Should we publish the Cartoons here in the USA?

I agree with DaDa, about having the right to print these cartoons to see whats all the fuss about, DaDa I'm sure didn't do it to piss off the muslims. I think he's just fed up, as well as alot of americans, on why some of those people (not all) acted so violently to the point of murder, wounding other people, destroying their own neighborhoods, as well as foreign establishments, such as, embassies, restaurants, etc..., on some cartoons that the Danish printed (of course the U.S. is again blamed ) These cartoons are of course offensive. But remember every religion, not just the muslim faith, gets made fun of or attacked! We all need to be civilized about this & have a thick skin!

 

The persecution of Christians (in the earlier days of that religion) is the reason we still have Christianity today.

 

LOL, nice find!

 

DD,

I see that it irks the former journalist in you that these cartoons arent being published, even though they are news material, and so much controversy has stirred due to them.
When Janet Jackson had her "malfunction" or when Paris Hilton had her tape released did any single newspaper print those pictures? I mean sure there were before and after pics, but did any actually print the nudeness? I believe the answer is no. And Clearly you argue that its against society's rules to have some pictures in the newspaper and all, and such is how the rules of islam works. Its just morally wrong, and sometimes it offend some more reserved ppl. And its in the betterment of the population to not print stuff like that. Its news, thats great, so talk about it, write about it. Pics arent all that important, and if someone really wants to see it, he/she can go and google it, and this stands for both the cartoons and for the JJ malfunction.

 

One European's opinion...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1711874,00.html

Europe's contempt for other cultures can't be sustained

A continent that inflicted colonial brutality all over the globe for 200 years has little claim to the superiority of its values

Martin Jacques

Is the argument over the Danish cartoons really reducible to a matter of free speech? Even if we believe that free speech is a fundamental value, that does not give us carte blanche to say what we like in any context, regardless of consequence or effect. Respect for others, especially in an increasingly interdependent world, is a value of at least equal importance.

Europe has never had to worry too much about context or effect because for around 200 years it dominated and colonised most of the world. Such was Europe's omnipotence that it never needed to take into account the sensibilities, beliefs and attitudes of those that it colonised, however sacred and sensitive they might have been. On the contrary, European countries imposed their rulers, religion, beliefs, language, racial hierarchy and customs on those to whom they were entirely alien. There is a profound hypocrisy - and deep historical ignorance - when Europeans complain about the problems posed by the ethnic and religious minorities in their midst, for that is exactly what European colonial rule meant for peoples around the world. With one crucial difference, of course: the white minorities ruled the roost, whereas Europe's new ethnic minorities are marginalised, excluded and castigated, as recent events have shown.

But it is no longer possible for Europe to ignore the sensibilities of peoples with very different values, cultures and religions. First, western Europe now has sizeable minorities whose origins are very different from the host population and who are connected with their former homelands in diverse ways. If European societies want to live in some kind of domestic peace and harmony - rather than in a state of Balkanisation and repression - then they must find ways of integrating these minorities on rather more equal terms than, for the most part, they have so far achieved. That must mean, among other things, respect for their values. Second, it is patently clear that, globally speaking, Europe matters far less than it used to - and in the future will count for less and less. We must not only learn to share our homelands with people from very different roots, we must also learn to share the world with diverse peoples in a very different kind of way from what has been the European practice.

Europe has little experience of this, and what experience it has is mainly confined to less than half a century. Old attitudes of superiority and disdain - dressed up in terms of free speech, progress or whatever - are still very powerful. Nor - as many liberals like to think - are they necessarily in decline. On the contrary, racial bigotry is on the rise, even in countries that have previously been regarded as tolerant. The Danish government depends for its rule on a racist, far-right party that gained 13% of the seats in the last election. The decision of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons - and papers in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere to reprint them - lay not so much in the tradition of free speech but in European contempt for other cultures and religions: it was a deliberate, calculated insult to the beliefs of others, in this case Muslims.

This kind of mentality - combining Eurocentrism, old colonial attitudes of supremacism, racism, provincialism and sheer ignorance - will serve our continent ill in the future. Europe must learn to live in and with the world, not to dominate it, nor to assume it is superior or more virtuous. Any continent that has inflicted such brutality on the world over a period of 200 years has not too much to be proud of, and much to be modest and humble about - though this is rarely the way our history is presented in Britain, let alone elsewhere. It is worth remembering that while parts of Europe have had free speech (and democracy) for many decades, its colonies were granted neither. But when it comes to our "noble values", our colonial record is always written out of the script.

This attitude of disdain, of assumed superiority, will be increasingly difficult to sustain. We are moving into a world in which the west will no longer be able to call the tune as it once did. China and India will become major global players alongside the US, the EU and Japan. For the first time in modern history the west will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. By the end of this century Europe is likely to pale into insignificance alongside China and India. In such a world, Europe will be forced to observe and respect the sensibilities of others.

Few in Europe understand or recognise these trends. A small example is the bitter resistance displayed on the continent to the proposed takeover of Arcelor by Mittal Steel: at root the opposition is based on thinly disguised racism. But Europe had better get used to such a phenomenon: takeovers by Indian and Chinese firms are going to become as common as American ones. A profound parochialism grips our continent. When Europe called the global tune it did not matter, because what happened in Europe translated itself into a global trend and a global power. No more: now it is simply provincialism.

When Europe dominated, there were no or few feedback loops. Or, to put it another way, there were few, if any, consequences for its behaviour towards the non-western world: relations were simply too unequal. Now - and increasingly in the future - it will be very different. And the subject of these feedback loops, or consequences, will concern not just present but also past behaviour.

For 200 years the dominant powers have also been the colonial powers: the European countries, the US and Japan. They have never been required to pay their dues for what they did to those whom they possessed and treated with contempt. Europeans have treated this chapter in their history by choosing to forget. So has Japan, except that in its case its neighbours have not only refused to forget but are also increasingly powerful. As a consequence, Japan's present and future is constantly stalked by its history. This future could also lie in wait for Europe. We might think the opium wars are "simply history"; the Chinese (rightly) do not. We might think the Bengal famine belongs in the last century, but Indians do not.

Europe is moving into a very different world. How will it react? If something like the attitude of the Danes prevails - a combination of defensiveness, fear, provincialism and arrogance - then one must fear for Europe's ability to learn to live in this new world. There is another way, but the signs are none too hopeful.

· Martin Jacques is a senior visiting research fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore

 

I am Muslim and I agree with this conditionally. Everyone is fair game and equally fair game. That part I do not disagree with. But what is the point of publishing something solely for the point of offending and provoking? If I published a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with a bomb in his turban, what would it prove? What would it accomplish? Some Muslims in the world today are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. That is well-known and undisputed. Similarly, if I published a satirical cartoon of Anne Frank and her family burning in an oven, what would it prove? If someone did that, you could not legitimately tell me that there is a point of information or contention behind it. If someone did that, they would do it just to piss Jews off.

When I was at Texas A&M, there was a cartoon published in our school paper of a black woman with huge lips that was holding a spatula. Her son came home with his report card in which he got straight F's and the mother was saying how her son was qualified to work Airport Security. I do not recall if this was national or drawn by one of the students at Texas A&M. The point of the cartoons was that any idiot could work airport security. However, was it necessary to draw this offensive black woman to make that point? However, as sick as it was, in the spirit of free speech, you had to support the printing.

But yeah, as sick and pathetic as it may be, we all have the right to offend one another. Arabs should have the "right" to publish anti-Semitic cartoons in their papers and whites should have the right to paint their face black for Halloween. But once again, it is sick, pathetic, and pointless.

 

To DaDakota and others, people like me will always be "they."

 

Now that we know there's a big deal over it, publishing the cartoons seems like a form of taunting rather than expression.

Freedom of speech comes with certain resposibilities. If that's considered self-censorship, so be it.

Common sense, people.

 

Sadly, considering the reactions around the world, I'd say it proved alot.

As for the point - the point is to make one stop and think, to look at something from a different perspective.

 

You're totally blowing this out of proportion. You're acting as if there's some sort of explosive revelation in these things that newspapers are ITCHING to publish but aren't due to fear of massive repercussions.

For the 100th time in this thread - newspapers in the US DID publish them, and they have been widely available in other media formats for WEEKS - there's no suppression of information happening here which is the way you portray it.


The message of the cartoons themselves is NOT in and of itself news - the news is of the repercussions. Do you think that, years ago, when Salman Rushdie was castigated by some extremist muslims after publishing the Satanic Verses - ALL newspapers SHOULD have to run excerpts from the supposedly offensive parts of it? I doubt it - the fact that there were excerpts from an allegorical, magic realist novel was not the news story in and of itself - the news story was the reaction.

Yes, we have a free press, theoretically. It's great to exercise that right. But there's no point in forcing people via some ethical obligation that you dremaed up to exercise that right just to demonstrate that it exists. Publishers and editors of all media formats make decisions every single day based on what they will and will not run, and these are based on many factors - Fox News isn't going to run pieces that make the President look overly bad, by the same token, Mother Jones isn't going to run articles about how the capital gains tax needs to be cut. Local tv News runs piece on murder after murder after murder even though crime rates declined considerably. I can say that all of these sources SHOULD be doing something different - but at the end of the day - it's just a lot of hot air. There's no suppression of free speech or information going on here - so there really isn't a first amendment concern in a specific sense.

 

The points being made here by a number of people about the impropriety of reprinting these cartoons are not merely common sense, although IMO they certainly are that once you think it through, but they are also specifically included in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:


Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
* Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
* Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
* Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Pretty clearly this is not a freedom of speech issue and reprinting these cartoons would in fact be a breach of numerous clauses of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

 

As sam said..the cartoons are not the news. It's the reaction to them.

If the papers did not report the riots...or failed to note that they were sparked bythe cartoons, that could be considered censorship.

But, really, what possible good could come from republishing them that would outweight the 'taunting' aspect. Besides...they're not even very good.

(and....the papers are probably more 'fearful' of insulting their readership (both muslims and those who think publishing the cartoons is inappropriate) then they are of physical reprisals from militant muslims).