![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on the cartoon controversy
Feb. 8th, 2006 10:58 pmA headline in the New York Times reads West Beginning to See Islamic Protests as Sign of Deep Gulf.
No shit!
I fully support free speech and freedom of the press, but I also believe that just because one has the right to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean one should do it. When I first read about the cartoons I knew it wouldn't be long before people died, and now several have. No doubt more will. And though the publishers of the cartoons aren't directly responsible, they should have known it would happen, and probably did.
Just like the producers of the show Jackass should have known that some idiot viewers would burn themselves or break a few bones.
If the purpose of the cartoons was to provoke outrage, I guess it worked.
Ok, now that I've said that, I have to say this:
What bothers me the most about this whole thing, however, is not that freedom of the press was exercised with tragic results, but that freedom of the press is under attack. Even though it may have been better not to publish the cartoons, I place the blame for the violence solely on the demonstrators. I don't even blame the people who egg them on.
I pretty much agree with this Slate article, and I think stuff like this, which is of course attempted intimidation, should actually encourage people not to ever cave in to the demands of fanatics who think they have any right to tell others what to do, or what not to do.
I feel almost the same way about christian fanatics, the main difference being that they probably won't cut my head off if I piss them off.
The cartoon controversy was the subject on a talk radio program I tuned into on the way home either yesterday or the day before. In trying to explain the violence, a muslim caller said that muslims take their religion seriously, while christians and jews don't. I know some christians and jews who would beg to differ.
No shit!
I fully support free speech and freedom of the press, but I also believe that just because one has the right to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean one should do it. When I first read about the cartoons I knew it wouldn't be long before people died, and now several have. No doubt more will. And though the publishers of the cartoons aren't directly responsible, they should have known it would happen, and probably did.
Just like the producers of the show Jackass should have known that some idiot viewers would burn themselves or break a few bones.
If the purpose of the cartoons was to provoke outrage, I guess it worked.
Ok, now that I've said that, I have to say this:
What bothers me the most about this whole thing, however, is not that freedom of the press was exercised with tragic results, but that freedom of the press is under attack. Even though it may have been better not to publish the cartoons, I place the blame for the violence solely on the demonstrators. I don't even blame the people who egg them on.
I pretty much agree with this Slate article, and I think stuff like this, which is of course attempted intimidation, should actually encourage people not to ever cave in to the demands of fanatics who think they have any right to tell others what to do, or what not to do.
I feel almost the same way about christian fanatics, the main difference being that they probably won't cut my head off if I piss them off.
The cartoon controversy was the subject on a talk radio program I tuned into on the way home either yesterday or the day before. In trying to explain the violence, a muslim caller said that muslims take their religion seriously, while christians and jews don't. I know some christians and jews who would beg to differ.
