, etc. The problem now is that by refusing to publish them, you have rewarded the thugs. That means they will keep pushing the envelope until somebody has enough courage to push back and defend our core principles.

 

Grizzled;

You raise an excellent point regarding child p*rn and how it might tie into this. IMO I think there is too much paranoia regarding it and that the extents that people go to suppress even the hint of it, outlawing even fictional depictions, has only made the problem worse.

Yes child p*rn is damaging and so is use of the "N" word and the cartoons offensive. At the same time though isn't officially banning things like that endowing them with a power that as abstractions they don't deserve. By censoring we're giving them the power of taboo that makes them both more tempting to use by those who want to inflame and more offensive to those who are offended.

I don't think there is a good answer but I'm very leery of the idea of government censorship regarding free speech and free expression.

 

I think you raise a very good point. At the very least bans on such things should be temporary and be revisited from time to time. I’m thinking of the N word in particular. I’m not an American so I’m just an ignorant outsider on this issue but it seems to me that the meaning and the impact of that word is changing and lessening. The use of it in Pulp Fiction I thought kind of made it into an anachronism to be laughed at. If the word was banned for eternity, otoh, then the old meaning is preserved to a significant extent, rather than dissipated and relegated to history. I can’t see child p*rn ever becoming acceptable so I guess that’s the other end of the spectrum but as a general principle I think such bans should be revisited periodically and I think there should be an awareness that there is a process whereby words like the N word take on and lose meaning in different historical contexts. Where the N word is in that process I’m not sure as I’m just a white Canadian boy sitting here in snowy Calgary.