Momma Angel wrote:Moishe3rd,
Perhaps they felt it unwise to publish the cartoons in the US because they felt it might just add fuel to the fire that is raging?
Perhaps they felt it unwise because if those cartoons have already caused this much trouble it could be an indication of what may happen and the safety of the citizens is a bit more important than some newspaper publishing something that is obviously been proven to be, at the very least, provocative.
Perhapse they felt it unwise because it is the right thing to do?
dyslexia wrote:I totally disagree with your post MA, whenever freedom of expression is limited, society suffers. An example might be when the KKK planned a march in Chicago some years ago the ACLU defended the KKK on just such grounds. Good taste does not equal "the right thing to do."
I agree with MA here, and I suggest that Dys misses the point.
The point is not to "limit the freedom of expression", which would imply a government or another overarching body
prohibiting the media from expressing something. The point is the decision that the media are themselves free to make, and whether that decisions should always necessarily be to "run it". Newspapers make this decision all the time, whether it is about showing graphic pictures or running offensive columns or whatever, its not like some kind of specific exception is asked for.
We went through this argument earlier in the thread, when Lash (I think) said that "freedom of expression" was the excuse for Jyllands-Posten to run the cartoons. Either Soz or FreeDuck, and I, replied that, no: freedom of expression merely gave the newspaper the
opportunity to run the cartoons; it didn't mean they
had to.
Legality isn't always the end to the question of what one should or shouldn't do. That which is (reasonably) illegal, you shouldnt do, fine. But not everything you
can legally do is something you
should do.
I think that, in a society, once you realise that you're in the same boat and you'll have to live with each other, you have to all take some social responsibility. For one, to not
needlessly provoke or insult others, even if it would be legal to do so.
The situation, both in Denmark and in the Middle East, was already highly tense, and there were already a bunch of highly urgent, serious matters to address and solve. To, at that point in time, throw in a provocation just for the sake of it seems irresponsible. Was the non-depiction of Mohammed really such a salient, urgent social or political issue? Was it really a problematic issue
at all?
The only motivation I see for Jylland-Posten to orginally have published the cartoons was simply to make a point, and that seems awfully self-serving considering the predictable, enormous backlash it would trigger.
I dont know what to think of newspapers reprinting the cartoons now. I think it was good that, once the Danish journalists and cartoonists were threatened, once Denmark was boycotted and demonstrators called for a clampdown on the media in question, it was good that French and other newspapers around Europe reprinted the cartoons by ways of statement. Because by then something really serious
was involved: resisting the call for governments to clamp down on media. But it should definitely not become a habit, and that point has now also already been made, so what use would it further serve to republish them again and again, when you know there's a lot of people who are genuinely offended by it?
It is a matter of good taste, yes, of mere politeness to your fellow-citizen. Even if it's legal to do so, you shouldnt go out of your way to offend people (and yes, LE, of course that goes even more for the London demonstrators). Not unless you have a real good, urgent reason to do so, and I dont think that a childrens book writer's problem in finding an illustrator immediately counts as such.
