And Then There Are Those Choosing to Fold

If we were debating the wisdom of printing cartoons offensive to a religious group, and that were the only issue on the table, that would be one thing, but as soon as violence is threatened, and the government of a liberal democracy is pressured to bring a free press to heel, then the nature of the debate changes, fairly dramatically.

Then it is all about those who value a free press standing up.

Or, in the case of CNN, sitting down.

Yes, trying not of offend through responsible journalism is a nice thing.

Right up until people think that threatening violence and kidnappings are a way to stop the press. Then the press must demonstrate that such threats do not work.

We aren't talking about kiddie porn here, and although the press keeps talking over and over and over about the fact that one cartoon showed Mohhamed with a bomb for a turban, most of the cartoons were not demeaning "caricatures" or attempts to offend through sarcastic renditions, they were nothing more than cartoonists' renditions. (Of course, CNN doesn't really have a history of standing up against the demands of Arab governments.) ABC, by the way, noted that frightened Europeans were leaving Gaza, but didn't bother to mention that was due to specific threats -- to kidnap Europeans -- not their own paranoia.

And meanwhile, while we all celebrated the bravery of the French paper that stood in solidarity with the Danes and the rights of a secular society, the paper's editor got sacked.

Again, I can fully understand why Muslims would be offended by these cartoons. There have been several artistic (more like "artistic") images of late targeting Christianity that I was none too fond of. The issue now, however, has moved far beyond the wisdom of printing the cartoons originally. The issue now is how an offended community should respond, and how we should respond when a free press is threatened.

Because make no mistake, when mass violence is threatened against the press, when pressure is placed against governments to get them to pressure the press, when economic pressure is brought to bear, then at the very least there has to be a tremendous fear that self-censorship with result the next time, not just at the publication where this started, but at every publication, at the very least in Europe. The situation is intolerable. Because if these publications do not stand up now there is the risk that coverage of any issue sensitive to the Muslim community may start to be trimmed.

It starts with these cartoons. It extends to coverage of Hamas, of Israel, of Iraq, of Islamist terrorism. If threatened violence -- God forbid real violence -- can bring the press to back down on cartoons, then what happens to news coverage? Cartoonists sit in comfort at home. News reporters are exposed and alone in foreign countries.

Update: It's not about threats of violence at all in the Post, whose reporter continues her chiding tone. Indeed, threats of violence barely get mentioned. Instead it's about the poor judgment of newspapers choosing to provoke a negative response from Muslims, feeding all al Queda's arguments, in a time of war.

You have just got to be kidding me.

Yes, we should be looking to reach out towards Muslims and mindful of not feeding al Queda's arguments in a time of war.

But not to the point that we cave to every demand of Muslims to shape free Western societies to the constraints of Muslim cultural tastes. By that absurd logic, the reporter in question ought begin wearing, at the very least, hijab, even though she isn't Muslim, simply to show respect.

Not provoking is one thing. Giving in is another entirely. And when it comes to the fundamental values that make us who we are, we cannot cave.

In point of fact, our goal should be -- and has been -- to get Muslim countries to begin to adopt those values, such as a free press, which we argue are universal.

She brings a different and useful perspective on the controversy, but shading the responses in the Muslim world to make it appear more persuasive is not doing the Post's readers any favors.

Comments

[DaveK]

So if they cave in on this issue, what comes next? And what do we do when Muslims start to be violently offended by our images, statues, and so-called idolatry of their beloved prophet Issah? Do we outlaw Christianity because its practice offends Muslims, and is therefore a hate crime?

Just asking...

DRK

[-C]

Remember when that newsweekly published the story about the Koran being thrown in a toilet? The White House press secretary commented that news outlets should be cautious about reporting unsubstantiated stories that could inflame people? The WH press corp rose up in an absolute FURY, asking him repeatedly if he was attempting to censor the news media...

So, where is the rage now?

[noone]

quote---Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."---quote

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060203/2006-02-03T172223Z_01_N03197247_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA-DC.html

[davod]

I suppose the Post will apologize for its cartoon with the injured soldier under threat of a miltary attack. No. Oh. That's right, the JCS only wrote a letter complaining about the cartoon.

I agree that the press is both cowardly and two faced. It is easy to defend the right to freedom of speech when you have no expectation that your defence will have dire consequences to you and your company. It is quite another to defend freedom of speech secure in the knowledge that there are those out there who will strive to kill you for doing so.

This issue falls squarely in the freedom of speech zone they so zealously guard for themselves, except when it gets in the way of the propensity to pander to a minority.

I read that the cartoons were published some time ago. The outrage started when an arab went back to the middle east with a booklet full of cartoons only a few of which were the ones published in the newspaper. It seems as if someone had created more cartoons than were available. Surely it would be impossible for some arab muslims to have blasphemed by creating their own cartoons of the prophet. Cartoons far worse than anything published in the newspaper. Shades of the Reichstag fire.

[Christine]

davod,

Yes, the cartoons were originally published after the director of that film was published. And author of a book had asked for drawings to put into his book. But, due to the murder only one person was willing to come forward, and would not allow his name to be used. This caused some to create the cartoons and post them in the paper. The cartoons were recently republished and what I understand, two additional cartoons were added by a couple of muslims. These additional cartoons were much worse than the original one's.

Sorry to leave out details, I am writing from memory on this topic. The overall information is correct though.

[Christine]

Let me restate this sentence:

Yes, the cartoons were originally published after the director of that film was killed.

[edwine]

It should be noted that the French editor who got sacked was working for a paper owned by an Egyptian.

[max]

You said it Prof. I am living in a world with terrorists and the terorized. The ones who are supposed to protect me are helping the insane people. Is ther any country left I can go that is safe and the people and governemnt of that country will protect themselves from all the insanity and violence?
Head for the hills and expect a short life.

[max]

So if they cave in on this issue, what comes next? And what do we do when Muslims start to be violently offended by our images, statues, and so-called idolatry of their beloved prophet Issah? Do we outlaw Christianity because its practice offends Muslims, and is therefore a hate crime?

Just asking...

DRK
-------

They are already doing that: Re: Miss piggy clendars and destroying 200 year old pig statues ain Britain and old British ladies arrested for having top pig collections.
Believe it or not , absolute insanity. It's no wonder Britain got bombed, they have been feeding and encouraging the religion of intolerance.