First prison sentences announced for reprinting Mohammed cartoons

[Jim]

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17864

 

Jordan31 May 2006

 

First prison sentences announced for reprinting Mohammed cartoons

 

Reporters Without Borders protested today against two-month jail sentences imposed yesterday by a Jordanian court on two journalists, Jihad Momani and Hisham Al-Khalidi, for reprinting cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish paper last year and expressed concern about journalists being harshly punished for doing so.

 

“This is the first time journalists have been given prison sentences for reproducing the cartoons,” the worldwide press freedom organisation said. “The sentences are totally out of proportion. We hope they will be reduced on appeal. We urge other Muslim countries where journalists are being prosecuted for this not to follow Jordan’s example. Journalists must not be punished for their editorial decisions. The two journalists in this case were simply doing their job by choosing to reproduce the cartoons, like dozens of other media outlets around the world.”

 

Momani and Al-Khalidi, who were arrested in February, will appeal against their conviction for offending religious feelings, their lawyer said, and if it was rejected they would spend only 32 days in prison because they had already been detained for half the period of their sentence. They have been freed pending their appeal.

 

The weekly Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons and called on Muslims worldwide to be “reasonable,” while the weekly Al Mehwar printed all 12 of them alongside an article about criticism of their publication. Momani, editor of Al Mehwar, was dismissed on 2 February.

 

Apparently, the tolerence codes in Jordania prohibit citizens from "offending religious feelings." Good grief.

[silkworm]

Yep, won't be long before it's that way here. On both the religion and the freedom of the press, because nothing does censorship and oppression like a theocracy. What's up with religion being allergic to truth anyway?

 

At least they'll come out of this alive, well for now anyway.

 

Good luck journalists.

[ScrnE11]

Isn't this agaisnt freedom of speach?

 

People shouldn't take things so seriously, expecially religous things... I'm reminded of a South Park episode abouut this kind of thing Great eqpidose. Funny, interesting, basedon truth, etc...

[Sayonara]

Isn't this agaisnt freedom of speach?

The sentences were handed out in a Jordanian court. You know, in Jordan.

 

Like Jim said:

the tolerence codes in Jordania prohibit citizens from "offending religious feelings."

 

That might be hard to understand for an Americanese or UK audience but as the old saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

[Severian]

The sentences were handed out in a Jordanian court. You know, in Jordan[/i'].

 

Is that the next state west of Idaho?

[Sayonara]

Yes.

 

Yes it is.

[gcol]

Jordan is a big girl, there is plenty of room in there. Still looking for my donkey.

[Sayonara]

I had a feeling something like that was on the way...

[padren]

How is it any different to reproduce a cartoon depicting mohammad vs displaying an add for smoked ham?

 

The only people who should worry, would be people who are actually adhering to the tenets of the said religion, and then it should be between them and their pastor/priest/mosque leader etc.

 

My first reaction to the cartoons was, to produce a cartoon with a person physically having sex with a mule, with the said person being blocked out with a big black censor block and the caption "For reasons of respecting religious sensesitity, Mohammad has been obscured in this cartoon"

 

 

Yes it would be offensive and crude, but I find the whole idea that people of other faiths being forced to adhere to the tenets of other people's faiths pretty offensive and crude. I hope it is not a theme that catches on.

[GutZ]

I think it's a good thing.

 

A riot broke out the first time. Whether or not it was right or wrong these editors are just pushing buttons. Maybe now they will think before they do something.

[Pangloss]

Pushing people's buttons should be a cause for celebration, not the reverse.

[GutZ]

For a sensitive situation "button pushing" is not the best idea. You don't wave a red flag at a bull, well atleast I don't unless I want to deal with the consequences. People shouldn't have to die or get hurt because some person wants the ability to say whatever and when ever he/she wants.

 

I am more of quiet revolution, or well planned revolution type person, not an arbitrary impulsive type. Sure you can do that here because we created an enviroment for it. I think it's obvious it doesn't work so well in other places.

[Mokele]

People shouldn't have to die or get hurt because some person wants the ability to say whatever and when ever he/she wants.

 

So we should restrict our own freedoms based on fear of reprisal from the over-sensitive and those who cannot tolerate differing opinions?

 

How is that freedom? Sorry, but the fault here lies in one place and one alone: those who are too emotionally immature to tolerate criticism.

 

Mokele

[padren]

Gutz, what if China got angry at us, because our Google shows information that is censored on Google China and considered offensive to the Chineese government?

 

Remember that people did not get angry because Mohammad was portrayed in ink doing bad stuff, it was because he was portrayed in ink at all. According to Jeudaism (iirc) all depictions of God are considered a religion wrong, but you don't see them rioting and calling to destroy the painting Birth of Man. I will personally fight the idea that some other guy's religion gives him any right to tell me what to do. If someone has a problem with anything I do, they can describe it in a secular manner or blow off.

 

 

What if an American reporter gathered the top sites china censors, and linked to them from a site and got it to rank #1 on Google (yet not be on the Chinese version) for the search term "Chinese Censorship."

 

Lets say they rioted in China, and some people even died. Should that reporter be arrested?

 

Should we be sensitive to China's feelings and supress information ourselves, to make them feel better?

[gcol]

 

Should we be sensitive to China's feelings and supress information ourselves' date=' to make them feel better?[/quote']

Good question. Try this:

 

Instead of "China's feelings" try substituting, in turn, the following words or phrases:

 

Homosexuals.

Moslems.

Negros.

Bush supporters

Creationists

Hispanics

Al Qaeda

 

How far did you get?

 

Suggestions for other substitutions?

[GutZ]

So we should restrict our own freedoms based on fear of reprisal from the over-sensitive and those who cannot tolerate differing opinions?

 

How is that freedom? Sorry' date=' but the fault here lies in one place and one alone: those who are too emotionally immature to tolerate criticism.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

We abuse freedom to the farthest extent (which is fine...but). NA mentalities don't work in places with alot extreme religious beliefs. We can have rallies and picket lines they can't. So unless they are serious in trying to overthrow that extremist mentality permanently, pushing buttons is just giving higher probability for people to get hurt. Personally I take living one more day over "freedom".

 

I know how it sounds. Nothing is nice or fair in survivial.

 

I believe in freedom of speech, but there is time and place for everything.

 

LOOK.

 

If someone, or people get hurt because of the result of someones need to express an opinion disregarding or ignorant to the consequences, should be held accountable. I'll say it too, I don't believe in absolute freedom, but thats a different topic.

[padren]

Good question. Try this:

 

Instead of "China's feelings" try substituting' date=' in turn, the following words or phrases:

 

Homosexuals.

Moslems.

Negros.

Bush supporters

Creationists

Hispanics

Al Qaeda

 

How far did you get?

 

Suggestions for other substitutions?[/quote']

 

If a homosexual has some belief, and you don't agree with it, should they force you to comply to it simply because its the guy's preference you do? Same with every other name on that list.

 

The only thing you should have to comply with regarding any of them is respect for their secular rights.

 

 

If a gay guy goes violent on me because he believes I should have to wear pink, I'll have no problem punching the guy in the face. If he wants me to leave him alone and respect his right to marry some other guy, then of course I wouldn't interfere with his secular right to do so.

[Jim]

We abuse freedom to the farthest extent (which is fine...but).

 

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[ecoli]

I think he meant that we take our freedoms for granted.

[Mokele]

Instead of "China's feelings" try substituting, in turn, the following words or phrases:

 

Homosexuals.

Moslems.

Negros.

Bush supporters

Creationists

Hispanics

Al Qaeda

 

How far did you get?

 

Through all, why?

 

There's a big difference between "We *shouldn't* do this or that because it's rude but we can if we want to" and "We *can't* do this because then people will kill us for it." One is acknowledging politeness but not forcing it, but the other is forced censorship.

 

NA mentalities don't work in places with alot extreme religious beliefs.

 

That's their problem, not mine.

 

We can have rallies and picket lines they can't.

 

Why can't they? They are *PEOPLE* like us, and are just as capable of self-restraint and calm discussion as we are (shit, in the Golden Age of Islam, Islamic countries made the rest of the world look like rural Alabama in cultural and academic sophistication). They *choose* not to, and that choice is *theirs*, and *they* bear the ethical cost of such a poor choice. They are as capable of reasonable discourse as we are, and it's their obligation to act like grown-ups if they want to be respected.

 

Personally I take living one more day over "freedom".

 

"Those who would choose security over freedom deserve neither." - Ben Franklin.

 

So, let's put this another way: There are animal-liberation terrorists out there who bomb labs, threaten people, kill pets (yeah, weird, I know), and *steal corpses* to intimidate people into not doing things that offend them. My planned academic career *relies* upon animal testing. Should I abandon the area of science that truly interests me out of fear of some loonies who can be violent?

 

I don't know about you, but I will not be intimidated by thugs.

 

If someone, or people get hurt because of the result of someones need to express an opinion disregarding or ignorant to the consequences, should be held accountable.

 

What if I walk up to you on the street one day, accost you, and proceed to rant loudly and publically about your personal hygene, genital size, sexual proclivities, attractiveness, and legitimacy of parentage? I'm insulting and offending you horribly. If you punch me, who holds the blame.

 

The answer is *you*. Part of being a member of civilized socieity is realizing that violence is not an acceptable solution to being offended. No matter what I say, it remains *your* choice to resort to violence or not, and it is *your* burden to remain in control of yourself, no matter how difficult.

 

This is what participating in civilized society requires, self-control. If they can't manage such a fairly basic concept, they aren't worth dealing with.

 

 

 

Freedom means accepting other's freedom to speak/behave in a manner you don't like.

 

Mokele