Lessons from the Mohammad Cartoon incident

[sunspot]

The media are the watch dogs of society, and can bark when they want to, due to the freedom of the press. The problem is that there are no watchdogs for the watchdogs. If the personal lives of media moguls and personalities were free game for misrepresentation, thereby discrediting the media family, it would at least be a fair playing field. Those how live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, unless you control all the stones.

[Jim]

Go US!

You've just got to enjoy the US move here. It's not what I would do but it is funny that we are not supporting the Europeans.

 

Also here are the original cartoons' date=' along with an assortment of others which have been done in response:

 

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

 

I really got a kick out of this one:

 

[img']http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.31.ImageProblem-X.gif[/img]

 

Hilarious cartoons like this serve an important function. The self-righteous seriousness of the Muslim world needs to be skewered with humor. Political cartoons have a long history of changing thinking and touching the untouchable. http://www2.truman.edu/parker/research/cartoons.html

[john5746]

I don't think that deciding not to run something because it's insensitive necessarily equates to censorship. I feel free to run down the street yelling obscenities, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

 

If you do decide to do it, it doesn't mean you caused someone else to shoot you.

 

We would hope people would have good taste, but no one should be killed for it. They can protest with boycotts, etc but no violence. This is their monkey - violence. They need to get it off their back, or it will be slapped off.

[Aardvark]

I don't think that deciding not to run something because it's insensitive necessarily equates to censorship. I feel free to run down the street yelling obscenities, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

 

If you ran down the street yelling obscenties it might be offensive. But that wouldn't justify people demanding that you have your head cut off.

 

If we want to remain free people living in a free civilisation we have to defend the right to be offensive, not pander to hysterical bigotry.

[Aardvark]

There is a difference between giving your negative opinion about someone's beliefs and being outright disrespectful in doing so.

No there isn't.

 

Are you saying that people, namely the press, should be an exception to this?

All people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. That includes being disrespectful.

 

 

People probably would have been less angered by an article or editorial expressing the same opinion towards Islam. Like I said before, Islam FORBIDS the portrayal of religious figures.

So what if Islam FORBIDS anything? Why should Danes (or anyone else)be subject to Islamic law?

 

 

I figure that the artist himself as well as the people of the newspapers aren't Muslim, but seriously, is it too much to ask for SOME decency (decency not only on the part of the press, but on the part of all the pple who continue to encourage the publication of this comic strip)?

 

There is nothing spectacularly indecent about these cartoons. What is indecent is the hysterical Muslim overreaction, calling for the killing of the cartoonists, and what is also indecent is the rush of apologists for this brutal and dangerous aggression from very many Muslims.

 

 

I agree with the US on this one: freedom of the press goes hand in hand with press responsibility and this was a screw up.

 

 

So freedom of speech. Just as long as you don't actually exercise that freedom in anyway that someone claims 'offends' them. :rolleyes:

[Tiger's Eye]

No there isn't.

 

 

All people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. That includes being disrespectful.

 

 

 

So what if Islam FORBIDS anything? Why should Danes (or anyone else)be subject to Islamic law?

 

 

 

 

There is nothing spectacularly indecent about these cartoons. What is indecent is the hysterical Muslim overreaction' date=' calling for the killing of the cartoonists, and what is also indecent is the rush of apologists for this brutal and dangerous aggression from very many Muslims.

 

 

 

 

 

So freedom of speech. Just as long as you don't actually exercise that freedom in anyway that someone claims 'offends' them. :rolleyes:[/quote']

 

So, it's not indecent to insult and denegrade another person's religious beliefs because you disagree with them? That's stooping down pretty low, to be intentionally disrespectful. I agree that the Muslims are taking overly drastic measures with their violent protests and calls for massive killing, but they do have reason to be upset. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Christians would be pretty pissed off if Christ were depicted in a Nazi suit with a caption beneath it saying that the Nazis did what they did in the name of Christianity. Right now, this is turning into an issue that looks as if it's asking "which is mightier, the press or religion?" Hmmmmmmmm.....it's a really delicate subject. As I said before, freedom should be handled with responsibility. Otherwise, it can become abused and destructive.

[Aardvark]

So, it's not indecent to insult and denegrade another person's religious beliefs because you disagree with them? That's stooping down pretty low, to be intentionally disrespectful.

Part of a free society is the freedom to satarise, contradict be disrespectful. Noone and no system of thought is automatically entitled to be treated with complete respect at all times. Peoples religious beliefs are legitimate targets for satire and criticism.

 

 

I agree that the Muslims are taking overly drastic measures with their violent protests and calls for massive killing, but they do have reason to be upset. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Christians would be pretty pissed off if Christ were depicted in a Nazi suit with a caption beneath it saying that the Nazis did what they did in the name of Christianity.

Except that so called 'artists' do that. Christianity is repeatedly mocked and ridiculed in Western Society. For examples look at a few of the publicly funded items such a a Madonna made of shit that was recently exhibited in New York. Or the 'piss christ' or the on going Gilbert and George art exhbit or the Jerry Springer show theatre tour that deliberately insulted Christ.

 

The difference is that although Christians are insulted they don't demand that these shows, exhibits etc should be banned and the 'artists' killed.

 

 

Right now, this is turning into an issue that looks as if it's asking "which is mightier, the press or religion?"

No, simply that religion has to accept that it is a legitimate target for satire and criticism.

 

Hmmmmmmmm.....it's a really delicate subject. As I said before, freedom should be handled with responsibility. Otherwise, it can become abused and destructive.

 

Freedom needs to be protected from aggressive bigotry. Being mealy mouthed in the face of demands for censorship backed up by threats of murder is wrong. It is aggressive Islam which is being abusive and destructive here, not the press.

[Tiger's Eye]

Freedom needs to be protected from aggressive bigotry. Being mealy mouthed in the face of demands for censorship backed up by threats of murder is wrong. It is aggressive Islam which is being abusive and destructive here' date=' not the press.[/quote']

 

I understand that freedom of speech/expression should be protected, but is it right for newspapers to continue reprinting this cartoon, now that the religious issue is known and anger is rapidly escalating (on all sides)? Who's provoking whom?

[Aardvark]

I understand that freedom of speech/expression should be protected, but is it right[/i'] for newspapers to continue reprinting this cartoon, now that the religious issue is known and anger is rapidly escalating (on all sides)? Who's provoking whom?

 

To not print the cartoon would be to reward the threats of violence. It would send a clear message to the hate mongers that if you threaten people with murder and terrorism that you will get your way.

 

The way to deal with all bullies is to stand up to them.

[john5746]

To not print the cartoon would be to reward the threats of violence. It would send a clear message to the hate mongers that if you threaten people with murder and terrorism that you will get your way.

 

The way to deal with all bullies is to stand up to them.

 

I don't like that logic. It sounds similar to that kook of a leader in Iran. You push me, I'll push back harder.

 

The cartoon obviously insulted more people than just terrorists and murders. I agree that you shouldn't back down to terrorists, etc especially with important information. But then to push further as a reaction is even worse.

 

Couldn't they apologize to those that are peacefully demonstrating and then say to the others that they are proving the cartoon true?

 

I'm not saying they need to apologize, but I think any action on their part should not be in regard to the terrorist action.

[husmusen]

Ohohoho this is reallly something.

 

Islamic Autoprovocation.

Meanwhile, the Danish tabloid Extra Bladet got hold of a 43-page report that Danish Muslim leaders and imams, on a tour of the Islamic world are handing out to their contacts to “explain” how offensive the cartoons are. The report contains 15 pictures instead of 12. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile deamon [see it here], the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout [here] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog [here]. Apparently, the 12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious hatred.

From:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/668

 

Also from the same.

Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the 21 Danish Muslim organizations which organized the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to “give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims.”

...

 

and the three FAKE cartoons.

These were not drawn by Danish people but by the firebrands trying to stir up a riot

http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg

http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg

 

So it seems they faked there own stuff to be offended about.

 

Husmusen.

[Tiger's Eye]

To not print the cartoon would be to reward the threats of violence. It would send a clear message to the hate mongers that if you threaten people with murder and terrorism that you will get your way.

 

The way to deal with all bullies is to stand up to them.

 

Tell me, what good will the continued publication of this cartoon bring? It is only succeeding in getting people upset and elevating violence. This situation is getting more dangerous than just protecting one's right to free speech. In addition to violence, it's hurting the Danish economy and the boycotting will ruin hundreds of lives, namely of employees who will be put out of jobs due to a company's financial issues. When will it stop? The Muslims are getting fired up by the fact that this cartoon continues to be published and the press continues to publish it in order to prove a point to the Muslims. Again, whom is provoking who? This is more than the press or terrorism: ordinary people and citizens are now deeply involved.

[Severian]

I am also rather appalled by how the mainstream media is reporting this. The big channels are only showing the people with signs calling for beheadings etc, or people attacking embassies. They are giving the crowds of peaceful protesters very little air time.

 

I think this leads to a misperception among the less educated parts of our society that it is all muslims who are calling for violence. I think we should all abhor the behaviour of the extremists, but we should also recognise that they are a small minority and most muslims do not want violence.

[husmusen]

I am also rather appalled by how the mainstream media is reporting this. The big channels are only showing the people with signs calling for beheadings etc, or people attacking embassies. They are giving the crowds of peaceful protesters very little air time.

 

If accurate then that is a disgrace.

The peaceful protestors have more right to be heard.

 

Husmusen

[Pangloss]

One of the things that I think is interesting here is that this incident shows how much more of an influence the media is starting to have on the Islamic world. We've been hearing for some time now about rooftops all over the region "bristling with antennas" for satellite TV reception. They watch Al Jazeera or one of the other fledgeling services in huge numbers, and all of those networks are still trying to get their journalistic feet underneath them at a time when journalism isn't exactly on very good footing anyway when it comes to integrity.

 

Mind you, there's always been plenty of news from the Middle East. What's different now is that the populace in the Middle East is providing the news AND consuming it.

[doG]

I think this leads to a misperception among the less educated parts of our society that it is all muslims who are calling for violence.

Yep. There are more than a billion Muslims and I don't think we're actually seeing protests by even a million of them. The media is showing those that squeal the loudest and portrays them as representative of the whole group. In a way this induces the problem to grow as the media helps to influence Muslims in other areas that the numbers of protesters are larger than they really are. The media is effectively inciting riots.

[Tiger's Eye]

Yep. There are more than a billion Muslims and I don't think we're actually seeing protests by even a million of them. The media is showing those that squeal the loudest and portrays them as representative of the whole group. In a way this induces the problem to grow as the media helps to influence Muslims in other areas that the numbers of protesters are larger than they really are. The media is effectively inciting riots.

 

Very true statement. The media is incredibly powerful these days, and, unfortunately, it is pretty biased, and I mean biased everywhere around the world. It's hard to find a really reliable source to get news from these days.

[Severian]

To be fair, the BBC showed an interview today with the leader of the British Muslim Council , Iqbal Sacranie, who called for the arrest of the muslim extremists who were inciting violence. So at least the BBC is presenting the other side. I suppose it just gets lost in amongst the pictures of raging mobs.

[swansont]

Yep. There are more than a billion Muslims and I don't think we're actually seeing protests by even a million of them. The media is showing those that squeal the loudest and portrays them as representative of the whole group. In a way this induces the problem to grow as the media helps to influence Muslims in other areas that the numbers of protesters are larger than they really are. The media is effectively inciting riots.

 

Sex and violence make for better ratings. People sitting at home, unperturbed by the events, makes for no news story.

 

As a mark of my support I bought some Danish Blue Cheese on Friday. I would have bought some anyway, but I felt so politically supportive, I bought two wedges.

[Pangloss]

To be fair, the BBC showed an interview today with the leader of the British Muslim Council , Iqbal Sacranie, who called for the arrest of the muslim extremists who were inciting violence. So at least the BBC is presenting the other side. I suppose it just gets lost in amongst the pictures of raging mobs.

 

I've heard this as well, and I think it's an excellent point (actually two excellent points -- it's definitely getting lost in the media frenzy).

 

Is it possible that the real story here is that the *majority* of Muslims in the region *aren't* rioting in the streets, and are avoiding it not because they are afraid of the violence (etc), but because they see it as the wrong course of action?

 

I dunno -- nobody is reporting THAT story (as swansont says, people sitting at home ain't news). That's a shame.

[Tiger's Eye]

I've heard this as well' date=' and I think it's an excellent point (actually two excellent points -- it's definitely getting lost in the media frenzy).

 

Is it possible that the real story here is that the *majority* of Muslims in the region *aren't* rioting in the streets, and are avoiding it not because they are afraid of the violence (etc), but because they see it as the wrong course of action?

 

I dunno -- nobody is reporting THAT story (as swansont says, people sitting at home ain't news). That's a shame.[/quote']

 

Really good point, Pangloss. Ditto to Swansont and Severian (I wanted to watch that interview, but no go ).

 

I think that despite the fact that a lot of Muslims are really upset by the cartoon, they seriously disapprove with the drastic measures and outrageous extremes that are being taken by extremists, such as torching the embassy in Beirut. Muslims have condemed these acts, but this aspect lacks the appropriate media attention that it deserves. It's true that people might not be as interested in seeing these peaceful protestors and such, but one can't help wondering how it might affect the current situation.

[Aardvark]

Tell me, what good will the continued publication of this cartoon bring? It is only succeeding in getting people upset and elevating violence.

 

The point is that to back down because of intimidation and acts of violence will encourage this foul behaviour. It is clear that a lot of people are being deliberately hyper sensitive and are looking for excuses to be offended. If they are appeased on one point then they will simply be emboldened and the situation will be even worse the next time they find some excuse to be offended.

 

This situation is getting more dangerous than just protecting one's right to free speech. In addition to violence, it's hurting the Danish economy and the boycotting will ruin hundreds of lives, namely of employees who will be put out of jobs due to a company's financial issues. When will it stop?

 

Free speech is a freedom that is worth making a lot of sacrifices for. To trade liberty for security will result in you ending up with neither.

 

 

The Muslims are getting fired up by the fact that this cartoon continues to be published and the press continues to publish it in order to prove a point to the Muslims. Again, whom is provoking who? This is more than the press or terrorism: ordinary people and citizens are now deeply involved.

 

This is clearly a case where a group of Muslim clerics have deliberately gone out of their way to artificially create outrage (to the extent of lying and forging fake cartoons to fool the gulible) It is a case where a lot of Muslims have deliberately provoked confrontation. Yes, ordinary people are deeply involved. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the type of civilisation we want to live in. Should freedom of expression be curtailed by the fear of violent aggressive religious bigotry, or should we vigourously defend our liberties?

 

A lot of 'fundamentalist' Muslims consdier the 'West' to be irredemably decadent, being easily cowed, unwilling to defend its values and therefore ultimately doomed. Caving in on this issue would help to prove them right.

 

Perhaps they are right.

[5614]

I was thinking along these lines earlier today. It would be a lot easier to be sympathetic with the furor if Muslim populations burned fewer US flags and were more vocal in denouncing and fighting extremism and especially the associated terrorism. I read the occasional claim that Islam is a religion of peace and not violence but it's hard for that to sink in when one keeps learning of things blowing up' date=' killing innocents, and hearing chants of "Death to America!" on the evening news. I know it's extremists doing the bad things, but I don't see any action on the part of the moderates to rein things in.

 

Are these instances of someone being deliberately provacative? Yes. Sometimes that's the only way to bring attention to the issue. The US has a PR problem in the middle east, but Islam likewise has a PR problem in the west. If they expect tolerance of their views, they must also exhibit tolerance of others' views.[/quote']I totaly agree, a very good post.

 

Every day in the newspaper there are cartoons which make fun of political leaders, religions or anything else in the news that day... IMO this whole thing is totaly out of proportion and stupid.

[Tiger's Eye]

The point is that to back down because of intimidation and acts of violence will encourage this foul behaviour. It is clear that a lot of people are being deliberately hyper sensitive and are looking for excuses to be offended. If they are appeased on one point then they will simply be emboldened and the situation will be even worse the next time they find some excuse to be offended.

 

 

 

Free speech is a freedom that is worth making a lot of sacrifices for. To trade liberty for security will result in you ending up with neither.

 

 

 

 

This is clearly a case where a group of Muslim clerics have deliberately gone out of their way to artificially create outrage (to the extent of lying and forging fake cartoons to fool the gulible) It is a case where a lot of Muslims have deliberately provoked confrontation. Yes' date=' ordinary people are deeply involved. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the type of civilisation we want to live in. Should freedom of expression be curtailed by the fear of violent aggressive religious bigotry, or should we vigourously defend our liberties?

 

A lot of 'fundamentalist' Muslims consdier the 'West' to be irredemably decadent, being easily cowed, unwilling to defend its values and therefore ultimately doomed. Caving in on this issue would help to prove them right.

 

Perhaps they are right.[/quote']

 

Your last sentence is interesting. Why speculate? I mean, that seems to weaken your arguement that freedom of speech is something worth a lot of sacrifices. How can you believe in the freedom if you doubt the people that built it? Do you really think that if the West apologized for the cartoons, then this will look like an act of cowardice? This had never crossed my mind. I just thought that it would've been the right thing to do because (a) reprinting the cartoon was just a silly thing to do and (b) it would not forfeit people's (namely employees of those Danish companies) right to live decent lives. I know that life is not always fair and that sacrifices should be made in order to protect an ideal/value (which is 'strangely' what both sides appear to be doing, though in a twisted way that's not agreeable), but how far should these protectors be willing to go? Do you just say 'tough' to these employees who might not get better jobs? I wonder what they'd think/say. Additionally, the fundamentalists are being ridiculous, and it seems that they seem to grab all the attention of everyone. Unfortunately, we then neglect those people who are peacefully protesting instead of torching embassies. Are you just gonna tell them to stick it, too? I don't see how that is right: should they be treated with equal disrespect because of someone else's stupid actions? And besides, what happened to the idea of 'religious tolerance'? Freedom in the West has worked well for a long time because people have learned how to respect and accept each other, but what now? All in all, how are we to protect those people who are suffering while we are 'protecting' their rights? (the wording is a bit confusing )

 

Btw, I smell trouble......

 

"Iranian Paper Plans Holocaust Cartoons "

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2;_ylt=AvWU5lzhaQc5o7B5LqgBKfPbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

From the frying pan into the fire, as they say.

[5614]

You know this cartoon was first published in Septermber 2005, that was 5 months ago.

 

And so someone publishes a cartoon portraying you as a suicide bomber, does going round burning Western flags and destroying embassies really help your cause??? NO! It makes your situation worst. Where's the logic?