Denmark opens up a can of worms

Remove all ads!

Freedom of speech is one thing, but insulting minorities is another.

On topic - the Danes had refused to publish similar cartoons of Jesus.

 

@Beren: need I point out that the person who made the "most Americans don't read books" comment (me) happens to be American? It was a joke. From my research, the actual percentage of Americans who don't even read a book a year is about 16%, but the trend was, unfortunately, headed in the wrong direction at the time of the study. (The most recent information I could find is about 10 years old). What's ironic about that is that this number is actually lower than the number of Americans who are considered functionally illiterate (meaning that they read at or below the fifth grade level). 25% of Americans read at fifth grade level or lower in 1998.

Anyway, the real point I was making is that there was less outcry about "The Last Temptation of Christ" in book form than there was about it as a film. There was substantial outcry (and a few book burnings) when the Da Vinci Code was written as well. Rome also denounced the book. Nevertheless, there has been more ruckus about the upcoming film (which isn't even being filmed, yet. I don't think they even have a script.) than there was about the book. The outcry will only get louder when (if) the film goes into production.

[ Oops, my bad. I don't remember the Iowa bit being in your profile when I went over things last night. Or maybe I was just that tired before I went to bed. Anyway, carry on. My general caution against generalizing still holds regardless for everyone here. ] - Beren

[It wasn't in my profile last night, so it was as much my fault. I added it to avoid problems like this in the future.] -Drew

[ February 09, 2006, 02:00: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I'll bet you a months' salary that no embassies will be burned.

 

Have I ever once said that I thought burning embassies was OK? That violence was OK?

 

Nope, but all i'm saying is that there may be some ruckus, there will be nothing of the sort of protests we see today. And as for Rome's objections, if it was up to them, the whole continent of Africa would be slowly rotting away with aids, seeing as how they are against using condoms. So any opinion from that side is not to be taken serious either.

 

C'mon guys, let's all go burn down the Argentine embassy!!!

 

That was quite funny actually, lets sent a thank you for the chuckle note instead.

 

Herodotus wrote, "I never mock another man's religion because I don't believe one man knows more about such things than another." Indeed, there are few better ways to raise the temperature of an argument in a hurry. The Danish editors could hardly have forseen the firestorm that's occurred, but the thoughtlessness and insensitivity of the cartoons should have been obvious enough. Teekc's post is very good on this point.

Still, if you believe in freedom of the press--and I do--you have to support the press's right to be tasteless and offensive. And to expect consequences when you grossly insult someone's most deeply held beliefs.

[ February 09, 2006, 07:33: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Now New Zealand is getting in trouble because one of our newspapers published the cartoons in a news story about how some cartoons had been causing all sorts of fuss on the other side of the world. The NZ newspaper is defending its approach by saying that they were just reporting an international news story but we're still all getting in trouble for it anyway.

 

At this point, some editors are probably beginning to see it as a freedom of the press issue. (Also, as HB says, mere reporting: "Ain't nobody here but us typesetters!") And, less avowed, something sensational and scandalous that will sell many copies. And, least avowed of all: in your face.

I don't think the cartoons have appeared in the U.S. as of yet. Maybe the editors and publishers think we have enough Moslem problems.

[ February 09, 2006, 08:06: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Didn't you read what I said before? The movie is already made, is about to be shown soon. There's also a topic about it.

Oh c'mon! What we did? (sorry, the video won't open no matter what I tried)

In Spain, there's a tabloid, they made some jokes about the issue, in the cover says:

We were about to draw Mahoma, but we were scared.

I translated 'scared' but it realy says something like when you do that thing in your pants when you are really scared.
I'm afraid that something will come to us now because of this.

 

Oops. Guess I missed that.

 

Freedom is speech means (or should mean - if it doesn't then someone is seriously raping the idea of 'freedom') freedom of all speech - even speech which you disagree with or find distastful - even speech which offends you or minority (and majority) groups.

Self censorsing in this case is cowardly because it's a news item of international importance - and therefore is worth publishing. Failing to publish it (assuming the paper has a World section) = piss poor journalism.

The original paper was well within their right to publish them - and they should have too, if they consider it something worth publishing. If everyone wimped out of publishing controversial viewpoints for fear of offending people - the state of art, journalism, etc. declines horribly.

 

The accusations that the cartoons are tasteless and insult other's religious beliefs miss the point. It is true that they are so; however, this would be worth noticing only in the case when they would not have provoked much of a reaction. The violent response of the muslim world to their publication show that there is more in this story than tastelessness and offensiveness.

If you want, the reaction of the muslims to these cartoons legitimizes their publication, and make them real journalism. If they'd have not provoked much of a reaction, they would have been only insulting and offensive; since they provoked death threats and embassy burnings, they are more than that.

Don't forget that the stated reason for the publication of these cartoon was to expose the influence that muslim fundamentalism have over free expression in the western world. And I would say they pretty much succeeded.

 

The fact that they attacked a US military airbase, proofs that they're not very bright to begin with, they might have just as well jumped off a cliff.

 

Today writers Saramago and G. Grass published two opinion notes in a spanish newspaper (El país). Both of them are worth reading, but sadly is available for suscribers only.
About freedom of speech, Saramago said that the occidental world it's not as free as some people think. He said that if instead of a mohammed cartoon the artists would've drawn a picture of the director of the newspaper portraying him as an idiot, they would've all been fired.
Grass said that the newspaper is to blame for organizing such a competition (it was a competition, I didn't know that). And that Occident is too arrogant and thinks it can rule the world as he pleases. Not with this words exactly, but that's what I understood. Check them articles out, if you can.

 

I read that too. I attribute it to Afghanis being even worse at world geography than Americans.

Then they denounced the U.S. for violence resulting from the mob attacking the airbase...

It is an excellent example of circular logic, they're now complaining about a situation that didn't exist until they created it (which seemingly they were already compaining about - or something.)

 

Those crazy Danes are at it again

I figure this should be good for at least 3 riots, 1 death, and a whole lot of fires. By the time this gets to the middle east it will have been translated into the Danes are stuffing pork chops into our children against their will.