Free speech or racism

[Paine]

Warning: Image may be offensive to muslims

 

Related Article...

 

Discuss so I can get your opinions... I personally don't want to get too involved in this, but I like to see other people's opinions.

 

(slightly edited by Aileron. Sorry, I just don't feel it would be right if a Muslim can here and the first thing he sees is that image. I'm not holding this against you. Its obvious that you only put it up to explain what this topic is about. Still, I'm taking it down to keep the peace.)

[»Ducky]

I'm one of the few who believe people put too much emphasis on racism where it doesn't exist.

 

In my opinion regarding political caricatures; generally anything regarding a person of another race will always have features and ideas used that the race itself will find offensive. I don't personally believe it to be racism 'in essence' however due to the drawing being what it is at its root: An elaborate picture of warped perception.

 

Hard for me to explain.

[MonteZuma]

I don't think the cartoons were racist. Clearly though, they were offensive to muslims.

 

I think this sums it up:

 

....Jihad Momeni -- asked: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere."

 

The muslim response to this is way out of proportion to what was done. Muslims will always be stereotyped as violent and unreasonable people if they allow so many of their followers to react in such an uncivilised way. Freedom of speech means that sometimes some people are gonna be offended. Civilised people don't react with threats of violence or other forms of retribution against innocent people.

 

The problem is, the Islamic world seems to attach a different value to the value of free speech and religious piety than we do in the western world.

[»i88gerbils]

Freedom of speech. However more often than not speech can be tied to actions. If I stepped outside my apartment complex on a bright and sunny day & said "!@#$%^&* You ASSS" I'd probably earn a whole lot of disrespect in various ways. If I said "!@#$%^&* You ASSS" and refused to sell african-americans food/pharmaceuticals/etc ... then I should be fired for discrimination & racism. It's the samething regarding those anti-abortion pharmicists.

 

So there is a careful line to tread. That our opinions on one subject will lead us to rationalize discrimination based off of racist thoughts. Can we be sure we're not crossing it? I don't think so. That's why we need to always be aware of ourselves. Take a step out of your own shoes and step into someone else's. Having friends who can watch out for one another helps too. We don't have to be perfect, but that's not an excuse for ignorance.

 

On an artistic note - That picture reminds me of Daruma.

 

Edit - thanks for the troll. I didn't see that headline back in September. Pictures of the prophet? Funnily enough Larry Gonick (Cartoon History of the Universe) even caved to not offending muslims by not drawing Mohamed. Though he drew most of the rest of religious characters/prophets in some sort of silly way. My respect for him dropped that day.

[MonteZuma]

Thinking about this, how would we all feel if a fatwa was issued calling for Paine's death, because he posted this cartoon here?

 

Burning flags and emb!@#$%^&*ies and threatening people just because they are European is outrageous. The recent events are demonstrating that it is not racist or discriminatory or prejudiced to !@#$%^&*ociate Islam with violence. It is simply fact.

 

Islamic leaders should speak out more vocally against this crap.

[»i88gerbils]

Let us all burn in !@#$%^&* together fellow non-moslems!

 

http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm

[Aileron]

Well, first off I could be wrong but I think the term is "Theocrist", not racist.

 

Secondly, I don't pity the newspaper offices. Religion is not a funny subject, it is a very serious one. Putting religion into cartoons is just a recipe for disaster. I mean, even in the states mocking a religious figure is a good way to get your product boycotted.

 

Also, I don't know if Palistine has a "Free Speech" right in their cons!@#$%^&*ution. (Or if they even have a cons!@#$%^&*ution for that matter.) If they don't, then media organizations must keep in mind that they must abide by the rules of the country they are in. If they are in a country that does not believe in free speech, they must understand that they have to watch what they say. They are in Palestine, not Europe.

 

 

The reaction they got should be expected. I'll admit that Palestine is a violent country, and it seems more and more each day that their entire populace has turned to hatred.

 

Still, the biggest mistake here is that they mocked somebody's faith. The other huge mistake they made was to imply that ALL Muslims are violent terrorists when the religion is overall a peacefull one. "Death to all Europeans" is an overblown response, but not that much of one.

 

 

 

 

Paine, I'm going to have to take down that picture. This isn't to imply that you did anything wrong. Its clear that picture was only up for explanatory purposes. However, while I don't know of any, we may have Muslim posters or guests. If they see that, they will almost certainly be offended.

[»i88gerbils]

They can easily turn images off if they think they will be offended by anything. That's what I do. Mainly because most players' seem to post utter crap images that I don't want to see anyway.

[Paine]

Paine, I'm going to have to take down that picture. This isn't to imply that you did anything wrong. Its clear that picture was only up for explanatory purposes. However, while I don't know of any, we may have Muslim posters or guests. If they see that, they will almost certainly be offended.

 

understood

[pernille]

A bounch of fanatic with no humor going nuts over something that was printed in setember as a part of something that was gonna be a culture debate between the different cultures that lives in denmark.

I find it very sad that Egypt demands press cencur in denmark i think its um country betrail? when some muslim that fleed to live here and gained all right as a danish citizens travel to middle east and spread lies about what was printed and what was not. and i completly forgot what i was gonna say

 

oh and yeah they say its blasphmay to poritrait Mohammed cause he is sacred, but oddly enought he always been poritraited with out anyone going nuts screaming fatwe or jihad

[Aileron]

The rule they are using is actually the Second Commandment. While it is never used when the image is respectful, the real statement they are making is "Westergaard isn't showing the muslim community proper respect." They are correct in that !@#$%^&*essment.

 

 

Warning: Very long post.

 

It is ironic that I am the only one defending Palestine here. God must have a strange sense of humor. I absolutely hate the Palestinian cause, and now that the people have elected Hamas, clearly making the statement that they support such bloodshed, I can say that if Palestine were blown off the map tomorrow I would not shed a tear. As for my defending the the Muslim faith, I am a Christian, and by definition that means that I think that the Muslim beliefs are incorrect.

 

However, I am compelled to take their side at this time on this issue because this is the one case where they are right. This is more than just a simple cartoon. This is a blatent statement of disrespect for an entire religion.

 

Remember what purpose Free Speech serves. It is a tool for the people against tyranny. It is given to the many that do not have power to use against the one that does have power. It is a tool to freely express ideas, and to promote mutual respect between people with different beliefs. While it may not always cause peace, it is a tool that always promotes true harmony.

 

It has been twisted to serve the opposite purpose here. Instead of the many, it is given to the one that has the cushey job at the newspaper company. Instead of mutual respect it is being used to belittle and mock an entire religion. Instead of causing harmony, it is causing discontent and even violence.

 

Remember, there is no lofty cause this cartoon pushes. It is just one man's hatred for Muslims, nothing more. In the words of my own mother "Opinions are like !@#$%^&*holes. Everybody has one." To that end, just because one person has an opinion doesn't mean it should be published in a newspaper. Even more than that, this "cartoon" probably will extend the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a year. Westergaard's idiot opinion is simply not worth the result of it being published.

 

The muslim reaction is justifiable, or at very least should have been expected. While it is the calls for "jihad" and "fatwe" that are making the news, I'm pretty sure that those are only the extreme fringe and that most are calling "boycott" or "put them out of business". This is probably a case of the media attempting to defend their fellow journalist by portraying the mob he offended as violent thugs. That isn't to say that there aren't violent thugs in the bunch.

 

If Westergaard portrayed Islamic terrorists in this manner, he would be correct. However, he attacked ALL of Islam by mocking Mohammed. Islamic terrorism is to the Muslim faith as the KKK is to Christianity. Both are heretical groups that do not understand their own faith. Truly, "infidel" is a word that describes Hamas and Al Queda, for Mohammed spoke of peace and harmony while they only speak of war. It is only by their evil that they dare to use the name of God to do the opposite of God's work. Trust me when I say that for this terrorists will have a spot in !@#$%^&* that's far hotter than the spot that common murderers will be placed.

 

However, this isn't about terrorists, this issue is about the mainstream Muslim faith. If you think the Palestinian reaction is overboard, what would have happened if this was published in the United States or in Europe? There would be groups calling for a boycott of the company and a crowd of protesters outside the building. The only difference between the scenario and what's going on in muslim countries is that in a first world country those offended would be more carefull about breaking the law. Most likely this small difference has more to do with police presense that any savagery on the population's part. If you insult a major religion in a first world country you get protesters outside your door, and if you do so in a second world country you get rioters. It isn't overreaction, its just the simple fact that the Palestinian riot police aren't as good as European riot police.

 

Do you even realise what Mohammed is to Muslims? He is at very least their hero. Muslims use him and his teachings as a measure for themselves. Many have devoted their entire lives to his teachings. They use his example to define who they are. To mock Mohammed is to attack the very soul of the Muslim community. It is in their nature to defend his name. The old native american story "the fox and the scorpion" explains how no being can deny their own nature. You ask, "Why does the Muslim community riot over a simple cartoon?" I say it is because it would go against everything they are to NOT riot over this.

 

Warning: Yep, this goes on even longer. You can stop reading now if you feel like it.

 

Old people often ask "Why does the modern world have no heros?". This is both whimsical and depressing, but there is a bit of truth that it points out. I think it was accurately answered not by anyone wise, but by people who make comic books for children. In the Marvel Comics series "Spiderman", every time Spiderman saves the day, often at the expense of his personal life and goals, the media comes out the next day printing libelous stories in attempts to portray him as a villain. I think this may be what goes on in real life, except that real-life heroes aren't pure archtypes, and thus the media has a much easier time pointing out their flaws and villifying them.

 

Now the world has no heroes. Our leaders are hated. Our medical personelle are not trusted. Our soldiers are not respected, for the causes they fight and die for are portrayed as unjustified. Our entruprenours, people who's efforts in theorey bring employment and opportunity, are portrayed as greedy. Those who do good things are ignored. Those who are famous are ignored unless they do something criminal.

 

Not only do they destroy our heroes, they also wish to subs!@#$%^&*ute themselves as heroes. Under the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword", they have attempted to take over. They portray themselves as the voice "checking and balancing" our leadership...their hatred for Bush should be obvious enough to all. The fact that a journalist isn't qualified to run a country should also be obvious. They portray themselves as the voice truly speaking out for patients, as evidenced in the Terry Shiavo case a few years back. If they cared so much for Shiavo, where were they during the period of ten years before she made the news? The doctors and nursing staff were tending to her then. The media portrayed themselves as soldiers when they embedded journalists beside front line troops. Was that to imply that our soldiers, trained and equipped as they are, needed a piece of living luggage holding a microphone in order to fight? They portray business as greedy when they themselves only care about ratings. They act like there are no rolemodels in sports or entertainment, when this year's Super Bowl winners were the Steelers and no star player on that team has done anything criminal.

 

But, their thirst is not satisfied. Now that they have set themselves up as heroes, they are now attempting to destroy the image of religious figures and portray themselves as gods. This latest case is a blatent example. Mohammed only spoke of peace. That message is clear. They are attempting to destroy his image by his weakness, that some who claim to be his followers don't understand his teachings and that some of these are even violent.

 

And that brings us to the beginning of this post. Why am I, a Christian, compelled to defend Palestine, Islam, and Mohammed? It is because I respect Islam and Mohammed more than I respect the media and Westergaard. I am also not shortsighted enough to think that they will stop here. If they use "Free Speech" to mock Mohammed this week, nothing will stop them from mocking Jesus next week.

 

You can agree with me or not, just understand that the Islamic community has a lot of reason to be upset over this.

[pernille]

Ok what do you think when you see the cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb? That all muslims are crazy suicide bombers? Or that there are some people in this world including muslims who abuses religion and kill in its name ala suicide bombers. If the news papers attention was to offend muslims im pretty sure they would have printed the offensive ones that was rejected where Muhammed was getting it doggystyle by a dog or the one where he was looking like a pedophile. Also dont forget it was printed and written in a danish paper in danish for danish readers. And i dont know what a free press and fredom of speech means to you, but im very happy that i can paint who or what i want when i want and that i can question politicians religions religions heads and so on. I really dont see how thoes cartoons is offending in anyway, and the reaction is kinda bull!@#$%^&*,i diddent see muslims go nuts all over the world or anywhere atall when american soldiers aparently flushed the koran out in the toilet.

[»i88gerbils]

Is it offensive? Yep. Is it okay to boycott/opine about it? Yep. Is it free speech? Yep.

 

Now if the Prophet Mohammed, Joshua Ben Joseph, etc etc ... we're alive Today that might be considered libel. But anyone can consider religion to be a "myth" or legend.

[Dr.Worthless]

I cannot justify fire bombing emb!@#$%^&*ies and killing people over a political cartoon by any stretch of my imagination.

 

Neither should you.

[MonteZuma]

We are all Danes now...

[Aileron]

You are right Worthless. But, I can't find anything worthwhile in that cartoon either. Free speech doesn't magically prevent ideas from offending people. I mean, !@#$%^&*uming he has a right to publish that cartoon, for what goal was it published?

 

This idea is not creative or productive. It doesn't offer any idea that's really worth publishing. Granted the riots and attacks were an overblown response, but was this cartoon worth it given that it caused this response?

 

I do find it ironic that Muslims are responding in violence when that was the offense, kinda proves him right.

 

Still, the problem here is that journalists either don't realise or don't care that their opinions can have consequences, or maybe they even want the consequences so they can sell more. If even a fraction of this outcry could have been predicted, this cartoon should have not made it past the editor's board.

 

Free speech gave him the technical right to publish this cartoon, but it was still really stupid for him to do so.

[»Ducky]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCE...F0-DD1F354F1D9A

 

Haha. You can't buy good comedy like this.

I say do it; Free speech is free speech right?

 

I won't ever understand why this was taken as it was. Whatever happened to Sticks and Stones? People who get upset over words are weak. Nothing more or less.

[LearJett+]

Muslims took such offence to the cartoon because the prophet Muhammed is not supposed to be pictured or depicted in any way. Giving him a bomb in his hand only defamated something that was religiously forbidden to begin with.

[»Ducky]

And that effects someone how.

 

Other than hurting someones emotional feelings because they don't understand people will say what they want, when they want; how is it harming anyone in the slightest bit.

People feeling bad?

There was no reason to print the cartoon as it proved no valid point; but someone did regardless.

Who the !@#$%^&* cares?

 

 

"Hey, that's your opinion; I know who Muhammed is and what he stands for. You disagreeing with me is no reason to get upset."

 

"Sounds like a good plan."

[Cancer+]

sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

[Aileron]

Paine, that musical sig is annoying. Some of us connect to SSforum in libraries you know.

 

Ducky, apparently millions of Muslims care. You're a zone sysop. Unless T3G is remarkably different than every other zone, you know what it's like to be flamed. Sure, most of the time you just dismiss the guy as an idiot and get on with your life. But, theres a limit where enough is enough. I'm pretty sure that if someone flames you all day, there is a point at which you will silence or ban him for stupidity. Usually when these people show up, they quickly get banned then whine about it on the zone forums looking for support, but people support you instead. Why? Because while technically you could have ignored him, he could have been smarter and shutup. It would have been easier for him to keep his idiot opinion to himself than it would have been for you to tolerate him all day.

 

Everyone has a limit to what they are willing to take. Having such a limit is a sign of mortality, not weakness. To think that oneself will never respond with anger over any and all insults is akin to the delusion of those who think they will live forever. To expect somebody to have no limit in terms of tolerating insults is to demand the impossible. People have limits. Some are higher than others, but one should expect the mockery of a religious figure to be over the limit most people have.

 

While having a limit is not a weakness, it IS a weakness to OVERREACT to an insult. Those who are reacting with violence over this cartoon are wrong and we all agree that they are wrong. What we are debating here is the newspaper company's decision to print something that insulted them in the first place.

 

 

Free speech or not, a person still is accountable for what he or she says. If published in the US, this cartoon would have violated two little exceptions in the First Amendment. First off it doesn't cover libel, and since Mohammed wasn't a violent radical nor most muslims violent radicals, the First Amendment would not protect it. Secondly, you aren't allowed to deliberately use speech to cause harm to people. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, which causes a panic which causes a few people to be stampeded. If you did that, you would be legally accountable for reckless endangerment. For these reasons, this cartoon is NOT free speech. It goes over the bounds in which free speech protects, atleast over the bounds defined in the US.

 

Besides, protesters have as much a right to free speech as the newspaper company. While the violence is unjustified, those who are reacting peacefully to this by holding up signs, demonstrating outside the headquarters, and writing angry but non-threatning letters have every right to do so.

 

To that end maybe some good will come out of this. Maybe the violence will go nowhere but the peacefull protests will bring success, and the Muslim community as a whole will learn that peacefull dialog is more effective than violence.

[MonteZuma]

Paine, that musical sig is annoying. Some of us connect to SSforum in libraries you know.

Agreed. Signatures now disabled

 

Ducky, apparently millions of Muslims care. You're a zone sysop. Unless T3G is remarkably different than every other zone, you know what it's like to be flamed. Sure, most of the time you just dismiss the guy as an idiot and get on with your life. But, theres a limit where enough is enough. I'm pretty sure that if someone flames you all day, there is a point at which you will silence or ban him for stupidity. Usually when these people show up, they quickly get banned then whine about it on the zone forums looking for support, but people support you instead. Why? Because while technically you could have ignored him, he could have been smarter and shutup. It would have been easier for him to keep his idiot opinion to himself than it would have been for you to tolerate him all day.

Yeah. But, the analogy is flawed. The cartoons were posted in a different forum (A Danish newspaper !@#$%^&*it). If you aren't a member of the community or even a subscriber to the forum, and if you aren't personally disadvantaged or maligned by the posting then you have no right whatever to demand that the post be deleted or that the author be banned.

 

Everyone has a limit to what they are willing to take. Having such a limit is a sign of mortality, not weakness.

Burning buildings, destroying property and threatening and killing people is not a sign of morality.

 

To think that oneself will never respond with anger over any and all insults is akin to the delusion of those who think they will live forever.

I know that I am not deluded when I say that I would not destroy property or kill people if someone draws a cartoon that I don't approve of.

 

To expect somebody to have no limit in terms of tolerating insults is to demand the impossible. People have limits. Some are higher than others, but one should expect the mockery of a religious figure to be over the limit most people have.

I expect other people not to react with violence over religious mockery.

 

While having a limit is not a weakness, it IS a weakness to OVERREACT to an insult. Those who are reacting with violence over this cartoon are wrong and we all agree that they are wrong. What we are debating here is the newspaper company's decision to print something that insulted them in the first place.

Actually we are debating every aspect of this issue. gerbils summed it up. Its ok to draw satirical cartoons and its ok to be pissed off about them, but it isn't ok to be violent. If the cartoon was discriminatory then it should not have been published, but I don't think anybody is seriously saying that it was discriminatory.

 

For these reasons, this cartoon is NOT free speech. It goes over the bounds in which free speech protects, atleast over the bounds defined in the US.

Rubbish. The cartoon would be legal in any free and democratic country, including the US.

 

Besides, protesters have as much a right to free speech as the newspaper company. While the violence is unjustified, those who are reacting peacefully to this by holding up signs, demonstrating outside the headquarters, and writing angry but non-threatning letters have every right to do so.

I'm sure we all agree about that. No contest.

 

To that end maybe some good will come out of this. Maybe the violence will go nowhere but the peacefull protests will bring success, and the Muslim community as a whole will learn that peacefull dialog is more effective than violence.

Probably not.

[»i88gerbils]

Wait. How did you get music?

[MonteZuma]

Paines sig has an embedded movie or something. Are your sigs turned on? Maybe your browser is filtering them? Are your speakers plugged in?

[»Ducky]

Ducky, apparently millions of Muslims care. You're a zone sysop. Unless T3G is remarkably different than every other zone, you know what it's like to be flamed. Sure, most of the time you just dismiss the guy as an idiot and get on with your life. But, theres a limit where enough is enough. I'm pretty sure that if someone flames you all day, there is a point at which you will silence or ban him for stupidity. Usually when these people show up, they quickly get banned then whine about it on the zone forums looking for support, but people support you instead. Why? Because while technically you could have ignored him, he could have been smarter and shutup. It would have been easier for him to keep his idiot opinion to himself than it would have been for you to tolerate him all day.

Why the !@#$%^&* would he be banned because of insulting? Let alone acting stupid.

He has every right to act whatever way he wants so long as it's with-in the zone specified rules.

To those seeing him as an annoyance; ?ignore is implemented in game as well as in life.

Apparently because the cartoon was published; it was with-in it's own limitations.

 

Everyone has a limit to what they are willing to take. Having such a limit is a sign of mortality, not weakness. To think that oneself will never respond with anger over any and all insults is akin to the delusion of those who think they will live forever.

I won't live forever, but I'm surely not about to start fires or yell back at someone for a cartoon about poor white trash.

The ability to disregard such things is a strength. The inability for others to do so when I am able to is a weakness.

 

Secondly, you aren't allowed to deliberately use speech to cause harm to people. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, which causes a panic which causes a few people to be stampeded. If you did that, you would be legally accountable for reckless endangerment.

Physical harm.

Any and all words are capable of offending anyone. So why are some simply more tolerable than others?

People themselves decide what they interpret and respond to. The cartoon shouldn't have been published; just out of mere courtesy if anything.

But the cartoon doesn't harm anyone strong enough to note it as satire from another person perspective.

 

For these reasons, this cartoon is NOT free speech. It goes over the bounds in which free speech protects, atleast over the bounds defined in the US.

Your reasons are invalid as far as I am concerned.

Caricature (Which this is) is defined as the following; To represent or imitate in an exaggerated, distorted manner.

As far as I am aware; it isn't considered libel at some point. Otherwise, there wouldn't be that weekly picture of the president in every paper saying; doing or commenting on something exagegrated.

 

Besides, protesters have as much a right to free speech as the newspaper company. While the violence is unjustified, those who are reacting peacefully to this by holding up signs, demonstrating outside the headquarters, and writing angry but non-threatning letters have every right to do so.

No one said they didn't. Let people !@#$%^&* and yell, hilarity will ensue. You won't be laughing; mainly because you get offended by words; but I will laugh two times as hard for the both of us.

 

Burning buildings, destroying property and threatening and killing people is not a sign of morality.

MorTality Monte :-p