OK, bottom line, on the 12 cartoons

[Pure]

Would you, if you were editor of the NY Times, reprint the cartoons (or would you have, earlier in this fracas). Almost all major US newspapers have not.

 

[elsol]

Would you, if you were editor of the NY Times, reprint the cartoons (or would you have, earlier in this fracas). Almost all major US newspapers have not.

Yes... but I'm an Apocalyptic Catholic so all the Muslim banding together and trying to destroy Israel is a sign of the Second Coming.

Yes... but I'm a major-civil-rights nut and there are too many problems right now with religious-fundamentalism and secular rights; I'd want to push the issue into the spotlight here under controllable terms.

a) A not-well viewed minority
b) A keystone civil right

I could use the Muslims as way to get the Evangelicals to sign off on a few things that I could use against them later.

But if you read the first part, you'll notice I'm not afraid of the 'End of the World' thing so I'm willing to pull the trigger and lose.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Belegon]

Regardless of how you feel about the wrong or right of the dispute, a journalist and a newspaper should report the news...not make it.

At this point, you are creating news either way....but I would leave them unpublished in my forum. It is not necessary to print them in order to take a stand on the issue and any editorial point you might make will both be clouded by the general furor and be a severe case of preaching to the choir.

 

[R. Richard]

Pure:
You cite 12 cartoons. However the following link says that there were more than 12 cartoons. In addition, a group of Imams admit that they toured the middle-east with more than just the 12 cartoons.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...feb08,0,2704319.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print

Editor: Imams used other images to stir anger

BY CAROL EISENBERG
STAFF WRITER

February 8, 2006

The Danish editor who published the drawings of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked worldwide protests said the furor was deliberately stoked by a group of Danish imams who toured the Middle East with a portfolio that included images never printed in his paper, among them, drawings of the prophet having sex with animals.

Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, said a group of men he called "radical imams" traveled to the Middle East several months after his newspaper's Sept. 30 commentary on self-censorship, which was accompanied by cartoons of Muhammad, "to stir up the crowds by telling lies."

He said the group carried a 45-page portfolio that contained not just the 12 cartoons published in his paper but several more incendiary drawings whose origin was unclear. They included depictions of the prophet with the face of a pig, and having sex with animals and children.

"All of that gratuitous rubbish was trumped around to trigger a campaign of senseless hatred," Rose said.

A member of the imam group dismissed the accusations, saying they had distinguished between the newspaper's pictures and the other drawings, which they took along to Middle Eastern leaders to illustrate the "rampant Islamophobia" in Denmark.

"It is the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten that have made people so angry and nothing else," said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for 27 Muslim associations in Denmark, who was part of the delegation. "We went there [to Egypt and Lebanon] because the Danish government turned a deaf ear to our protests."

 

[Pure]

Rr,

that point has been made in the other thread, a couple times. but the question concerns the 12 printed in the Danish paper.

(I am not asking if the Times should reprint every jackass cartoon depiction of Mohammed found on the Christian internet)

 

[Purple Sage]

It's a function of the priestly class to profess certainty about things that cannot be known. It's only a small step to lying about things that can be known.

 

[zeb1094]

Regardless of how you feel about the wrong or right of the dispute, a journalist and a newspaper should report the news...not make it.

Although your sentements are the same as mine, the journalists and newspapers along with televison have been creating news for the past century or so.

 

[fieryjen]

I voted, understanding the question on a very personal level, meaning I put what I would do, not what I think the actual editors should do.

In this case, if pictures are needed with the story, I would compromise and only use pictures where you could identify that it was one of the cartoons, but not read the whole thing. I wouldn't want to add more fuel to the fire. This situation has just gotten so out of hand that at this point, I find it almost ridiculous. I don't need to be making a point as well, tons of other people have already done it and I don't have any desire to jump in the middle of that pile.

 

[Purple Sage]

Although your sentements are the same as mine, the journalists and newspapers along with televison have been creating news for the past century or so.

Longer than that- the Western press was basically invented as a political organ- originating in broadsides with a definite agenda. The neutrality of the press is a fiction of the mid-twentieth century.

 

[alice_underneath]

Would you, if you were editor of the NY Times, reprint the cartoons (or would you have, earlier in this fracas). Almost all major US newspapers have not.

Yes, I would reprint the cartoons - for several reasons.

First, these cartoons are, in fact, news. They were the catalyst for a wave of violence that has yet to subside.

Second, these cartoons have sparked heated debate worldwide - some vituperative and some more circumspect. But whatever the tone of the debate, I for one could not effectively debate the provocative nature of a cartoon that I had not even seen.

Third, this incident has thrown the gulf in cultural understanding between the West and the Muslim World into sharp relief. From a coexistence-on-the-planet point of view, we have a real problem here.

The most benign way I can think of to describe the situation is to say that the Muslim world is asking the West to respect their allegiance to the Islamic prohibition on images of Muhammed. The West is asking the Muslim world to respect our allegiance to the concept of freedom of the press.

My suggestion to the Times would be to reprint the cartoons along with other images that have provoked religious outrage, such as the depiction of the Last Supper found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

Look at the language used by the representative of the Catholic Church in that dispute:

"When you trivialise the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children," said lawyer Thierry Massis.

Sound familiar?

The point would be to help the Muslim world understand that: (a) Islam is not alone in being insulted by blasphemous images, and (b) In the West, there is an effective way to address personal grievances that does not include arson and murder.

My final reason for reprinting these cartoons would be the one stated in the poll: as a show of solidarity for freedom of the press. We should absolutely not give the impresssion of being cowed by the threat of violence now. That is a very dangerous precedent, in my opinion, and will only lead to more trouble down the road.

Alice

 

[zeb1094]

Longer than that- the Western press was basically invented as a political organ- originating in broadsides with a definite agenda. The neutrality of the press is a fiction of the mid-twentieth century.

Yes, I know. That's why I add the "or so." to the end of the sentence. "a century or so." should indicate that the statement would encompass on the close order of one to three centuries, if not more, say back to the time of our fight for independence.

 

[Purple Sage]

Yes, I know. That's why I add the "or so." to the end of the sentence. "a century or so." should indicate that the statement would encompass on the close order of one to three centuries, if not more, say back to the time of our fight for independence.

Ahhh... so 'or so' means 'within 300 per cent'. Got it.

 

[zeb1094]

Ahhh... so 'or so' means 'within 300 per cent'. Got it.

Well it means whatever the writer what's it to mean. So 300, 400 or 500 % would be reasonable to me.

 

[angela146]

Yes, they need to publish the cartoons so that people can see how trivial they are.

Take a look for yourself: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

In fact, the furor would have been just as great if the cartoonists had used the traditional method of leaving a blank face in the picture, rather than a caracature of the prophet.

It isn't the content of the cartoons that is causing the uproar. It's the fact that people want to complain about something.

Remember, western cartoonists do stuff like this with images of Jesus all the time.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would. The issue has become one of protecting freedom of the press. If I am going to advocate it, and I would, then you almost have to publish them. If you don't, any support you give rings hollow.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I agree with Colly here. It is a matter of principle now that SATIRE must be protected as free speech. Satire is a vital part of any free society, and NO ONE should be safe from it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would. The issue has become one of protecting freedom of the press. If I am going to advocate it, and I would, then you almost have to publish them. If you don't, any support you give rings hollow.

Why do you have to? Just as "Freedom of religion includes the choice not to have a religion, surely "Freedom of the press" includes being able to decide not to print these images...
If I were the publisher, I would not print them. If i were the publisher, I would use this as a springboard for a campaign- quixotic I'm sure- against the media creating news.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Why do you have to? Just as "Freedom of religion includes the choice not to have a religion, surely "Freedom of the press" includes being able to decide not to print these images...
If I were the publisher, I would not print them. If i were the publisher, I would use this as a springboard for a campaign- quixotic I'm sure- against the media creating news.

As I see it, a group of violent radicals, is attemptiong to enforce their will on the world with threats and intimidation. If you sit idlly by, then you allow those radicals to create an unspoken limit on what you will publish.

Just as moderate muslims have let tose radicals sully their religion's face to the world, you would be letting those radicals muzzle the press via the same tactics.

In my opinion, you either stand up and be counted or you sit on your hands. I would want my paper standing up.

 

[silverwhisper]

i agree that the cartoons should be published. my reasons:

1. as a paper of record, the NYT has a responsibility to report the news and regardless of how people feel about it, these are news. it's impossible IMV to report on these cartoons and not show them. now, as a concession to enflaming outrage, i wouldn't run them on the front page, but yes, the images would have to appear. running the cartoons would of course probably require the attendant point/counterpoint op-eds from safire & o'dowd.

2. the NYT has a proud tradition of sticking to its guns WRT freedom of the press. as the editor/chief, i would have the responsibility to continue to exercise that right. a right unexercised can be eroded--it's why some trademarks have passed into general usage.

3. yes, some people will be offended. but that's (again, IMHO) a responsibility that a paper of record takes on. you cannot be a paper of record if you only report those things that are inoffensive. indeed IMV, you cannot, in fact, be much of anything if inoffensiveness is your sole guiding star.

ed

 

[Guest]

I voted the first yes, esp. as we're talkin The NY Times. If that paper buckles down to suppression we're in big trouble.

Perdita

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

As I see it, a group of violent radicals, is attemptiong to enforce their will on the world with threats and intimidation. If you sit idlly by, then you allow those radicals to create an unspoken limit on what you will publish.

Just as moderate muslims have let tose radicals sully their religion's face to the world, you would be letting those radicals muzzle the press via the same tactics.

In my opinion, you either stand up and be counted or you sit on your hands. I would want my paper standing up.

Indeed. Rights are like muscles: use them or lose them!

 

[drksideofthemoon]

As I see it, a group of violent radicals, is attemptiong to enforce their will on the world with threats and intimidation. If you sit idlly by, then you allow those radicals to create an unspoken limit on what you will publish.

Just as moderate muslims have let tose radicals sully their religion's face to the world, you would be letting those radicals muzzle the press via the same tactics.

In my opinion, you either stand up and be counted or you sit on your hands. I would want my paper standing up.

Okay, by following your logic, if a young woman is brutally raped, mutilated, and killed the newspaper should publish the pictures simply because it is news?

A few years ago following Dale Earnhardt's death in the Daytona 500 some newspaper, or magazine got a hold of the autopsy photos and wanted to publish them because they were news. Thankfully a court sided with Mrs. Earnhardt and the photos were not published.

Freedom of the press: Yes the press has the right to publish freely, and without hindrance from the government. But by the same token the press has a responsibility to be judicous in what they publish. Should they publish pictures, names, and addresses of rape victims? Should they publish names, and addresses of children who have been molested? It is news after all.

Freedom of the press is a right, but with that right comes responsibilities. Publishing the cartoons would on further inflame this whole issue. It smacks of a kindergarten exchange between two five year olds, "But he hit me first."

Yes, I want to stand up and be counted. I wanted to be counted as one with a voice of reason.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I have difficulty with those who advocate "responsibility", since I believe that the envelope MUST be pushed. To do otherwise allows controversial exercises to fall into disuse and unpopular speech to be informally censored by custom. That is no less censorship than what is done by the FCC every day.

 

[silverwhisper]

drkside:

actually, rights generally cannot be revoked in the US short of criminal activity leading to incarceration (voting), and even then, most of 'em remain in force. so strictly speaking, the right to expression carries no responsibilities per se.

as to further enflaming things: how could things possibly be enflamed even more? idiots seized control of an EU commission office in the gaza strip. how does it realistically get worse than that?

ed

 

[Pure]

nice posting alice underneath,

it's not as if we in the west never see some religious authorities (or their congregations at least in part) trying to suppress an insult.

as I posted in the thread on muslim outrage

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=406725&page=6

there is an Australian news item, about the exhibition of "Piss Christ"

http://www.artslaw.com.au/Publications/Articles/97Blasphemy.asp


//The most reverend Dr George Pell, the Archbishop of Melbourne, applied for an injunction on 8 October 1997 against the gallery to prevent the exhibition of Piss Christ on two grounds: that publicly exhibiting the photograph would constitute the criminal offence of blasphemous libel, and would contravene section 17 (1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

Dr Pell claimed that Piss Christ was so offensive, scurrilous and insulting to the Christian religion that it was beyond a legitimate difference of opinion. It was calculated to outrage the feelings of sympathisers with or believers in the Christian religion. //

---
P: Pell's application did not find favor with the Aussie Ct.

Hence a right to insult--even intentionally-- comes along with free press.

Attempts to foment murderous race hatred may be a different matter--as the laws in Canada and elsewhere state.