Extremists Still PO'd over cartoons (1 Viewer)

[LSSpam]

If 'freedom of speech' is also freedom to offend then the priniciple should be applied uniformly.

I agree. You seem to suggest, however, that you do not.

 

[RazorOye]

In a nation that markets Christianity to the point that we do, I don't know how anyone can reasonably expect us to put this in a proper perspective or context.

From the WWJD wristbands to the "Jesus is my Homeboy" shirts to some of the items I saw at Lifeway Christian Bookstores to many of the money-grabbing rhetoricians and demagogues preaching under the aegis of Christianity - there just isn't a comparable sacrosanct'ness' to the images of Christ here that seems to be analogous to the affront Muslims took to these images.

 

[Hoyasaint]

I agree. You seem to suggest, however, that you do not.

Concur, plus the freedom of speech clearly allows one paper to choose what to publish and what not.

From the article posted above, it appeared that the papers were not going to run the cartoon's until a backlash began.

 

[Utah Saints]

Threatening (and committing) violence over exercising the freedom of speech and the press we have in western nations is exactly what 'hating us for our freedom' is.

If you guys are going to sarcastically throw that phrase around, you might want to pick a topic that doesnt actually reinforce the mantra.

 

[Saint Mike]

Threatening violence over excerising the freedom of speech and the press we have in western nations is exactly what 'hating us for our freedom' is.

If you guys are going to sarcastically throw that phrase around, you might want to pick a topic that doesnt actually reinforce the mantra.

lus-un2: (Armageddon must be near )

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm pretty sure this is less about free speech in principle than it is about getting a dig in at Muslims.

I note that Mr. Rose's newspaper refused to print the holocaust cartoons that ran in the Iranian newspaper last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose

Every culture has something that is considered offensive or beyond the pale. If 'freedom of speech' is also freedom to offend then the priniciple should be applied uniformly.

That's fine, if the paper wants to offend one religious group and coddle to another, that's their right, and it is everyone else's right to point out their hypocrisy. As long as we're in the realm of non-violent insults, then I'd rather not get in the business of censorship.

 

[ra]

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I'm taking the position of Voltaire -- I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

I thought the original cartoon was deliberately insulting and not particularly worthwhile, but I think the Danish paper has the right to publish it, and so does everyone else.

 

[Dragon]

I have been following the case since it has made a lot of headlines here.

Danish cartoonist have a long history of making political cartoons, we tend to use irony/humor/exaggeration to make the point. A lot of the time the jokes/cartoons/cabarets are borderline and compared to cartoons of our own royal family/politicians/religious/public figures the aforementioned cartoons are relatively innocent.

What caused the latest round of reprinting though is that the police uncovered a plot to kill one of the artist. That made ALL the newspapers reprint the drawing in a protest over the threat - even newspapers that had originally not printed the drawings.

Although many of us dislike the drawings (and a lot of other drawings found in the newspapers every day) most refuse to be dictated by foreign powers or religion. The common feeling is that if you bow down in this case, what will be next ?

 

[Taurus]

If you let them have the cookie now, it will never stop.