Lash wrote:nimh's comment:
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.
misses MY point, which is Jyllands-Posten had the right to do what they did, and the right to be protected from ANY physical attack or violence.
No it doesnt. Thats all already right in there. That much is, after all, already implied in the part of the sentence that says "freedom of expression gave the newspaper the opportunity to run the cartoons".
They are and should be
allowed to run the cartoon (they have the
right to). And
of course (as FreeDuck and I must now have already repeated about three zillion times - but as she noted before, there seems to be some disconnect in it being picked up) ANY physical violence targeted at it is wrong.
Now, however, the
additional point we were making, once we can get over this part that we agree on (the right to publish them, the wrongness of violence against them over it), is that just that they had the
right to publish them doesnt mean that it was a good thing to do, or something that they
should have done.
Lash wrote:In holding the paper even marginally responsible for "their contribution" to the psychotic reaction puts a frightening ripple in the universe of freedom.
I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that. It's really upsetting. You are giving freedom away in increments.
Nonsense.
There's the freedom of people and press to be stupid without fearing retribution from the state or the press owners. Thats what the freedom of press and expression is about. Thats what most all of us here (including FD and me, repeatedly) have stood tall for.
The
freedom to do stupid ****, however, does not itself imply that the stupid **** is not
stupid, and does not at all prescribe that nobody should be allowed to tell the paper in question so. To tell them that, you know, we think what they did was real stupid and we dont think it was the right thing to do.
For example. You have the right to publish a paper making midget jokes, the Lash Midget Joke Journal. If I call upon the state to arrest you for it, or even to stop you from publishing it, then I'm obviously attacking the freedom of press; I'm pleading for a
legal restriction on what you are allowed to write and publish. However, even fully accepting your legal right to publish sick jokes, I very much
do still have the right to tell you that I personally think the midget jokes are stupid, and that IMO its just not right to make 'em. None of
that is "giving freedom away".
In turn, I don't understand what exactly is so complicated about grasping that difference.
Again, these are decisions newspaper editors make every day. Do we publish that graphic image of violence, that shows how bad the Iraq war is going but might hurt people who see it? Do we publish that column that makes fun of blacks? All of it would - and should! - be fully
legal to publish, but that doesnt mean that the editors
should necessarily publish it all - and they don't, they make a judgement call about whether the salience of the point weighs up against the offence that might be caused, every time.
IMO, the Jyllands-Posten this time made the wrong call. <shrugs>
Basically, we're back to: criticism
censorship. You're free to say stupid ****, I'm free to call you on it. Jyllands-Posten is free to publish stupid cartoons, we are free to opine that it wasnt right to publish such stupid cartoons. How that would touch upon the freedom of expression, I have no clue.
, indeed.
