I am talking about what is happening now, not something that happened in 1930.
Press freedom is not restricted to today. If we can’t learn from the mistakes of the past what chance have we of not repeating them today.
I am not arguing about total press freedom to print pornography. We are not talking about pornography with this cartoons, not even close.
There are some out there who would argue that pornography is quite legitimate in our current world and therefore should be acceptable in any news media. What you are arguing for is press freedom within the limits YOU impose not true press freedom.
Again, there is either a double standard working here (because they have printed similar “offensive” pictures) or they are afraid of fire bombing.
You are right, there is a double standard but, I would maintain the “Double” is not only the right to print but also the right NOT to print and that is what is at stake in this scenario.
The real issue here is that Muslims need to figure out how to live in a world where not everyone believes the same things they do.
Is this not the same argument that say’s Catholics should accept abortion because we live in the same world where not everyone believes in the same things they do?
There was nothing overly offensive about the cartoons,
What is or isn’t offensive to others is purely judgemental. I would have thought that one of the practices of the love good christians should show to others is to be able to assess what is offensive to others and try to avoid it, or does that only apply to our feelings?
nor was there anything overly offensive about the original newspaper article printing them. The Islamisists added cartoons to the mix that they created and they incited an international incident. This is a major news story, the cartoons are part of that story.
The cartoons are not “part” of the story, they ARE the story. Without the initial provocation and publication of cartoons that were neither funny nor even well drawn this whole issue would be another non event. The initial publication wasn’t to express free speech, it was to incite a reaction. In that it would seem to have succeeded magnificantly.
As for depicting Mohammad in picture form, do a Google search and you will see that he has been pictured for centuries.
With his turban looking like a bomb about to explode,( the inference being the Mohammad is a suicide bomber) at a time of extremely high tension between the “West” and “Islam” because of islamic militant suicide bombings? And your surprised?
How about a cartoon of the twin towers crashing down with a depiction of one of the dead on the top waving his arms around shouting “Jeronimo!!” That’s the sort of bad taste that would make any American sick but would probably have very little effect on the rest of the world.
Ever noticed, it’s often very difficult to defend the indefensible?