More newspapers are publishing cartoons of Muhammed

[AngryAmish]

<http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1699812,00.html>

"Two leading German newspapers and one of France 's biggest dailies today reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked furore across the Middle East.
The 12 drawings were first printed in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September, sparking protests by Muslims against Denmark in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries in the region.

The offices of the newspaper were evacuated last night following a bomb threat - a day after the editor in chief apologised to the Muslim world for publishing the cartoons.

Islam forbids the human representation of the prophet. Many Muslims were also angry that some of the cartoons appeared to ridicule Muhammad."

Is this free speech or deliberate hate speech that should be banned?

[Skinner]

1. You miss the point on your free speech v. hate speech comparison.

As much as some people might not like it, hate speech is free speech.

[AngryAmish]

2. In Europe lots of hate speech is banned

For example, one cannot be a Nazi in Germany.

[Skinner]

5. I guess that goes to show that even Europe is wrong sometimes.

I'm not a big fan of government-sponsored censorship.

[Taxloss]

7. Specifically, Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria and Germany.

Far-right British historian David Irving is in prison in Austria for that very reason.

[CJCRANE]

3. I don't understand why they're printing these cartoons.

It's not like most Europeans have a knowledge of Islam good enough to know what the joke is.

Seems a bit pointless unless the desire is to stir up trouble.

[gordianot]

4. Tinfoil hat time Stir then up then trace their phone calls. Europeans?

Just like burning Muslim bodies in Afghanistan.

[CJCRANE]

6. I think there is an international RW conspiracy to stir up trouble

in order to stoke up their idea of a "clash of civilizations" (and in the longer term the fundie idea of the "New Crusades").

You can see it in the new RW govt in Germany which has started to pump up the rhetoric about terrorism. Blair also seems to occasionally push this agenda (but luckily most Brits ignore him).

on edit: maybe not a "conspiracy" as such, but a definite tendency.

[gordianot]

9. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Note lower case /g/ in "gods" to avoid anyone taking offense..


In this case it is hard to tell who is the most "mad" or maybe they desire mutual destruction.

[madeline_con]

14. How do you know what "most Europeans" know?

I mean, honestly, how? :shrug:

[Lasher]

8. Islam forbids the human representation of the prophet

OK, so you believe in Islam, so don't break the rules you have adopted. I support your choice to not publish human representations of Muhammad. I am not a Muslim, and I do not believe that it is wrong to publish pictures of Muhammad. I will not try to kill you if you refuse to publish these representations, and don't try to kill me if I do.

[madeline_con]

15. Here's what I don't get about it...

It's said they don't want images of Muhammad, "to prevent idolatry".


Isn't this just another way of saying, "We don't want any cartoon worship sprouting up." ??? I mean, it's a friggin' cartoon. Who'd suddenly be inspired to start worshipping idols because of a cartoon??

[mrfrapp]

10. Shouldn't be Banned

These images shouldn't be banned for reasons of free speech. That said, I can't understand why they're reprinting these cartoons. They just aren't funny IMO and from that point of view this seems like deliberate baiting.

[PATRICK]

11. Deliberate or incredibly dumb

the line between the two completely gone nowadays. Not to know that any representation of their Prophet is offensive and to sort of forget about Rushdie and Islamicist lack of humor? Apparently dedicated blandness or better taste or a sense of personal survival keeps American media alert in that one regard. Reserving one's bravery for lampooning our pathetic dictator seems a big single plus for American news- by comparison.

[CJCRANE]

12. Let's hypothetically substitute a Jewish prophet

into these cartoons. They would be branded as anti-semitic straightaway. So from that comparison I would say this was definite hate speech.

[madeline_con]

16. No, no and no...

"Branded anti-Semitic" is another way of censoring speech. Certain groups use that to silence opposition to some of their ideas.

Just because someone SAYS it's hate speech does not make it hate speech.

[CJCRANE]

17. It can be.

Legitimate criticism of Israeli politics isn't hate speech. But anything that brands a whole race or religion as violent or inferior is, in my mind, hate speech (which is what this would be if it depicted Jewish prophets in this way).

[madeline_con]

19. Yes, but...

I usually get "branded" about 2 posts into an anti Israeli government rant. Go figure...

[tritsofme]

13. So Islam should be closed to satire or criticism?

This is clearly a free speech issue.

Many of these countries protesting don't seem to mind the horrible depictions of Jews you find on their own editorial pages.

[tabasco]

18. Good news.

The newspapers apparently are not afraid of threats from fundamentalist Muslims.

Radical clerics, whether in the USA or anywhere else, should not expect the rest of the world to live by their rules.

I am happy to see these newspapers uncowed by threats from religious wackos.

[madeline_con]

20. HEAR HEAR! eom