Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[onodera]

I do not like what you publish in your paper, but I will defend to death your right to publish it.

Hasn't someone said something like that?

[Murg]

Originally posted by C0ckney
the issue though is surely one of free speech. if i draw a cartoon satirizing a particular religious or political group, then i may run the risk of offending people, of drawing criticism, ridicule even, name calling and all the rest of it. this is only right and proper as i am using my right to free speech and my critics are using theirs. however, no writer or illustrator should be put in fear of their lives and threatened with violence, for drawing a cartoon or writing an article.

in addition i feel it is wrong for us in the west to engage in self-censorship, to appease religious zealots in other countries, and increasingly, in our own.

I do agree that the response of threatening lives is totally uncalled for. But a negative potrayal of mohammad/islam isn't offensive just to "religious zealots in other countries" but to reasonable muslims in our own countries. In other words don't think that just because something doesn't offend you that people would have to be fanatics to be offended by it.

Free speech means that the government won't censor what the citizens say. It doesn't have anything to do with bad taste. In other words we can agree that a newspaper is howing bad tatse by printing something, that we as citizens would boycott the paper for it without having anything to do with free speech. I dont think anyone in this thread has argued that the government hould step in and areest the artists/paper.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by onodera

I do not like what you publish in your paper, but I will defend to death your right to publish it.

Hasn't someone said something like that?

Close :

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
the issue though is surely one of free speech. if i draw a cartoon satirizing a particular religious or political group, then i may run the risk of offending people, of drawing criticism, ridicule even, name calling and all the rest of it. this is only right and proper as i am using my right to free speech and my critics are using theirs. however, no writer or illustrator should be put in fear of their life and threatened with violence, for drawing a cartoon or writing an article.

in addition i feel it is wrong for us in the west to engage in self-censorship, to appease religious zealots in other countries, and increasingly, in our own.

I hope you can find a better way to make your point, without offending good people. As far as it being illegal or deserving or retribution, I don't believe I made claim.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Murg
Free speech means that the government won't censor what the citizens say. It doesn't have anything to do with bad taste.

Please define "bad taste" that would be acceptable for everyone. In denmark it's quite common to redicule religion, no matter wich, so for us it wouldn't be "bad taste".

[C0ckney]

murg, i can understand that reasonable people might be offended by those cartoons, but that's too bad. i'm a reasonable person and i often see things which i find offensive, but that is the price you pay for living in a democracy. personally i think it is a price worth paying, some people clearly do not share this view.

if you are offended by an image or an article, then you can always write a letter to editor or your MP or boycott that publication or its parent company, you can even have a (peaceful) protest on the streets if you feel that strongly about it. in fact, i think reasonable people who found the cartoons offensive did exactly those sort of things. the fanatics and zealots were and are the ones calling for people's heads to roll, and pandering to them is not something that a democratic country should be doing.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I hope you can find a better way to make your point, without offending good people.

That is patently impossible. I can think of zero opinions that could be expressed without the possiblitiy of offending someone.

Being offended sometimes is a Very Good Thing. It keeps the mind open. What if no one had ever said "capitalism sucks" because they were afraid of offending the capitalists?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Murg
Free speech means that the government won't censor what the citizens say. It doesn't have anything to do with bad taste. In other words we can agree that a newspaper is howing bad tatse by printing something, that we as citizens would boycott the paper for it without having anything to do with free speech. I dont think anyone in this thread has argued that the government hould step in and areest the artists/paper.

you dan s'ed me.

free speech isn't just about the government. if people can't say controversial things about, or even make light of religion without attracting threats of violence, then that is limiting free speech.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


That is patently impossible. I can think of zero opinions that could be expressed without the possiblitiy of offending someone.

Being offended sometimes is a Very Good Thing. It keeps the mind open. What if no one had ever said "capitalism sucks" because they were afraid of offending the capitalists?

Well if you hate muslims and want to continue a war against them than offending them doesn't matter that much. But if you want to live peacefully with them then offending them is a very bad idea.

Also, saying capitalism sucks is different here isn't it? I'm not being a racists or a bigot if that's what you want to call it. If someone is offended because I say capitalism sucks the problem is probably with them, not with me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney


you dan s'ed me.

free speech isn't just about the government. if people can't say controversial things about, or even make light of religion without attracting threats of violence, then that is limiting free speech.

The purpose of free speech is protection from the government, not to offend minorities and other cultures.

[Murg]

@BlackCat- bad taste is understandign that journalists have an extremly influencial and powerful position in the world. They have the ability to improve or worsen many of the worlds ills, inlcuding the current tension between the muslim and non-muslim world. When they use their ability to make things worse its in bad taste.

@C0ckney- I agree with you that their shouldnt be a legal repercussion for those actions and that people that are offended should be entitled to express that outrage in any legal peaceful mean they feel nessesary. But I also hold the paper responsible for their actions as well.

This is not black and white. Its not totally good or bad, but I do think they showed bad judgement by posting the comics and I would argue against other posters in this that thought the comics should be printed in all papers.

@Dirtymartini- We arent talking about not offending anyone. We are talking about not offending a huge sampling of reasonable people. I hope you would agree that the example I posted earlier are offensive and shouldnt be posted by any resonsible publication.

[Murg]

Originally posted by C0ckney
free speech isn't just about the government. if people can't say controversial things about, or even make light of religion without attracting threats of violence, then that is limiting free speech.

Free speech is only about the government. Threatening people with violence is another illegal activity and it has nothing to do with free speech (it would be just as illegal if you were doing it to keep someone from posting a comic as it would be if you threatened then to close down their business).

So if you threatened to kill someone if they talked to you at the mall you wouldn't be arrested for infringing on their free speech, you would be arerested for threatening someone. Likewise a club doesnt infringe on free speech by telling a presenter that he cant cuss during his show, and a parent doesnt infringe on free speech by telling their child to thank their grandma for giving them a cookie.

This is the first admendmant, it only says the government won't interfere, thats it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Blake]

Free speech is stupid. People should have to pay per word.
Then they'd think before opening their mouth and there would be far fewer arguments.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Murg
@BlackCat- bad taste is understandign that journalists have an extremly influencial and powerful position in the world. They have the ability to improve or worsen many of the worlds ills, inlcuding the current tension between the muslim and non-muslim world. When they use their ability to make things worse its in bad taste.

No offense, but thats pure BS. Journalists aren't supposed to control what happens as you suggest - they are supposed to reveal all the dirty things and if that offends someone, well, so be it.

[Murg]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but thats pure BS. Journalists aren't supposed to control what happens as you suggest - they are supposed to reveal all the dirty things and if that offends someone, well, so be it.

So then you wouldnt think a paper that posted the offensive comics I listed would be showing bad taste?

Remember we arent talking about the reporting aspect of jounalism, we are talking about their ability to influence.

For example we want journalists to post news about Barack Obama, but if one posted that he was a muslim extremist with links to terrorists we would all agree that they were using their influence in an unethical way.

If you dont think journalists influence public opinion, then you may be underestimating their power.