I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[Az]

Why should I compare women calling out for their right to have a say in the country in which they live with some pseudo-intellectuals wanting the right to express themselves without thought for consequences.

Because it's a similar principle?

Of course you have...

Yep.

[Pekka]

As PERSONAL advice? Sure. Being polite is always a good idea.

But beyond that, making rules to restrict the current policies? Forget about that. If I threaten you with violence, will you do my homework for me?

[Elok]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was under the impression that many Muslims regard the depiction of Muhammad as intrinsically blasphemous, even if he's shown with a halo on his head; it has something to do with their strict rules against graven images combined with the immense reverence they have for their Prophet.

Given that one of these cartoons showed him as a lunatic with a bomb-turban...? WRT self-censorship, that point can be cleverly made without actually breaking the taboo. See the third book of Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe, which tells Muhammad's entire life story with the man himself speaking from "off-camera" (a gag frequently used for comic effect).

Of course, it's not rational to riot and torch embassies over ANY cartoon, but if the cartoonist had some brains s/he could have seen this coming, given past trends in the more bass-ackwards portions of the Muslim world. Even if the cartoonist didn't see it, it's quite plainly the case now that the cartoons are inciting mobs, but some morons are still circulating them. As a matter of "principle," of course. That's just irresponsible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
As PERSONAL advice? Sure. Being polite is always a good idea.

But beyond that, making rules to restrict the current policies? Forget about that. If I threaten you with violence, will you do my homework for me?

He's talking about personal advice, I believe.

[Pekka]

Extremist appeasers

First of all, moderate muslims might find this offensive, but it all depends how you react. If you are offended, you can raise your voise, but don't raise weapons.

[Elok]

Mind you, I don't think there should be laws against depicting Muhammad or anything. I do, however, think newspaper editors should stop to think: "Hmm, is this offensive enough that people might be killed over it?"

[Pekka]

Imran, doesn't seem to me he is.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Elok
Mind you, I don't think there should be laws against depicting Muhammad or anything. I do, however, think newspaper editors should stop to think: "Hmm, is this offensive enough that people might be killed over it?"

Agreed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, he did say:

Deciding when to show restraint is not easy. The line needs to be drawn by oneself.

It seems he is talking about your own restraint and not asking the government to do anything.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Pekka
Extremist appeasers

First of all, moderate muslims might find this offensive, but it all depends how you react. If you are offended, you can raise your voise, but don't raise weapons.

That's just the thing though; we can't realistically stop them all from "raising weapons." We're going to have to accept that provoking them too much, at least for the immediate moment, may result in violence. Given that knowledge, there's a tradeoff to be made by editors: "Is this message important enough, and the offensive element essential enough to its point, to risk somebody else's life over?"

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Pekka
Imran, doesn't seem to me he is.

I'm not certain what you mean by personal advice. Could you clarify?

[Pekka]

polar, that you are shelling out personal advices or not. About this appeasing thing and sensitive thing.

[Pekka]

"That's just the thing though; we can't realistically stop them all from "raising weapons.""

Exactly. So appeasing does nothing.

"We're going to have to accept that provoking them too much, at least for the immediate moment, may result in violence."

Yes, and be careful, you might be provoking without knowing it too.

"Given that knowledge, there's a tradeoff to be made by editors: "Is this message important enough, and the offensive element essential enough to its point, to risk somebody else's life over?"""

Is posting the monday recipe for how to cook pork going to kill few people, hmm?

THat's not what press should be thinking. That's pressure to self-censorship. That's almost as bad as state censorship.

Stop pressuring the press, it is vital in our society.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Try read this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4680948.stm

I read the article, but am puzzled as to what conclusion you would like me to draw from it. Could you clarify?

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Pekka
polar, that you are shelling out personal advices or not. About this appeasing thing and sensitive thing.

Appeasing and refraining from deliberately provoking are two different things entirely.