Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Murg
Sometimes its hard for people to understand that pictures mohammad could be offensive (because picturing/insulting icons of our religions doesn't carry the same weight). Every culture has its own offensive actions. And most people assume that their cultures offensive acts are the "correct" ones, but thats a pretty arrogant world view.

I do understand why some people could find it offensive, but whether or not the cartoons should have been printed in the first place is not what is important in this discussion. It's about whether we (in this case the artists) should be allowed to say/show what we want. If the Muslims had asked nicely for an apology, instead of threatening the artists, newspapers, etc, then I would have supported them in the "please don't print those pictures again" campaign. But because of their overreaction to this situation I'm against them with this.

And the same is true if some newspaper (or whatever) prints something I would find offensive. Threatening people wouldn't help my cause, that would only make it worse

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
People have to realize that the extremists are looking for stuff like these cartoons to exploit so that they can make the West look bad. People have to be smart, not idiots. They are just helping the extremists.

People have to realize that we don't need to give them any reason to hate us at all. Like most extremist, it doesn't take anything rational or concrete for them to hate us for. They hate us because we are different and we don't think like they do. The idea that if we just kept our mouth shut they wouldn't have a reason to hate us is either very naive or delibrately dense.

I'm not even disappointed in the extremist anyway. I know how they are and nothing they do should surprise me. It's those supposed moderate muslims that I'm dissappointed in. Just like the many Christians who kept silent about slavery for centuries, just like people in the Southern US who never spoke out against racism yet complain about being called racists, and just like any police officer who won't stand up and say what a fellow officer done was wrong because of some stupid code. And yes I know a single person can only do so much but if a person won't stand up and stop the hijacking of their religion or way of life, then they deserve all the critisim that comes their way..

[Murg]

Originally posted by Monk
Hi Murg,



That was your sole complaint? Didn't you say that if the KKK leader died in a politically motivated assasination beacause of a picture he published, we wouldn't want to see a reprint?

Anyway, I still can't grasp why you'd think it preferable that journalists didn't include pictures in an article that's essentially about a picture.

Nope, thats not my only complaint by a wide margin. With most of my ire being drawn by the terrorist side of the equation. But since we are all in agreement with hating that side of the equation it leads to a very uninteresting arguement.

Reprinting the pictures with articles about the event isn't a huge deal to me, as I said Im bothered more by their origional printing. I would probably side with the "describe the pictures without showing them" just to me the most responsible about it. I dont think you have to show the pictures to inform the public anymore than you have to show the child porn pictures of someone who was arrested for child porn.

For me it falls in the range of: if I was the editor I wouldnt show the pictures but I wouldnt boycott the paper for printing them.

Withholding the name of your secret source on the inside or the movements of troops you're travelling with are necessary things for a reporter to have something to report. They contribute to the value of his journalistic work, whereas leaving out essential information 'because it might hurt someone' diminishes said work. Huge difference there.

Which is why I included the example of the minors name being withheld as an example of a case where a journalist would withhold information that may be newsworthy so as to not to damage.

Keep in mind this isnt the case of "it might hurt someone", and deep into the offensive and insulting realm for that culture.

Sure, but does every culture have something they could get equally worked up about as this? I don't think mine does. That was the point with my previous question to Agathon.

Worked up enough to threaten and kill people? Definitly not, those people at nuts. But worked up enough to deeply offend and insult reasonable people. Yes. Racism being one example (consider the american post-civil war anti-black propoganda), but you could also consider pro-nazi propoganda, anti-jewish sentiment, etc.

A lot of it has to do with the way the message is delievered. I dont have a problem with a newspaper that reports on the issue of child molestation in the catholic church, as long as it is reasonably fair and impartial. I do have a problem with a comic posted in a public newspaper that suggests that priests enjoy molesting kids.

Specific to our issue, think about the middle eastern moderate leader that is trying to hold his country together and encourage reasonable behavior with an increasingly smaller and xenophobic world. Every day he fights the fanatisism of his people, trying to drive people back to the middle. These pictures just make that battle harder. As kid suggested, the terrorists love these sorts of issues, recruitment goes up and or world becomes more divided.

Tolerance for differeing cultural opinions (even if that opinion is that mohammad shouldnt be pictured) is a large part of healing that divide.

@Sprayber- you're right that the extremeists are beyond reason. But we dont gain anything by insulting the moderates except to push them into extremeists. Nobody is asking for a code of silence, they are just asking that we be aware of other cultures before we publish.

Originally posted by Adagio
I do understand why some people could find it offensive, but whether or not the cartoons should have been printed in the first place is not what is important in this discussion. It's about whether we (in this case the artists) should be allowed to say/show what we want. If the Muslims had asked nicely for an apology, instead of threatening the artists, newspapers, etc, then I would have supported them in the "please don't print those pictures again" campaign. But because of their overreaction to this situation I'm against them with this.

And the same is true if some newspaper (or whatever) prints something I would find offensive. Threatening people wouldn't help my cause, that would only make it worse

The problem is that you are viewing "the muslims" as a single group. Thats not the way it works. Many muslims asked for a reasonable responce exactly as you decribed. Unfortunaly a group of extremeists reacted differently. But thats only a tiny tiny percentage of the muslim community and it isnt fair to group them as one voice.

In my mind the best way to deal with it is to not let the extremeists influence the decision, respond to the reasonable moderates as they asked. Ignore the extremists (outside of legal/police actions of course).

[Sprayber]

http://jdyez.deviantart.com/art/Caricature-60066190

How can anyone be against this

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Agathon
What about such topics as:

– Jewish cultural practices and social norms being causally responsible for anti-semitism and/or disputes about casualty rates in the holocaust.

– Certain types of female sexual behaviour being precipitating factors in cases of rape.

– Actually attempting to explain "Why they hate us".

– Criticizing Israel (in the US)

Unlike the Mohammed cartoons, these are all issues which we would be better off being in possession of the facts than not. But you can be sure that any American newspaper that featured such a headline would be subject to death threats and/or threats of a boycott. If your argument is that some subjects will become taboo, then it's quite easy to retort that some subjects are already taboo in our own society in this very way. The only problem is that we seem to have a problem realizing that things like bomb-hat-Mohammed have a similar status to the Islamic community.

i don't really want to get bogged down in discussing the specific examples you raised (though i would argue that some of those subjects are discussed fairly widely and freely over here). my argument isn't that which you describe, as we all know that some subjects are taboo. personally i feel that 'taboo' subjects should be discussed openly, but i realise that many people feel differently. my argument is that if people have a problem with certain issues being raised or discussed then there are plenty of legitimate ways for them to express their displeasure. if this leads to certain issues or views not being aired, then while i may not agree with that, i can accept it, because it has been achieved via legitimate means. like all right thinking people, i reject the use of violence, or the threat thereof, to suppress free speech.

The difference between these questions and the Mohammed cartoon with the bomb hat is that the latter is primarily intended to be controversial and offensive. If someone wrote a book arguing that Islam was prone to violence and provided extensive evidence that this was so, it would be different, since the primary intention of the book would be to establish that fact and not to annoy people (even if it did annoy people).

how are they different from, say a piece of modern art, the purpose of which is to explore a controversial subject and promote debate. i don't think that a cartoon needs to have an in-depth analysis of an issue, it's a wholly inappropriate form for that, but it can raise a subject, break a taboo and invite discussion and criticism.

No free speech code I know is based on the idea that people have the right to annoy each other. If there was such a right, then you would expect to see statements like "The right of the people to throw dog **** at each other shall not be infringed" in a constitution. Deliberate trolls aimed at a race or religion in the mass media should not be protected. Such speech only benefits racists or bigots.

you have it backwards i'm afraid. free speech starts from being able to say whatever you like. there are some limits on that of course, to use a very hackneyed example, you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, nor can you incite violence against a person, or group of people. it's easy to see why you are not allowed to do such things, and in fact every time that a restriction is placed on free speech, there has to be a clear justification. i fail to see what the justification can be for restricting speech merely because it offends people.

to put it another way, you do not have a right not to be offended.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sprayber
People have to realize that we don't need to give them any reason to hate us at all. Like most extremist, it doesn't take anything rational or concrete for them to hate us for. They hate us because we are different and we don't think like they do. The idea that if we just kept our mouth shut they wouldn't have a reason to hate us is either very naive or delibrately dense.

I'm not even disappointed in the extremist anyway. I know how they are and nothing they do should surprise me. It's those supposed moderate muslims that I'm dissappointed in. Just like the many Christians who kept silent about slavery for centuries, just like people in the Southern US who never spoke out against racism yet complain about being called racists, and just like any police officer who won't stand up and say what a fellow officer done was wrong because of some stupid code. And yes I know a single person can only do so much but if a person won't stand up and stop the hijacking of their religion or way of life, then they deserve all the critisim that comes their way..

Speaking out against extremists is not that same thing as not speaking out against bigotry.

[Murg]

You do not have the right to not be offended. Which is why no one in this thread has suggested that the artists go to jail for what they have done.

But we should still strive to be tactful, respectful of others cultures, and not close minded bigots. Im not saying being a bigot should be illegal, but I would hope that we expect more than that from ourselves, our children and our newspapers.

edit: drat, cross posted with kid.

[BeBMan]

Satire is often intentionally overdone, and hardly about being tactfull, and it doesn't automatically mean it's done by bigots. Yes, it may be seen as an insult, and yes, it is not above criticism itself, but if we take only the feelings of the targetted person or group as guideline we'd hardly see any satire at all. Any politician or political party could shut down unfavorable cartoons or comments with the excuse that they were "insulting", but we usually think that they have to deal with it.

Now why would it be different when it's about religion?

[Murg]

Originally posted by BeBro
Satire is often intentionally overdone, and hardly about being tactfull, and it doesn't automatically mean it's done by bigots. Yes, it may be seen as an insult, and yes, it is not above criticism itself, but if we take only the feelings of the targetted person or group as guideline we'd hardly see any satire at all. Any politician or political party could shut down unfavorable cartoons or comments with the excuse that they were "insulting", but we usually think that they have to deal with it.

Now why would it be different when it's about religion?

Why is it different when its race?

I think you ask a reasonable question, and I don't quite know the answer. All I can say is that because of the current situation some additional discretion may be a very good thing.

There is of course a wide spectrum of responces to all things. We don't want to tiptoe around any sensative information or feel free to deliver any message regardless of the context. Somewhere int he middle is key and I can't set a rule which says whats good and whats not. Only that each situation should be reviewed by the people involved (in this case the editors of the paper) and that they should attempt to find a reasonable solution.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Murg
I dont think you have to show the pictures to inform the public anymore than you have to show the child porn pictures of someone who was arrested for child porn.

(...)

Which is why I included the example of the minors name being withheld as an example of a case where a journalist would withhold information that may be newsworthy so as to not to damage.

Well, firstly child porn is illegal and prophet cartoons are not. But besides that, you're missing a key point on press ethics here: The point about not doing damage does not apply equally to those directly taking part in a story and those who are merely reading it!

This means that even if child porn had been legal, the poor kid in a pornographic photo could still reasonably claim the favor of editors not exposing him to the world. Likewise with the underage kid who happens to have a famous father and is arrested for something. But unlike somebody who is not participating in the story on a first-hand basis, no matter how commited to the issue he is.

(Edit: And by the way - did you guys know one of those cartoons literally says that newspaper has a bunch of reactionary editors?)

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Murg
But we should still strive to be tactful, respectful of others cultures, and not close minded bigots. Im not saying being a bigot should be illegal, but I would hope that we expect more than that from ourselves, our children and our newspapers.

Where do you set the limit for being tactful and respect other cultures ? We (and other countries) has the situation that some somalian immigrants want to circumcise their female children. While circusation of male children isn't that big case (some even say it's an iprovement), it's a very severe mutilation when it's female. Still, it's a part of their culture. Do you think that we should be tactful and respect such ?

Further, Denmark has a century old tradition of satire where everybody has been a legal target including regents, named politicians, religions, politics, etc. Why should we change that ? Why should we treat muslims otherwise when they became a large minority of our society ?

[Murg]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Where do you set the limit for being tactful and respect other cultures ? We (and other countries) has the situation that some somalian immigrants want to circumcise their female children. While circusation of male children isn't that big case (some even say it's an iprovement), it's a very severe mutilation when it's female. Still, it's a part of their culture. Do you think that we should be tactful and respect such ?

Further, Denmark has a century old tradition of satire where everybody has been a legal target including regents, named politicians, religions, politics, etc. Why should we change that ? Why should we treat muslims otherwise when they became a large minority of our society ?

Are you suggesting that Denmark publishes blantantly racist propoganda? Regardless of the history I would hope that they don't and they show some discretion. There is a difference between showing dissent (as to politicians, programs, issues) and being bigoted (attacking a culture as a whole).

I dont have a problem with an article talking about the issue of female circumcision. Its the job of the press to report on it. I do have a problem with articles that attack somalians as a whole.

Respect the culture, argue the issues. The anti-muslim cartoons we are discussing do neither.

[Monk]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I'll share a little anecdote:

I went to see The Cure the day before yesterday. At the very end of the concert, Robert Smith cries out 'This is for Denmark!' and they wrap it up with some sort a punkish-rockish version of 'Killing an Arab'.

A little background for those who don't know the song: The Cure faced some accusations of racism back in the day, even though anybody who ever read 'The Stranger' by Camus will be able to recognize 'Killing an Arab' as a song about that book rather than a song about going out to kill the Arabs.

But according to one review, he replaced the word 'Arab' for 'Another', and according to Wikipedia it wouldn't be the first time. I can't speak for Robert Smith, but if this was in any way a reference to the Muhammed thing that found its way back to the surface just then, he should have dropped the censorship of his own words.

Anecdote update: According to press reports, we have now ignited the wrath of the fluffy bunny on Palestinian children's TV. Hopefully a subtitled YouTube clip is in the making out there.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Murg




Are you suggesting that Denmark publishes blantantly racist propoganda? Regardless of the history I would hope that they don't and they show some discretion. There is a difference between showing dissent (as to politicians, programs, issues) and being bigoted (attacking a culture as a whole).

You totally misunderstand what I said. Furher I didn't say anything about racist propaganda so where the hell did you get that from ?

Please tell why it isn't allowed to question a culture - as an american you should be accustomed to such.

I dont have a problem with an article talking about the issue of female circumcision. Its the job of the press to report on it. I do have a problem with articles that attack somalians as a whole.

What is the difference between asking critical questions about somali culture and muslim culture ?

If muslim culture are questionable compared to your own culture, aren't you allowed to comment it ? and more specific - aren't you allowed to do it in that environment that is your culture ?

Respect the culture, argue the issues. The anti-muslim cartoons we are discussing do neither.

Wich anti-muslim cartoons are you talking about ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Right Molly, which is why Christians are calling for your head.

And Kid, Islam is a race? WTF KID? One of my employers went out of business because they were sued by Muslims for publishing the cartoons.

What ever happened to a free country?

I think people should be able to insult Islam just as they do Christianity. Why can we have a "Piss Christ" but not a "Piss Muhammed"?

Why is one "racist" while the other is an "enlightened expression?"