The whole point of this is that all the violent Islamists in the world cite religious justification for their activity.

It's not even close to 'mocking someone's religion', it's mocking them.

I am 100% Westerner in this dispute and have no sympathy for Islam. Freedom of the press is at least as important to us as what this religious rule is to them, and their protests offend me much as these cartoond offend them.

I don't think this is so much about editorial freedom, censorship and such. Instead, it is (or should be) a matter of respecting the sensitivities of a group of people.

To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

If an American newspaper ran such cartoons, I think most of us wouldn't be lauding their courage for printing those cartoons in the face of fierce criticism. We'd be rightly excoriating them for running such tasteless and offensive cartoons--cartoons that do nothing to advance debate or awareness, but merely reinforce racist stereotypes and are meant to offend.

So why are we even talking about editorial courage, censorship and so on when, as the editor of the Danish publication has explained in several interviews, the cartoons are intended to be offensive?

Kevin I am not surprised the liberal media refuses to print the cartoons. Liberals once again are falling into the trap of the moral equivalence the West and the Islamic Jihadists trying to impose Islamic law on us. Until liberals finally no longer have this mentality we will never be able to defeat the enemy and spread freedom and democracy to the Arab world.

Obviously, major media outlets are under no obligation to print the cartoons to avoid charges of cowardice. But just as obviously, the American chief editors and publishers are acting out of cowardice. The major newspapers would not shrink from in-depth coverage of a major story that offended Christians or conservatives - look at, for example, the ubiquitous Abu Ghraib photos that undoubtedly offended many conservatives. But the response was that the photos were an important part of an important story, and rightly so. These cartoons are an important part of the story as well, and the only reason not to print them is out of fear of being labelled 'anti-Muslim', and the fear of inciting domestic riots (which I think is ludicrously overblown). Is this what liberals want out of the media? 'Restraint' out of abject fear? What will the media do the next time fundamentalist Christians are offended by a story or a piece of art?

Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

That's a good analogy. There would likely be some real frustration from blacks or Jews in response to such a thing.

One question, though. Do you think they would riot, kill, injure, or threaten to behead people?

Check out this link to see the sentiments put forth by demonstrators from the "religion of peace".

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

If a Danish newspaper decided to print a cartoon of a naked American president with his penis hanging out and limp (implying he can't get it up), and it causes a controversy, should all American newspapers decide to run the cartoon?

What if that cartoon is Jesus and his erectoral problems? Should all the newspapers rerun that?

What if the cartoon is something tasteless about the Holocaust? Should every newspaper in America actually run the cartoon while condemning it?

No. Mainstream media should not print marginal, offensive material, no matter how notorious it gets.

The problem is that people have conflated this issue with cartoons about Mohammed. I'm sure there have been cartoons with Mohammed before, and probably will be after, sometime, somewhere, and each will have to be judged on its own merits. But this case if first and foremost cartoon with Mohommed that are offensive and racist.

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

Jimm, that's a fair post, and I'll accept it at face value.

I have a question for you, though. And I hope you answer, because I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you.

If the cartoons depicted Jesus Christ, would you still say "The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run"?

The reason they should be run is that they are news.

"threaten to behead"

Nah, I can't recall any of Ian Paisley's people ever doing that - Rioting, killing, injuring of course, but a good "Orangeman" never beheads.

Thanks for recommending the loonie tune world of michelle - the disgrace of Oberlin.

At times in Western civilization, drawing a cartoon of Jesus or of god or Mary or whatever could have gotten you executed. Making fun of the local brand of Christianity could have gotten you burnt at the stake. All of these things were considered deeply offensive.

Now they're generally tolerated (though some people still consider them deeply offensive). Why? Because enough people ignored the sensitivities and went ahead and did it. Eventually protections of such speech were baked into things like the US Constitution.

The standard as to whether something is acceptable or not _cannot_ be simply that some group or another considers it offensive. A particular group cannot be the arbiter of what is considered acceptable to print about them.

In the west, it is considered acceptable to make fun of religious figures. See many many episodes of South Park. Mohammed cannot be exempt from that just because it makes people who follow Mohammed's teachings upset. Moslems living in the West don't get to exempt themselves from the standards of the West.

Of course, notice how I speak of this as a taste issue, and a professional issue for editors, and not as a legal issue. Just as you have to pass a law in Germany saying denying the Holocaust is illegal, in order for it actually to be illegal and not just offensive, you would have to pass a law saying depicting religious icons in an offensive light is illegal in order for it to be so and not just offensive.

I actually don't think there should be either law.

In any case, we're back to the obscenity issue, and as a costume malfunction is obscene to Americans, as an exposed breast is considered obscene, as a man's penis in the public square is considered obscene (and a threat), so is a cartoon caricature of Mohammed as a violent predator obscene to devout Muslims.

Considering how many Muslims there are in the world, I should also add that only a very, very small percentage of them resorted to violence, as a result of this cartoon episode, while the rest likely registered their protest in more restrained measures, whether public or private.

I think the issue with the media is consistency. Are those concerned about offending Muslims equally concerned about offending Christians, or even Americans in general?

Many newspapers and liberals have been consistent in their support of free speech and publishing such things all across the board, or on the other hand, in their position that nothing highly offensive should be published, no matter who it's about.

Others seem to have a double standard. In the worst cases, it seems that some papers in Europe seem to be more concerned about offending those who threaten violence.

Derelict said: "To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare..."

This analogy fails on at least two levels. First, it's almost a strawman to say that newspapers wouldn't print such a cartoon with such racial stereotypes of blacks. Of course no newspaper would or should just print that gratuitously. The question is, is there any context in which it would be appropriate? If such a cartoon became the centerpiece of a major worldwide news story, then yes, it would be appropriate. It's news. Obviously, print them with large disclaimers and an apology in advance. I'm not sure American newspapers would or wouldn't, but it would be perfectly ethical to do so.

And secondly, race and religion are fundamentally different things! Religion is a philosophy, a set of belifs and axioms. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with criticism of any philosophy or religion. Criticism of someone's race is completely different, as I would hope most people would agree that that's morally wrong. If I criticize Nazis, I'm not criticizing Caucasians. There's just no analogy here.

The window has closed on approaching this simply as a free-speech issue. It still is one, of course, but a cursory review of the right-wing blogs, particularly some of the milblogs, shows that large swathes of the right (including the religious right) are now demanding that editors run these as a way of scoring points in their personal religious war.

Without in any way excusing the appalling Muslim-generated violence here, I really have to question the motivations of people who say that to fail to run the cartoons at this time is to fail to protect free speech. Yeah, there's a religious struggle going on here, and some of our countrymen are loving every second of it.

Considering how many Muslims there are in the world, I should also add that only a very, very small percentage of them resorted to violence, as a result of this cartoon episode, while the rest likely registered their protest in more restrained measures, whether public or private.

Oh OK, if it was a very, very small percentage, I guess it's OK.

It amazes me how far people will go to be apologists for this behavior because it disagrees with their party line.

THere could be a compromise similar to the way they deal with the "Christmas creche in the town square" controversies. In those, they deal with the issue of favoring/dissing specific religions by putting up representations of more than one religion.

In this case, they could just run cartoons denigrating more than one religion. Aside from the Mohammed cartoons, there could be a few of Jesus having sex with his mother ("Virgin Mary no more!") plus various Hindu gods eating beef jerky, as well as images of the Buddha as the Terminator.

Then we could see who the real First Amendment defenders are.

If the cartoons depicted Jesus Christ, would you still say "The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run"?

Well, I think I answered this question, before I saw it, in the last few posts, but the answer is "yes...depending".

This is an obscenity issue. It would depend on the nature of the Jesus cartoon. I assure you that if there was a very offensive Jesus cartoon that had Christian evangelists marching in America and calling for boycotts and people to be fired, almost every other major media outlet, if not all of them, would stay away from publishing that cartoon like the plague. If that cartoon was Jesus and his penis, guarantee it on a few levels.

The issue is obscenity, which obviously is in the eye of the beholder.

If we respect keeping penises out of the public realm in America, in almost every case, out of a respect for sensitivities and sensibilities of a majority (but certainly not a large minority), there is no reason we cannot respect these same strong feelings, sensitivities and sensibilities of Muslims, at least in our most public, mainstream, and accessible outlets.

As far as I'm concerned, these Mohammed cartoons are "adult" material.

KEVIN DRUM: Freedom of speech gives Jyllands-Posten the right to run the cartoons if they want to, but it likewise gives the rest of us the right not to be bullied into doing the same just to prove we're not cowards.

This is a great post by Derelict:

I don't think this is so much about editorial freedom, censorship and such. Instead, it is (or should be) a matter of respecting the sensitivities of a group of people.

To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

If an American newspaper ran such cartoons, I think most of us wouldn't be lauding their courage for printing those cartoons in the face of fierce criticism. We'd be rightly excoriating them for running such tasteless and offensive cartoons--cartoons that do nothing to advance debate or awareness, but merely reinforce racist stereotypes and are meant to offend.

So why are we even talking about editorial courage, censorship and so on when, as the editor of the Danish publication has explained in several interviews, the cartoons are intended to be offensive?

Had I noticed it from the beginning, I wouldn't have bothered going into penises.

I've seen the Danish cartoons and they are really rather juvenile, silly, certainly no more offensive than the "Piss Christ" of Andres Serrano.

And if the media was so concerned about publishing images that inflamed the Muslim world, why were the Abu Ghraeb images so widely reproduced?

The major newspapers would not shrink from in-depth coverage of a major story that offended Christians or conservatives - look at, for example, the ubiquitous Abu Ghraib photos that undoubtedly offended many conservatives.

This is a ridiculous conflation on several levels.

On just one of these levels, real conservatives likely were offended by these photos, in the sense of the actions taken by American leadership that led to them. There is only a small minority of wingbats that would be offended by learning something about their leadership they didn't want to know.

Well, I think I answered this question, before I saw it, in the last few posts, but the answer is "yes...depending".

This is an obscenity issue. It would depend on the nature of the Jesus cartoon. I assure you that if there was a very offensive Jesus cartoon that had Christian evangelists marching in America and calling for boycotts and people to be fired, almost every other major media outlet, if not all of them, would stay away from publishing that cartoon like the plague. If that cartoon was Jesus and his penis, guarantee it on a few levels.

Jimm, thank you for your honest and earnest answer. I personally disagree - I think many papers would have no problem printing an offensive Jesus cartoon - but I have to acknowlege your consistent stance.

One more question, though. You keep mentioning cartoons showing the prophets "penis". I saw a link to the cartoons, but did not see anything like that among them. What are you speaking of with that reference?

Its a f@#%ing shame because the real censorship is already happening within the Corporate run media.

Its total misdirection.

"Hey Bubba, nevermind that we are keeping you blind and quietly robbing you of free speech at home. You go worry about what them rag... er crazy moozlems be doing about that cartoon."

"...and make sure to keep visiting your Corporate indoctrination centers at CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Thats a good little zombie. Next week we promise to have a story about a missing white woman for yah."

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

Posted by: Jimm

The problem I have is with the hypocracy of the American press. The NYT ran a story about the mohamed cartoons but did not show one of them so their readership could see what the fuss was about. Their reason was that it was offensive to muslims(cowardice in other terms). Yet in the same paper that day they ran a picture of Mary covered in shit and surrounded with pornographic images. Which is patently offensive to christians. So I guess lefty publications can bash Chritianity while kissing the ass of muslims in the name of not offending their religion(cowardice and bias by most standards).

Fuel should be thrown on the fire. If you let radical muslims determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

I'll repeat that in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence, while the rest, private or publicly, like registered their protest in more restrained ways.

Some of you are so easily caught up in these dueling propaganda efforts...not a single embassy should have burned down, and not because noone wanted to burn it down, but because that authorities wouldn't allow it to be burned down. Obviously, in a few cases, the rioting was so bad that security cleared out, or they were complicit, but this does not incriminate the other billion Muslims who didn't burn anything down.

..and a war in Iran.

JIMM: The issue is obscenity, which obviously is in the eye of the beholder.

A common theme..

Fuel should be thrown on the fire. If you let Corporate Interests determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

"The only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans."

That's a totally false analogy. Black people and Jews are not killing people and setting off bombs and using their religion to justify these acts.

As far as I'm concerned, these Mohammed cartoons are "adult" material.

Posted by: Jimm

If you had been paying attention you would know that the cartoons printed in the Danish press were not pornographic in any way. The most offensive of the ones they printed showed Mohamed with a turbin in the shape of a bomb. The pornographic ones were added by the Immams to stir people up since nobody got excited when the original Danish cartoons were published in an Egyptian paper.

I'll repeat that in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence, while the rest, private or publicly, like registered their protest in more restrained ways.

Jimm, you need to drop this argument.

NO VIOLENCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

You wouldn't tolerate it if it were being committed by Christians.

Oh OK, if it was a very, very small percentage, I guess it's OK.

No, I'm just refuting the notion that this violent reaction is common or widespread amongst Muslims (or even Islamists). There are a core group of violent idiots in probably every group you can think of, including Christian fundamentalists, who engage in violent activity like burning down abortion clinics, or right wing nazis, who burn down African American churches.

There are lots of Muslims in the streets protesting these cartoons, even of these violence is not common. Their speakers are imploring them not to be violent, and excoriating those who are burning down embassies and what not. Burning down embassies was an extreme minority reaction and enabled by the authorities, either by incompetence or complicity.

Just as we have had riots over simmering issues that exploded on a flashpoint, with lots of stuff getting burned down and looted, so is the case right now over the Danish cartoons. In any large protesting crowds there are going to be hooligans, and if there is an absence of police and authority to control the gatherings then you will have riots and the hooligans will lead things to get out of control.

If you let radical muslims determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

Sure. But the same goes for radical Christians, who now have taken up the reprinting of these cartoons as a crusading cause. While I'm personally moved by their recent conversion to democracy, I find it strange that they've chosen this issue to take up the banner for freedom of the press while simultaneously managing to get in still more whining about how oppressed and rudely portrayed they are.

At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.

Oh, and I don't have a "party" line, so the latest wingnut to try and throw that at me should be aware of that.

sportsfan, I'm a little slow in the thread, so just now see your last post in regards to me. we disagree, and that's cool. there is no Mohammed cartoon with a penis...I brought in the penis as an offensive example.

Oh, and I don't have a "party" line, so the latest wingnut to try and throw that at me should be aware of that.

Fair enough. I retract that statement.

It is frustrating though to so many people jump to the side of the protestors and throw the First Amendment out the window. From my point of view, it looks like apologist thinking and liberal bias. I try hard to see it from a different point of view, but it just doesn't hold up.

How would your eye behold a cartoon depicting counter-protestors at a gay rally shouting "homo" and "fag" as Jesus walks hand-in-hand with an effeminate looking man? Jesus is shown looking at and obviously admiring the man's ass, while a caption has him saying, "Turn the other cheek."

I don't know, as I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, but it sounds like the cartoon is making a good point aside from the Jesus admiring ass part. If I were an editor, I wouldn't run it with the "admiring ass" part (if this is obviously suggesting Jesus likes ass), because I would figure it would distract from the more important point, and perhaps infuriate my Christian readers instead of give them something to contemplate. Thus, I would come to the conclusion as editor that the cartoon was gratuituous and borderline offensive, and therefore determine that it didn't meet the standard of my paper. Still, to do so would take away from the "cleverness" the artist intended with "the other cheek". I'm sure it would run in other less mainstream weekly newspapers or magazines, and perhaps even in a daily newspaper with a large gay readership.

If you had been paying attention you would know that the cartoons printed in the Danish press were not pornographic in any way. The most offensive of the ones they printed showed Mohamed with a turbin in the shape of a bomb.

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

For those saying it's not a fair analogy, toss out the cartoons about blacks and stick with the ones about Jews. Now it's perfect equivalence.

Do you still think it would be an act of "courage" to run cartoons which are solely intended to offend Jews? I don't think so. I think most of us would be ripping the editor a new one for publishing such things.

So tell me again why we're framing this as "censorship" or "lack of editorial courage?"

At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.

Posted by: shortstop

A lot more people than religious extremists expect the press to print those cartoons when they write a story about them. So people can see what the fuss is about.

As far as Christians go they don't burn down the paper when it prints pictures of Christ on a cricifix in a jar of urine. Or as the NYT just printed a picture of Mary covered with shit and surrounded by pornographic images in the same paper they ran the cartoon story and did not print the cartoons lest they offend anyone.

Christians complain and protest which is their right. No one in the press seems to be afraid to offend Christians but run and hide from muslims. Looks like first rate cowardice and hypocracy to me. I love it!

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

Jimm, it think some people got confused by the "penis" references. I know I did.

For the record, the depictions of Mohammed did not depict nudity or sexual themes.

NO VIOLENCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

I never said any violence was acceptable. My point was to refute the notion that this was a common response amongst Muslims, or even Islamists (most of whom do not advocate violence), and thus that the cartoons were somehow prescient.

In any large protest gathering, there is a thin line in many cases, especially when there is pent up anger and range, between orderly gathering and riot. In any such large gathering, and especially in a riot situation, there will be the chance of hooligans burning and destroying things (and I'm not talking about flags, which there is nothing wrong with burning as a form of protest).

There was a failure of the police and authorities in the most notorious cases of arson in regards to these mass public protests. Obviously, there was also a failure in judgement by some of the protesters, who let their anger get the better of them and burned down more than symbolic objects.

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

Posted by: Jimm

You are the one that mentioned penis'. There was nothing obscene in the cartoons printed by the Danish. Have you even seen the cartoons they printed? They are pretty benign by pretty much any standard other than they are pictures of Mohamed. So obscene and adult they are not!

And one more time, I think it is worthwhile to see some pics of Muslim protests. Here's the link:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

Someone above criticized them for being on michele-sombody's website. I have no idea who "michele" is, but it shouldn't matter. There's no commentary, just the pictures.

The first resort of Islamic societies, in every case, is violence. Where is the Muslim Ghandi? Why has there never been anyone even close to be like Ghandi, or Martin Luther King?

Having enough respect for people who aren't Islamic to interact with them with equanimity is way beneath any school of Islamic thought.

If you are speaking to a religious Muslim, you're speaking to someone who thinks he has a religious justification for enslaving you and anything you say is the jabbering of an uppity slave.

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.
--posted by Jimm

Do you really think we are "manipulated by events and propaganda"?

I don't agree. I think this is a very important issue, and will become more important for the world in coming years, as Muslim immigration continues to grow in Western countries. Eventually I think we are going to have to confront these topics.

"threaten to behead"

Nah, I can't recall any of Ian Paisley's people ever doing that - Rioting, killing, injuring of course, but a good "Orangeman" never beheads.

I just don't get how people get worked up about beheading in particular.

In what sense is beheading more reprehensible than blowing someone up, or shooting them? The guillotine was invented as a more humane form of execution. Frankly, I think the victim of a beheading suffers less than the victim of a bombing might, especially if they end up being burned to death.

Murder is murder, and I condemn it, in case you were wondering. But what makes beheading worse?

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.

Posted by: Jimm

If they are not representative. Where are the voices of Islamic leaders and moderates trying to calm the violence? They are eihter feeding the flames, applauding or hiding. Pick one or more because all three are unaceptable.

"in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence"

If there is such an overwhelming majority of Muslims who disapprove of this behaviour they could really easily put a stop to it. If there really were such an overwhelming percentage.

You are the one that mentioned penis'. There was nothing obscene in the cartoons printed by the Danish. Have you even seen the cartoons they printed?

You're an idiot Fat White Guy...I'm sorry. I'm not going to waste my Sunday afternoon belaboring to get you to understand the obvious. I mentioned penises, breasts, and wardrobe malfunctions in order to make a point about "obscenity", and it's being in the eye of the beholder. This is obvious in the course of posts.

I have seen the cartoons, and found them offensive from my own moral standpoint, which is opposed to rude propaganda caricature designed to stir up emnity in mass populations towards an "other". To a devout Muslim, I can very easily sympathize as to why this would be considered not only "offensive", but "obscene".

I am not a Muslim, so can't tell you. I don't worry much about the biblical "graven image" prohibitions, whether of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish divine or prophetical figures. I am not far from considering war and hate propaganda, especially in the form of art and cartoon, to be "obscene", and not fit for promotion in the public square (though I would never support banning anything outright, and "obscene" material should be available for "adults" to seek on their own), but these are my personal views, and I realize my views are "progressive" and not widely shared (or understood), and I also don't advocate that my own personal views be adopted as the societal views. I just avoid promoting obscenity myself, in my own life, and speak out against and criticize it when I see it.

I'm reading a book on Art and Propaganda (Amazon) right now. Maybe some of you would be interested in ordering a copy as well. Another good read is Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination (Amazon).

Murder is murder, and I condemn it, in case you were wondering. But what makes beheading worse?

I can personally guarantee that anyone who makes a statement like that has not seen the Nick Berg execution video.

And I'm not encouraging you to seek it out and watch it. Don't do it. There are some things you see that you can never 'unsee'.

It is frustrating though to so many people jump to the side of the protestors and throw the First Amendment out the window.

I actually do consider it abhorrent that embassies were burned down, and I'm not reflexively siding with protesters (or defending burning down embassies). I'm just explaining the phemomenon of mass protest, and the need for security and law enforcement to prevent angry masses from getting out of control (pushed by hooligans), while also pointing out that the burning down of embassies is in no way representative of Islam, Muslims, or Islamists.

Mohammed image archive,

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Only some schools of Islam consider visual representation a bad thing.

You're an idiot Fat White Guy...I'm sorry. I'm not going to waste my Sunday afternoon belaboring to get you to understand the obvious. I mentioned penises, breasts, and wardrobe malfunctions in order to make a point about "obscenity", and it's being in the eye of the beholder. This is obvious in the course of posts.

Posted by: Jimm

What an asshole! Call me a name and then think you made your point. The cartoons printed by the danish are NOT obscene. They may be offensive to some uneducated radical muslim fundamentalist but they are NOT obscene by any standard. So get a grip on reality.

Fat White Guy, if you read any of the in-depth stories, you will find that nearly every leader and speaker who has addressed mass protest gatherings has condemned violence and burning down embassies (or any other non-symbolic objects). In every story I've read, this has come out if you actually take the time to read it.

These leaders and speakers also agree with the gatherings that their rage is righteous, but have condemned the cases where this rage has been channeled in destructive ways in the course of the gatherings.

My only serious gripe is not the cowardice of the editors who "choose" not to run the cartoons, but their disingenuousness in ascribing it all to editorial judgment: they simply did not think that the cartoons were any good. (Sniff. Just not good enough for our rarefied pages.) Doesn't matter that it's THE major news story in Europe at the moment.

They should admit that they are afraid. Afraid that "someone" will figure out where their editor-in-chief, executive VP, or whatnot live in the suburbs. Afraid of the consequences if that happens.

For us, the readers, it seems like that would be useful information, no?

Oh, I called you an idiot Fat White Guy not to make a point, but in frustration at your inability to understand what I clearly wrote. It was just an observation, not an argument.

I love it!

I think these protests are ginned up by and large, and reflect more anger at disrespect and hostility against Muslims as a whole -- manifested in the form of an unprovoked attack on a Muslim country (Iraq), the humiliations of Abu Ghraib, and the constant beating of war drums when it comes to Iraq, Syria -- than at a bunch of cartoons alone. They were just a little more gasoline on a fire that's burning pretty well on its own.

Something else that gets lost in the chest-thumping about free speech, which many of the conservative posters here wanted to throw out the window when it came to NEWSWEEK Abu Ghraib stories, for example, is the fact that the cartoons are not simtply offensive to Muslims -- they're LITERALLY blasphemous.

There's a strict prohibition about creating an image of Mohammed, period, which makes these cartoons a little different than the thousands which routinely denigrate Muslims or the photos of live Muslims in the most humiliating situations possible. It's actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not -- unless you can show me the passage in the New Testament that says "Thou shalt never create images of the Savior, in drag, smoking a joint, or whatever!"

Are the rioters barbaric and backwards? Yeah. They're fundamentalists, and all fundamentalists are backward. When our fundies didn't have a foothold in the White House we had abortion clinic bombings and Timothy McVeigh.

We should never retreat from freedom of speech in any arena. But It seems to me that part of living in a non-homogenous society is at least a basic respect, if not embrace, of the beliefs of others.

If we respect keeping penises out of the public realm in America

But I want to put my penis into the public realm again and again and again...OOOOHHHH...I love you public realm:)

I find the "free speech" argument inconsistent. I am not aware of a campaign under the name of "free speech" to get photos of caskets returning to Dover published. Outcry, yes, but we still don't see the pictures. In the case of cartoons, there can be a lot of other considerations as why not to publish them when a description suffices. I would be troubled if I couldn't read about it, but I don't need to see the images.

peanut, no mainstream american newspaper would likely have run this cartoon in the first place, with or without controversy. it is in extremely bad taste, and offensive. to devout fundamentalist muslims, surely "obscene". it was designed to offend, and only found publishing through lax editorial standards far different from our own.

Jimm, as usual, misses the point:

"If a Danish newspaper decided to print a cartoon of a naked American president with his penis hanging out and limp (implying he can't get it up), and it causes a controversy, should all American newspapers decide to run the cartoon?"

Well, if the limp-dick pictures cause not just "controversy" (couldn't find a better euphemism, Jimm?) but large scale rioting, the deaths of more than a dozen people, the torching of embassies, international boycott threats, not to mention newspaper editors in hiding and under 24 hour police protection because they are afraid for their lives -- then you can BET that most US papers would print the pics.

You can bet your last dollar on that.

Would these cartoons be more appropriate if they depicted Mohammed hanging his head in grief over the vulgar behaviour executed in his name? To some, perhaps, but in that case they wouldn't be true. Conversion by the sword was Mohammed's singular political insight, and these people are carrying on explicitly in his tradition.

You can bet your last dollar on that.

No way. A penis in our mainstream newspapers is unthinkable. Think about that, and then imagine what is unthinkable to print for devout fundamentalist Muslims.

In my mind, neither prohibition makes sense, but it's a crazy world, and whether I agree with others or not, I should respect them, and respect should not be based upon their closeness of agreement to me.

Mutual respect and reciprocity is the very foundation of classical liberalism, if not humanity. Justice, liberty, freedom, etc. all follow.

Conversion by the sword was Mohammed's singular political insight

If so, it was apparently adopted by the Bush Doctrine, neocons and PNAC.

Of course, this is not Mohammed's singular political insight.

It's surprising how often quotes from the little seen "Tequilla Sunrise" have proved useful. (Or at least pertinent.) There's a scene where Kurt Russell dumps some soft drinks on (the ever-present in Kurt Russell movies) JT Walsh who's playing a snarky DEA agent. "This is my backyard, Hal. I don't plant weeds in it so that I can pull 'em."

Why on earth would someone be deliberately offensive to make a vacuous point?

Another lame analogy:

"Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans."

Please. Those are disgusting racial stereotypes without basis in reality. On the other hand: It is a fact that islam - yes, the words of the prophet - is being used (perhaps by a minority) to justify bombings and suicide missions. The cartoon of muhammed saying "hold it there boys, heavens running out of virgins" is not just funny but has a very good point. It's a good editorial cartoon.

The analogy would be if some playwright put up a show in New York that had Jesus having sexual intercourse with Judas. Oh wait, that DID happen. Did the NYT write about it? Why, they applauded the play for its "provocative" blah blah blah.

They are not afraid of giving offense when doing so is unlikely to cost them. On the other hand, if the offended party is likely to actually DO SOMETHING - to do violence against the offending party - they are not so brave.

They should stop pretending otherwise.

I'm not sure why we keep talking about "freedom of speech" as if it's the same in every Western country either. We do not have the same legal tradition as Denmark, though we have similarities.

Prior Restraint

European and US Constitutionalism

If average Europeans were asked which fundamental right is much more protected in the United States than in Europe, most people would probably give the answer: freedom of speech. Rightly so: hate speech, in particular Nazi propaganda, is not only tolerated but even to a large extent constitutionally protected in the United States. The same is not true in Europe. Most European states have enacted special legislation, in conformity with international human rights requirements, to ban incitement to racial hatred, and even to ban certain right-wing insignia and propaganda.13 The European Court of Human Rights has accepted such legislation in principle, as have the national Constitutional Courts in Europe. The two leading cases of the European Court of Human Rights in this context are characteristic. In Jersild v. Denmark14 the Court declared that a journalist who had conducted an interview with right-wing youths which was then broadcast on television could not be punished for dissemination of prohibited hate speech. A closer look at the judgment shows, however, that the Court has very much restricted its holding to the particular facts of the case. The Court found relevant the obvious informational and non-associative nature of the programme and that it was viewed by ‘informed’ recipients.15 Therefore, the judgment is rather a confirmation of the rule that the media can be restrained when covering racist or extreme right-wing activities than an affirmation of media freedom...

This stark contrast in the free-speech jurisprudence between European and US courts is not necessarily predetermined by the respective instruments themselves. It is true that the American free-speech clause is phrased in absolute terms while the European provisions usually contain limitation clauses. At the same time, however, one must remember that until the First World War the judicial understanding of ‘freedom of speech’ in US law was rather limited.19 It was not until 1968 and the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio20 that the ‘clear and present danger test’ was firmly established.

You know, all that mockery about "the 101st Fighting Keyboarders" applies perfectly here. It's warbloggers, who don't work for (for instance) the New York Times, demanding that outlets like the Times publish the cartoon to prove that they won't be intimidated. How nice of the bloggers to refuse to allow the Times to be cowed by threats of violence! Tell me, when is National Review going to run them? I don't think I see them on their site.

Doctor Jay,

Good point about the beheading - Perhaps Ian Paisley will recommend that to his fanatics in Northern Ireland - have them be more humane.

Sportsfan(Patton-Alice-Norm), perhaps you missed craigie's link to the cartoons when Kevin first posted on this earlier in the week - Why should any of us want to demean ourselves by linking to Michelle Malkin and her garbage?

"There's a strict prohibition about creating an image of Mohammed, period, which makes these cartoons a little different than the thousands which routinely denigrate Muslims or the photos of live Muslims in the most humiliating situations possible. It's actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not -- unless you can show me the passage in the New Testament that says "Thou shalt never create images of the Savior, in drag, smoking a joint, or whatever!""

- Not that it's important, but this, too, is wrong. There is not one single word in the Koran that prohibits pictures of the prophet or anything else for that matter.

In fact, the only justification for the ban on pictures is from the Old Testament (which has been sort-of adopted as a holy text by the muslims).

The prohibition against images stems from later (post prophet) contacts between islam and certain christian sects in the area that were militantly iconoclastic.

But whatever the justification, it is a fact that if making pictures (graven images, or whatever) of things in nature, or people, or just the prophet, is a sin, then it is so even more in jewish and christian holy texts.

Jimm, if "These leaders and speakers also agree with the gatherings that their rage is righteous", there's no going back from that, that's a call to action.

One of the things that has really impressed me in this is that these cartoons are pretty plain by editorial cartoon standards. What would they have done if the cartoons had been any good, like, say, these,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/archive/0,,1284265,00.html

Or, actually, this,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1701293,00.html

"all that mockery about "the 101st Fighting Keyboarders" applies perfectly here"

DonBoy thats a good point about national review - theres hypocrisy here on both sides of the aisle. But these are opinion magazines though. Shouldnt major papers have more of an obligation to inform their readers about the major events of our time?

In fact, the only justification for the ban on pictures is from the Old Testament (which has been sort-of adopted as a holy text by the muslims).

Not "sort of" peanut, the Old Testament is a primary foundation of Islam, since Mohammed is a Prophet in the Old Testament tradition.

Same God.

"Same God." --who's a jerk.

Whatever. The point is that the statement that these pictures are "actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not" is simply false.

There are many different ways of interpreting the holy texts and not all muslims agree with the iconoclastic view. This is not some kind of "unique" outrage. That's simply a myth.

Correct. And there are jewish and christian sects that do not allow images of deities also. Should we stop all printing of all gods, prophets, jesus, etc etc etc, just for them?

I'm starting a new religion with some friends. We worship Romaine Lettuce. All hail to the Holy Lettuce.

And if we hear any more of people engaging in this disgusting and offensive habit of eating "caesar salads", we're going to come around where you live and break your knees.

In Western society we have been inundated with Muslim protests, beheadings, Jihads, bombings, kidnappings, riots, demands for ransom, etc. and have had very little we as a people could do. These cartoons have struck a note of childish revenge that seems to cloud the issues of offensiveness. Peo0ple are looking for a way to thumb their nose at the Muslim terrorists and tell them to go to Hell. Thus, the juvenile uproar......More importantly, Dick Cheney has taken up skeet shooting using Washington Lawyers according to the latest news.

"It is often said in the media that Islam prohibits images of the Prophet," Seesemann said. "This is not correct. Muslims themselves have portrayed the Prophet.

"The problem here is not the image but the way it has been published -- as a terrorist with a turban shaped like a bomb. This is what Muslims direct their outrage against."

Translation: it's not picturing the prophet, it's the criticism they can't take.

I'm partial to this theology, myself,

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

Danish Cartoon Editor on Indefinite Leave
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article

By DAN BILEFSKY
Published: February 11, 2006
COPENHAGEN, Feb. 10 — Flemming Rose, the Danish editor whose decision to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad helped provoke weeks of fury in the Muslim world, said in an interview on Friday that he was leaving his newspaper on indefinite vacation.

Skip to next paragraph

Forum: The Middle East
Mr. Rose, 47, stood by the decision of the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to publish the caricatures, citing freedom of the press. And he refused to apologize for the drawings, which were seen by many Muslims as sacrilegious and have prompted widespread protests, boycotts of Danish goods and the burning of Danish diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

He said in an interview, however, that the stress of recent events had given him sleepless nights.

"I am thankful that the newspaper has given me the chance to recover," said Mr. Rose, who is the newspaper's culture editor. "I am tired. In the middle of a crisis, you do not always recognize the tensions placed on you. I'm glad someone on the paper had the guts to make the decision to give me a break, because sometimes you want to keep on fighting."

The vacation announcement comes after weeks of violent clashes in Europe, Asia and the Middle East over the cartoons. At least 11 people have died.

After a brief lull on Thursday, demonstrations resumed as thousands of Muslims emerged from Friday Prayer and took to the streets in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, The Associated Press reported. The protests were mostly peaceful, but in Nairobi, Kenya, the police shot and wounded one person as officers tried to keep about 200 demonstrators from marching to the residence of Denmark's ambassador, The A.P. reported.

In Tehran about 60 protesters threw stones, firecrackers and firebombs at the French Embassy, shattering nearly every window on its street front, even after a prominent cleric urged people not to attack diplomatic missions.

Egypt had its largest protests yet, with demonstrations in most major cities. In El Mahalla el Kubra, security forces used tear gas and water cannons to break up a march of about 15,000 people after protesters threw rocks and attacked shops and cars.

Off topic, but this one is pretty much on target,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1570441,00.html

The face George Bush presents to the world.

Can't we all at least agree to "Buy Danish"?

Here's some things yall can buy. If you want to counteract the muslim boycott of a friendly little nation that has done nothing wrong:

Food:
Arla Foods is Europe's second-largest dairy company and the leading Danish exporter to Saudi Arabia, where it sells an estimated 328 million dollars worth of products every year
Brands
Rosenborg
Lurpak
Dofino
Denmark's Finest
Mediterra

Danish Crown (meat)
Emborg
Beautiful Denmark (Butter Cookies)
Famous Dane (Butter Cookies)
Danish Bacon
Thor Fish
Danisco Food

Candy:
Toms (chocolate)
LAgermann
Galle & Jessen
Ingeborgs Chocolate

Beverages:
Tuborg Beer
Carlsberg Beer
Aalborg Aquavit (snaps)
Danish Distillers (Swedish Company some products produced in Denmark)

Medicine:
Novo

Audio Equipment/Home Theater
(Theatre for those across the Pond):
Audio Vector
B&O (Bang & Olufsen)
Cilo
Dali
DynAudio
Eltax
Jamo
Tangent
Vifa

Cigarettes:
Prince (Do not start smoking because of this fire!)

Clothing:
H2O
Hummel
Per Reumert
Munthe plus Simonsen
Bruuns Bazaar
Veromoda
Only
IC Companies
In Wear
Matinique
Noa Noa
Sand

Shoes:
Ecco (USA Site)
Jaco
Dansko

Software:
EarMaster (for musicians)

Toys:
Brio (oops Swedish will remove this weekend)
Lego (toys)

Furniture:
Fritz Hansen

Danish Design:
B & G Porcelain
Georg Jensen
HTH- kitchen
Morsoe (Fireplaces)
Lindberg (Glasses)
PH-lamps
Pipes
Raadvad (knives etc.)
Royal Copenhagen
Royal Danish Porcelain
Skagen (Watches)
Stelton
Trip Trap
Vesta (Windmills)

Other:
Danish Yarn
Nexo Fireplaces
Nilfisk Vacuum Cleaners (USA site since I do not speak Danish)
Watco Danish Furniture Oil
Leitech (USA Site) Special "thread gage" used in quality control in the following areas of manufacturing; automotive, aerospace, medical, hydraulics, small and large engine manufacture.
Leitech (Danish Site)
Grund Foss ( Pump solution maker)
Dan Foss ( Valve manufacture )
GN ( Hearing aid, headsets and mobil headsets )
X-Yachts

More here:

http://buydanish.home.comcast.net/

And I'm sure everybody knows this already, but Carlsberg really IS the best beer on the planet.

Sorry, that should have said "best lager" - but you know what I mean...

shortstop
At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.

Hey shortstop, get a mind of your own and stop building your life around reacting to right wingers. By your own reasoning, should they be published or not? They sure as hell are news. They aren't porn to us. They're pretty mild, in fact. South Park long ago had Mohammed on their show doing something embarassing and disgusting.

I'm buying Danish.

Thank you, Red State Mike. Perhaps, we could have a small competition or poll here among the readers. Two questions:

1. What Danish products have you bought in the past two weeks?

2. What Danish products are you planning to buy over the next month or so or until this boycott ends, whichever comes later?

My answers:

1. What Danish products have you bought in the past two weeks?
- Tuborg (couldn't find Carlsberg) and Lurpak butter.

2. What Danish products are you planning to buy over the next month or so or until this boycott ends, whichever comes later?
- More Tuborg. Oh, and Carlsberg, too. (mmmmm, beer). Cookies. And there's a Matinique store in my hood so I'll go there.

Tell me, when is National Review going to run them? I don't think I see them on their site.

Posted by: DonBoy

I don't know about the National Review but the Weekly Standard is running the cartoons in the next issue. The story is also on the cover.

ok, fatty (do you mind if I call you fatty?) - what products did you buy. you might want to stay away from the beer and butter, but there's plenty of good stuff on that list for all shapes and sizes.

I don't know about the National Review but the Weekly Standard is running the cartoons in the next issue. The story is also on the cover.

Fair enough, then.

stop building your life around reacting to right-/b> wing crybabies.

[sound of crickets chirping. In the distance, a dog barks.]

What target are you "on", cld? What do what you linked have to do with anything, except that it says you don't like Boooosh.

Good questions, ing. Answers:

1. Nothing so far, I am embarrassed to say.

2. Definitely Carlsberg and the chocolate if I can find it. Are those cookies available most places? I will look for them.

I have noticed that Danish producers often put the flag on the packaging (red w/white cross) so I guess I will just look for it whenever shopping.

Peanut,

The target in question is the face George Bush presents to the world, which, as shown clearly in the drawing, is his giant ugly asshole, now representing our nation at the UN.

whoopsie. Since I messed up the non-reacting tag, I might as well say:

When you say right-wingers, you're referring to both the Muslims and the Christians in this case, whether you know it or not, Red-State Mike.

Who cares whether every single editor publishes or doesn't publish them? I can't condone violent protest under any circumstances; neither can I respect local yokels who use this as some sort of illustration that Christianity ROX! and Christians are SO PERSECUTED in the U.S.! Grow the hell up, everybody.

The point I was making, which nobody but you and Fats missed, is that it's ridiculous to be held hostage by violent Muslims or hysterical Christians. If I were making an editorial decision on this, I'd probably run half a cartoon just to piss off everyone who's turning this into a personal crusade.

And I bought a hunk of Danish blue the other day, purely out of a love of good cheese. The campaign to buy Danish is a seventh-grade reaction to a grownups' problem. It is, however, typical of the way the freedom fry-loving Americans have been behaving since 9-11. And it's working so well for us.

You wanna see it? Google image and then Mohammed.

I happen to think that Andrew Sullivan's crusade to browbeat American newspapers into printing those now-famous Danish cartoons is severely wrongheaded.

I disagree. I is important to report what the disturbances are about, so it is necessary to publish the original 10 fairly mild cartoons as well as the 3 disgusting cartoons that were drawn by Moslems intentionally to inflame Moslems. Christians and Jews, as well as supporters of Presidents Clinton and Bush have had to endure peacefully much worse stuff.

This isn't about respect for religions, it's about fear of being murdered.

cld has it exactly correct: The whole point of this is that all the violent Islamists in the world cite religious justification for their activity.
****
It's not even close to 'mocking someone's religion', it's mocking them.

Thanks for getting back to my point, contentious. I would actually not want to "push" someone to publishing something they don't like or don't feel comfortable with.

But when they don't publish - solely because they are afraid - then I want to know that. At least don't make up rationalizations about how "editorial judgment" necessitated not printing the items that represent the number one news story in the world for two weeks running.

Islamics, high strung, a little deranged.

There is something to the idea that a single, unknown individual can cause such havoc in the world by mentioning Muhammed's syphlis, caught during an intimate moment with his camel.

I was out breaking in new Ecco hiking boots the weekend this story became big. When I came home and saw what had been going on, my first thought was that if I had been in the wrong place at the wrong time those boots could have gotten me lynched.

Living in California, we are used to lots of decadent liberals who've lost their traditions and faiths being snowed by "exotic" foreign religions and cults. But this sudden piety about Islam is really ominous. Though not surprising. Western Stalinists sided with the Soviets in 1956 and 1968. They hated the "provocateurs" and considered them tools of right-wing Americans.

I'd like to know where those of you who find the cartoons so disrespectful and so offensive stood on the publication of The Satanic Verses, or Susan Sontag's public readings at the 92nd Y.

[Note: Rushdie was a lefty and hated Thatcher, if that helps]

The same people that are telling you how disrespectful the cartoons are considered that book an even worse offense.

California indeed. Three words: John Walker Lindh

About Sullivan's site: This is a good email from Denmark. If you're worried about making "controversial" or "offensive" statements, there really is reason to worry...

On Oct. 4, 2004 (a month before Theo Van Gogh was murdered), a professor at Copenhagen University's Middle East Studies program (the Carsten Niebuhr Institute) was lured into a car by 3 Arabic-speaking men. He was then verbally abused for reading aloud from the Koran in his classroom (with the reason given that he is a Jewish "infidel") and viciously beaten. As they threw him out of the car, his attackers threatened to murder him and his family if he went to the police.

In the aftermath, the university's head of department gave the following telling account:

"We have members of Hizb ut-Tahrir (an extremist group that on its Danish website has advocated the murder of Jews "wherever they are found") that are trying to solicit new members. They never let themselves be