Entire New York Press Editorial staff resigns

[robcon]

The editorial staff of the NY Press, an alternative weekly, has resigned because of the decision not to run the Danish cartoons...

NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out

"The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the
minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group—consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

We have no desire to be free speech martyrs, but it would have been nakedly hypocritical to avoid the same cartoons we'd criticized others for not running, cartoons that however absurdly have inspired arson, kidnapping and murder and forced cartoonists in at least two continents to go into hiding..."

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/ny-press-kills-cartoons-staff-walks-out.html

[mike_c]

1. salute....

:patriot:

[stop the bleeding]

2. WOW - I am not familar with the NY Press but if the whole department

walked out that is crazy.

[mcscajun]

42. It's a small, very local paper you can pick up for free in Manhattan

New York's Premier Alternative Newspaper. Arts, Music, Food, Movies and Opinion.
http://www.nypress.com/

[PBass]

56. NY PRESS is junk, garbage, crap...

They are the right wing version of NY's Village Voice. I rarely bother look at their rag anymore, because it makes me feel sick. It's an alt paper aimed at spoiled yuppies.

Typical editorial articles that I recall, talked about the 'trials and tribulations of living in a 'mixed neighborhood'"

Another article talked about how they had to step over 'the bums' on their front step.

Recently they started adding some lefty type writers... big deal. Too little too late, as far as I'm concerned.

SCREW THE "NY PRESS"

[gtar100]

57. If this paper is as right-wing as you say it is, then....

My guess would be that they didn't walk because of some utopian belief in "freedom of speech" but rather because they were denied the chance to piss off the Muslim communities.

But that's just my cynical nature no longer able to believe that republicans could possibly stand for anything of substance.

But frankly, the reactions of the people throughout the Muslim world is a testament to the shallow nature of mainstream religions that breed followers that would rather violently protest against caricature (for God's sake, a cartoon!!) than to seek higher ground in understanding. If there are people so "offended" by them, it's probably because they have touched a painful nerve of truth. Better they do a little soul-searching than going on search-and-destroy missions. They are revealing their insecurities.

I hope that those Muslims who realize that God cannot be mocked - and does not need the assistance of anyone to save face - will stand up and speak loudly to this crowd that takes such easy offense. Just as Christianity has locked its followers from the true heights of humanity on earth, the Muslims have locked themselves away from all humanity who do not share their beliefs. Who dares to break these chains?


Believe oh believer,
Waiver not in your trust
For I will keep you safe
And assure you of justice
I promise to you forever
Peace, joy, happiness
But if you should cross me
Or doubt and question me
I will burn you in hell.
!!!Look at me!!!
But not too close.

[nodehopper]

72. it's not as right-wing as he says, look at my comment above eom

[henslee]

62. So can we assume you are not fond of the NYP?

[mcscajun]

63. Hey, I didn't pass judgement on its editorial merit, I merely

pointed out to the other poster what it is, where it is, and how small it is.

:shrug: Don't shoot the messenger, eh?

[nodehopper]

71. you are not giving a fair depiction

it often has confused politics and op-eds that range from right/libertarian to very left (anything by Michelangelo Signorelli). In general they are more libertarian than conservative, when they are not being left, and they often investigate and break stories I don't see anywhere else (like JetBlue volunteering their passenger lists to Homeland security).

They are not as left or as good of a newspaper as the Voice is, but the editorial staff that quit have been trying to reform it in the last couple of years.

[NashVegas]

75. They've Got an Odd Way of Expressing Right-Wing Views

It made a certain black comic sense. Boehner’s political career is a textbook example of what Michael Kelly used to call the difference between right and righteous. Boehner knows how to create the appearance of virtue, and his party could use a facelift for this year’s elections.

Still, it’s a mark of how desperate Republicans are that they’re willing to take a chance on him. Boehner, a very successful businessman (in plastics and packaging) who’d dabbled in Ohio politics, has had a political career propelled by whimsy and boredom. When a sex scandal rocked Representative Donald Lukens, Boehner destroyed him in the 1990 Republican primary, and has dabbled in playing a Congressman ever since.

http://www.nypress.com/19/6/news&columns/department.cfm


So here is my public challenge to Ann Coulter: I propose that you and I spend a night together in a four-star hotel. We will wine together, we will dine together, we will harden each other's nipples with erotic pillow talk about Sen. Joe McCarthy, and yes, Ann, we will fuck. Ann, here's the dare: I am betting that no matter how much you try, no matter what prostate-massaging tricks a John Birch Prom Queen like you possesses, you, Ann Coulter, cannot make me come.

I'll bet the ideological house on it. If she can bring me to orgasm, I hereby promise to vote for George W. Bush. Moreover, I promise that I won't see Fahrenheit 9/11, and I promise to promote Bush's candidacy, without irony, in every article I publish between now and November.

http://nypress.com/17/25/news&columns/MarkAmes.cfm

[brooklynite]

85. Actually, not really anymore

Editor/Publisher Russ Smith was but he sold out and moved to Baltimore, and now has only his personal column. The rest of the content is probably liberal or politically neutral.

[rusty charly]

107. thank you, pbass

the thing is disgusting. anything with mugger? blech! they're all about suburbanizing brooklyn and these bourgeous values and right-wing garbage- and then try to act like they're "alternative"- anti-establishment? beats me. as if we don't have the wall street journal, the ny sun, the new york post, and even the daily news lately. so it's alternative to what, exactly? the times?

[Rich Hunt]

92. I thought that was the Village Voice...

This paper is not all that well known outside of New York, unlike the Voice.

[MetaTrope]

3. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, guys...

And don't steal the office pencils just to have something to sell on the street.

[shance]

5. A Reagan idol worshipper are ya?

God forbid that you would ever stand up for what anyone else other than yourself.

[Laelth]

6. Curious.

A lot of hostility in that reply. :shrug:

-Laelth

[stop the bleeding]

11. standing up for your beliefs doesn't constitute that you are a thief n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. What a pissy thing to say. What is your intent in the assumption of theft?

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. Being opportunists = theft.

Not "pissy" thing to say at all. That is quite an insulting accusation actually.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. You have an interesting interpretation of insulting accusation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. really.

I find it insulting if someone accuses me of being "pissy". That's just me.

BTW, have some common courtasy and specify no text with a "n/t" in your subjects. To not do so is ignorant.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. I said it was a pissy thing to say. I did not say you were a pissy person.

And to make a jab about theft and selling pencils on the street IS a pissy thing to say. There was absolutely no call for the non sequitor.

As for "n/t," take a look around. Very few people on DU use it because of the combined outline and embedded view of threads. If you encounter me on a forum that uses solely an outline format you will certainly be treated to an "(nt)" when my comments are restricted to headline only. Here, not so much.

Thanks for the reminder about netiquette, even though your lack of awareness of common usage on this site shows your ignorance.

[Harper_is_Bush]

93. You directed it at another poster, but I find that word insulting

even if I was being told that I SAID something pissy.

I think it's pretty pissy to be calling people pissy...or what people say pissy.

And it's not pissy at all, because these editors are thieves...stealing some spotlight for themselves. I agree with his comment about them stealing office supplies. They're exactly the kind of opportunists that would do something like that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

97. My apologies. I thought you were one in the same the way you

jumped into the thread. I do not follow user names the way I probably should.

I'm sorry if you find the word insulting. I'll try another one. The comment that was made was illogical and unnecessarily disparaging. Drawing a parallel between stealing a spotlight (if that is indeed their intent and that is up for debate) and stealing office supplies is incongruous. The remark was clearly intended to disparage the editors when there was no reason to do so. In other words, it was a cheap shot that had absolutely no relevance to the situation.

I understand you agree with the comment. I do not and found it distasteful. Therefore we are at an impasse. Regards.

[NashVegas]

77. There Is No DU Law re: EOM or n/t

In threads that get over 200 posts or so, an EOM or n/t are more convenient, especially for dial-up users, if you don't want the "view all" function.

But it's not required and for someone who appears to be relatively new to this community, to tell another DU user that they're being discourteous or ignorant for failing to use jargon that grew out of AOL, is out of line.

[Harper_is_Bush]

91. I said it was a courtasy. N/T!

[Pacifist Patriot]

98. It is a courtesy to spell properly too.

;) Just kidding! :toast:

As an aside though, on some forums (nt) isn't expected for headline only posts but (m)is routinely used to indicate the reader should open the post if more text is present. On other forums both notations are expected. On some forums (nft) means no further text and on others it means something incredibly insulting.

Netiquette rules are generalizations and don't hold hard and fast across the internet though some appear more often than others.

[MakeItSo]

23. Here's a cartoon of steaming smelly poop -- print it or else censorship

This is a red herring. The cartoons are being pumped by people who want to incite violence and war, just as Ariel Sharon wanted to incite violence and war when he "visited" the Dome of the Rock back in 2000.

[MetaTrope]

48. Didn't the New York Press print this insightful political cartoon recently

[Igel]

59. Harper's Weekly, last few years of the 1800s or the first few

of the 1900s. Thought HW would be in Gutenberg; couldn't find it.

Aguinaldo was the leader of the Philippine revolt, a quick googling turns up. Famous cartoon, apparently. Doesn't bear much likeness to Aguinaldo, so I guess the labelling's important. Notice that Uncle Sam doesn't come off looking too good in it, either.

Was there a reason given for re-printing it recently: perhaps showing that being bedeviled by an insurgency isn't a new thing for the US?

[MetaTrope]

65. Do you suppose after 100 years under America's thumb, Iraq

will be the beacon of democracy, social progress and economic strength that the Philippines are today?

[Igel]

83. It depends on the Iraqis, mostly.

It doesn't take 60 years to build a reasonably free society, or to firmly move in that direction. It can happen in less.

Ranking liberty over stability as the most important value is risky, though. We were on Marcos' side for a long time, and that was probably a mistake. But sans Marcos, there's a greater instability. Tough call. Makes me glad I'm a linguist, not a policy maker or implementer.

[MakeItSo]

110. It'll probably be illegal to promote or distribute Bushism by then

anti-hate laws and all.

[genieroze]

87. I don't get the meaning, can somebody explain it?

[Rich Hunt]

94. no shit

This is incredibly childish.

If anyone wants to see the damn cartoons, they're all over the place online.

This isn't 'censorship', it's a bunch of nobodys acting quite pompous and self-valorizing.

It would be censorship if the government suppressed them or if they couldn't get
published anywhere. I mean, I've seen them all over the place.

As a civil libertarian I hate when people pompously feign free speech martyrdom when
that is not the case.

[banana republican]

28. banana republican n/t

[stepnw1f]

4. Global Bigotry You Mean?

And people are surprised?

Fuck the staff!

[watrwefitinfor]

7. Since our country is waging a war of aggression

against a country full of Muslims; since it is our aggression that is feeding the rioting much more than a few cartoons ever would have on their own; I do find it odd that so many on DU want the U.S. media to go out of their way to insult Muslims some more.

Free speech? Ever hear of a crowded theater?

(This is not directed at stepnw1f - I just managed to tag onto his post.)

Wat

[stepnw1f]

13. It's Disgusting Isn't It?

My boss started to demonize muslims for being so filled with irrational hatred of christians, and that was enough for me.

I told it like it is... in fact I called him out for generalizing. He didn't know what to say, and even agreed with me.

[iverglas]

74. heavens to betsy!

I told it like it is... in fact I called him out for generalizing.

Using freedom of speech, at some risk to one's self, to say something not meant or likely to cause harm -- and worse yet, to criticize someone else's use of his freedom of speech!

What is the world coming to? Next thing you know, people will be using their freedom of speech to say "please" and "thank you". Don't you know that the reason you have this freedom is to say things that offend other people?? Time to use it or lose it, I think.

Forgive my sarcasm. It's just that the very idea that speech can be a force for good, and that speech that is used for evil purposes ought to be denounced by reasonable decent people, seems to be such a foreign one hereabouts these days.

A gold star, if I may be so presumptuous as to speak for freedom-loving people everywhere, for using your own freedom of speech for what many of us think its "purpose" is: to enable us to make the world a better place. It's the fact that we disagree on how that is done that makes the freedom necessary; the fact that we have that freedom doesn't make everything said in the exercise of it of equal value.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Makes me sick

Why are people with the most heinous civil rights violations against women and little girls allowed to destroy freedom of the press for other countries? They certainly have cartoons that ridicule Hindu gods, and nobody has gone after their arses for it.

And why doesn't everyone just stand up and say, "NO. YOU WILL NOT DESTROY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ELSEWHERE."

[superconnected]

96. gee, cause sometimes it's speech and other times it's hate propaganda

and some people can tell the difference.



Caption: It occurs to me that little good comes from poison or from Jews.

" Posters for the support of the Nazi regime and discrimination of the Jewish population were found everywhere. Political cartoons became popular. Jews were portrayed with huge hooked noses, bulging eyes, large ears, swollen lips, unshaven beards, long hairy arms and hands, and short crooked legs. The dominant characteristics were swindling and sexual perversion. The most notorious host of these anti-Semitic visuals was the newspaper Der Sturmer, written by Julius Streicher. It had started as a political paper, but by the time Hitler had a firm hold on Germany, it specialized in selling the idea that the Jews were the worst enemy of the Germans. "

http://janesville.k12.wi.us/cra/showcase/web/propaganda/Content/..%5CContent%5Cmedia.html

[iverglas]

106. your words are repulsive

Why are people with the most heinous civil rights violations against women and little girls allowed to destroy freedom of the press for other countries?

Why are you determined to make these utterly vile statements about people WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING YOU ACCUSE THEM OF, simply because they share a religion / an ethnicity with those who do?

When you make your disgusting statements about MUSLIMS and ARABS, that is precisely what you are doing.

Do you really not know the words for people who do this?

[Chrisduhfur]

120. Hmmm

How consistent are you with that? When someone says something to the effect of "Christians killed more people than blah blah blah whatever" or maybe "The Jews do blah blah blah". Do you stand up and say the same thing in their defense? Now before you attack me for being racist, hateful, a neo-con, christian, Jewish, bible thumper, or whatever else... I am none of those, however I do like people are honest with their beliefs. So I ask, are you consistent with your beliefs?

[iverglas]

122. hmm; how well do you follow trains of thought?

The statement I was responding to was this:

Why are people with the most heinous civil rights violations against women and little girls allowed to destroy freedom of the press for other countries?

The only way that this thing makes sense (and if we construe "allowed to destroy freedom of the press" as meaning "have a right to expect that what they object to not be published", I suppose) is if we believe that there is identity between the people protesting, or even attempting to suppress, these publications and the people who commit heinous civil rights violations. (You could read the poster's other posts to find the same collective accusations being made in different words. I already had.)

Now you say:

When someone says something to the effect of "Christians killed more people than blah blah blah whatever" or maybe "The Jews do blah blah blah".

and you're not only mixing apples and oranges, in constructing analogy to what the other poster said, but you've got apples and oranges in your own construction.

"Christians" did X and "The Jews" do Y are entirely different matters.

Sometimes a plural noun does not refer to *all* members of the group named. If I say "dogs are barking", I really do not mean that all of the dogs in the world are barking right how. The term is "indefinite"; in English, we don't have an indefinite plural pronoun, but in a language like French, your two examples would look like "des chrétiens" and "les juifs": essentially, "some Christians" and "the Jews". "Some" and "the" are not the same. "The" is definite, and it refers to all of the named things.

Sometimes, a noun without a definite article is still definite: "dogs bark" is indeed a reference to all dogs. Context will usually tell us which is which. It can get tricky in constructions like "Christians kill people": definite or indefinite? One would really have to look to the context and other clues to find the intended meaning, and yes, the meaning could be objectionable as a false negative statement about a collective of individuals, all of them.

"Christians have killed more people than" whatever does not mean that all Christians have killed people. It is simply a statement of fact: Christians have killed people, men have raped women, children have stolen cookies. (There are instances in which the identification of someone who has done something by his/her religion or race or other characteristic is not relevant, and can thus be assumed to have been offered for some probably ulterior motive, but that is neither here nor there, here.) No one would interpret any of those statements as referring to *all* of the members of the classes in question; they are simply statements of fact.

I certainly wouldn't stand up and dispute a fact.

"The Jews do" whatever is a different matter. "The Jews" is a reference to all Jews (unless it is plainly a reference to some particular Jews under discussion, such as the particular Jews in my class, just as "the dogs are barking" could be a plain reference to the particular dogs in my back yard).

And I would indeed stand up and dispute a statement about all members of any group, unless it were plainly a fact. "The Jews believe in one god" would be a fact and I would not stand up and dispute it.

The statement I characterized as repulsive was not a factual statement. It was a disgusting attribution of vile acts to a group of people among whom there are absolutely certainly people who have never participated in such acts.

So I ask, are you consistent with your beliefs?

My question is: why would it occur to you to ask? Have you read anything written by me that would suggest to you that I am not consistent? If not, what need might there be to ask, and what purpose might be served by asking? And what need would I feel to answer?

None, is my answer to that last one. And the others.

Along the same line, I'd wonder why you would say something like:

Now before you attack me for being racist, hateful, a neo-con, christian, Jewish, bible thumper, or whatever else...

I have no idea why I would do that, or why you would think it necessary to pre-empt my doing it.

It appears that you don't disagree with what I said in the first place, so I don't even know why you replied to my post. The consistency of my own beliefs has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of my comment, about which you have actually said nothing.

[MrPrax]

9. Meaningless Gesture...

There was a forum eariler here...

The cartoons that are causing the disturbance are NOT the cartoons that were published in the first place...

Rather than these guys resigning, they should have started to seriously investigate the Der Speigel allegations..

Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,39...

....

Quist says the dossier they shared in Egypt may have been far more damaging than the Jyllands-Posten episode -- and it may have further exacerbated misgivings between Denmark and the Arab world. In addition to the now notorious caricatures published by the newspaper which have now spread like wildfire in the blogosphere, it also included patently offensive anti-Muslim images that had been sent to the group by other Muslims living in Denmark. The origins or authenticity of the images haven't been confirmed, but their content was nevertheless damaging. Quist says the dossier included three obscene caricatures -- one showed Muhammad as a pedophile, another as a pig and the last depicted a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

(snip)
The forum here has other very interesting bits that somehow the Media managed to avoid entirely here...

DU Forum

It's a set up...Denmark is on the Security Council and the Iranian vote courtesy of Bolton is coming up this week and that might be the real reason why the cartoons, published last fall without a whisper from the Muslim community, is NOW all of a sudden happening.

Also vital, the pictures circulating ARE NOT the ones published...check the forum for the origins of one particular 'cartoon'...

[President Kerry]

16. very interesting theory..

But I'm not convinced that it's anything but a theory. I don't know if anyone could have foreseen the wildfire reaction across the world over some cartoons in an obscure (at least on a global scale) newspaper. Why would Danish Muslims want to open that can of worms. It puts them in danger..

[Igel]

60. I've seen the pig one, and why anybody

would assume a pudgy Frenchman with a pig-face and pig ears (and a beard, but that's actually his own) is Muhammed is beyond me. You'd only believe the claim that it was a nasty picture of Muhammed if you were predisposed to believe the worst.

It wasn't even a cartoon, just a minimally altered photo (a RW site suggested photoshopped, I suspect just printed off the web on a cheap printer, with several generations of copies xeroxed from that image).

[HuffleClaw]

10. the freedom to discriminate

just IMAGINE the outcry had those cartoons been anti-jewish or anti-black. people would NOT be talking about 'freedom of speech' had that been the case. no way.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Are you kidding me? There are anti-Jewish and anti-black cartoons here

And there certainly are in Arab nations. I saw a page of Arab Islam caricatures ridiculing Jews and Hindu gods and goddesses. Oh please. What the hell is going on? Are Arab Islamics now going to be forgiven for torturing women, killing them, threatening to kill anyone with freedom of the press? What's going on here? Some kind of madness?

[stepnw1f]

15. wrong is wrong

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech do not consist of censorship

Plus these people that don't want their religion ridiculed, feel free to ridicule the religions of others. Excuse me but they can kiss my @#$!#$. If at least they treated women and female children with respect and didn't torture them and kill them, I might listen to their childish whining about wanting to be the only religion not ridiculed in the freedom of the press. Because they continue to have human rights violations by the millions, I will just say they're infantile, dangerous, and make me sick.

[stepnw1f]

22. Good Of You!!! Maybe You Should Enlist and Kill a Few

You know... get it really off your chest. Maybe you could wipe out the whole Middleast... hell, Bush will make sure it's legal, so therefore immoral blood thirsty Chicken hawks like yourself can cheer lead others death.

Stay away from fiction or snap out of it...!

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Don't mix up your issues

nobody is saying that the treatment of women in SOME Muslim nations is contrary to human rights. Gays and others also.

That is not an excuse to gratuitously offend all Muslims though, is it?

Do not mix the two. In doing so you're basically saying "screw them! they treat women badly, so why shouldn't we insult thier religion!"

Not a very progressive or informed view.

[MakeItSo]

54. Please stop with the self-righteous proselytizing

You say they "torture and kill" their women. You know what? With your tax dollars, YOU also torture and kill their women. There are more than 100,000 dead in Iraq, most of them civilians. 'Member the "smart bombs"? Turns out they are to bombs what 1970s Detroit was to cars. They ain't smart.

What these rioters do is wrong. But in terms of net violence on humanity, its an asteric compared to what our country is doing. I don't condone the rioting at all, but at least they're getting their hands dirty.

Purchasing sterile, shrink-wrapped supermarket ground beef via debit card may not seem like hunting, but its really not much different than spearing wildebeests on the plains of Africa. Animals die.

Likewise, just 'cause you aren't the one firing rounds at Iraqis doesn't mean you aren't responsible. Or that the violence doesn't exist.

[iverglas]

80. "they" rears its ugly head once again

Plus these people that don't want their religion ridiculed, feel free to ridicule the religions of others. Excuse me but they can kiss my @#$!#$. If at least they treated women and female children with respect and didn't torture them and kill them, I might listen to their childish whining about wanting to be the only religion not ridiculed in the freedom of the press. Because they continue to have human rights violations by the millions, I will just say they're infantile, dangerous, and make me sick.

I'm sure it will come as a surprise to you, but THEY include women and female children, and every other shape and form of human being.

But hey, don't let me interrupt your exercise in stereotyping, and drawing conclusions about millions of people based on the negative characteristics baselessly ascribed to the group they belong to.

It's not like it's anything new around here. And it's not like it isn't exactly what a lot of people reading the materials in question already thought (to use the term very loosely), and were undoubtedly gratified to find validated in the mainstream press.

[Catrina]

116. You apparently don't know any real Muslims do you? I can't believe anyone

could condemn an entire people like that. I have several Muslims friends, and I can only say I wish some Americans were as educated and decent as they are, both men and women. I have had little ME eastern children in my class at school and they are no different than children anywhere else. Their parents care deeply about them as any parents of children anywhere would.

I can't believe I had to say that ~ I wonder how many German people tried to convince their fellow already indoctrinated friends and acquaintances that Jewish families were just like everyone else?

This is truly getting scary ~

'First they came for the Muslims' is beginning to really apply here ~ and I used to wonder how the Germans managed to demonize a whole segment of society! I think it took them even longer than it's taking here.

Just FYI, their countries have been invaded, their citizens tortured, men, women and you DO know about the children, don't you? We have killed and maimed untold numbers of their civilians.

Have you seen the pictures? They have. The whole world has, yet the world has stood silently by. But now, with talk of doing this to another Muslim nation, maybe that might have something to do with the anger??

Why don't you take a look at this and then ask yourself, are these demonstrations really about a few cartoons?

<img
src="">


http://www.thefourreasons.org/victimsofwar.htm

[blossomstar]

30. I think they've all turned into "pod people"!

[MakeItSo]

35. Nazism is illegal in Germany, illegal to "incite racism" in France

We ARE talking about Europe, aren't we? That's where the cartoons appeared. That's where anti-Nazi laws are commonplace. I guess they're still catching up on the Muslim protection laws.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. It's not illegal to have cartoons mocking religious entities

I lived in Europe for 6 years. I saw plenty of cartoons ridiculing Christian beliefs. I see them here as well.

[iverglas]

76. there are?

There are anti-Jewish and anti-black cartoons here

In the Washington Post? The Chicago Tribune? Some other mass-circulation daily in a major urban centre, comparable to the Danish and other European newspapers in question?

And there certainly are in Arab nations.

So? Are European Muslims who object to the publication of material in European media responsible for that?

May I not criticize treatment of Muslims in Canada (where I am) if I don't denounce the treatment of Zoroastrians in Iran at the same time?

May I not object to material in the mainstream Canadian press that degrades women if I don't denounce the treatment of male children by abusive mothers?

What's the connection you're trying to make?

Are Arab Islamics now going to be forgiven for torturing women, killing them, threatening to kill anyone with freedom of the press?

If I may quote Miss Manners yet again: why do you ask? Has someone suggested such a thing? And ... did you have some particular "Arab Islamics" in mind? And some reason for bringing them into this particular discussion?

What's going on here? Some kind of madness?

Well, you tell me, I guess. You're the one who seems to know something I don't.

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. It's when you can support someone's right to say or print something

you find utterly repugnant that you know you have converted the First Amendment into a personal conviction.

There should be an outcry against discrimination. But how can there be an outcry if the discrimination is suppressed?

[northzax]

36. which is fine, no doubt

I support the right of anyone to publish this crap, and the equvalent right of people to NOT publish this crap. The owners of the publication didn't want to spend their money to publish it, and the workers didn't have to spend their time working somewhere that didn't share their beliefs. It is a free country, after all (at least theoretically)

An example. Person A is free to say that George Bush caused 9/11 to happen, but I don't have to publish it on my website, right?

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. I'm not seeing where you and I necessarily disagree.

[LisaM]

14. No one is trying to squelch the story

I still don't understand why it is vital to publish images that offend others in order to tell the story. It's like saying that if someone is raped, murdered, and decapitated, you have to show pictures of that.

[MakeItSo]

20. New York Sun is neocon owned and operated

The Sun was reborn under the watchful eye of Conrad Black and other neocons with the explicit intention to serve as a conduit for pro-War pro-Israel sentiment.

I doubt you'll see the new cartoon of Ann Frank in bed with Hitler in either newspaper, even though it's arguably as newsworthy as the offensive cartoons of Mohammad.

[mcscajun]

41. Don't confuse the New York Sun with NY Press

It's the NY Press editorial staff that resigned, not the New York Sun's.

Take a look at their website.
New York's Premier Alternative Newspaper. Arts, Music, Food, Movies and Opinion.
http://www.nypress.com/

[MakeItSo]

50. The Press editor cited the Sun as a model of "courage"

Harry Siegel thinks they have real balls for printing the poop cartoons. What a tool.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. Exactly. n/t

[NashVegas]

79. Because Informed People Should SEE The Cartoons Before Judging

And I don't even live in Missouri.

[iverglas]

81. it's like me reproducing this image

... again.

Except it isn't.

Because I know that the audience to which I am speaking will recoil in horror from it, and recognize it as the vile piece of bigotry it is, and universally denounce anyone who attempted to use it to legitimize or exacerbate bigotry, and recognize that I have not done so.

I would certainly not publish it to make a point about the IQs of African-Americans, unlike how the Danish newspaper published its cartoons to make a point about the violent nature of Muslims.

I would not even reproduce it to illustrate the source of the controversy, if someone else had published it, if I knew full well that many people seeing it were not at all interested in the merits of the sides in the controversy, and very likely simply to draw on the thing itself, and the representations of the reactions to it by some sides in the controversy that fit their own bigotry, to feed that bigotry.

Hmm. I guess I'd expect to be accountable, to public opinion if nothing else, for my actions, and then act in a way that I believed, sincerely and honestly, I could account for by the standards I believe people's actions should be measured by.

Myself, I wouldn't consider hiding behind a substanceless smokescreen of "free speech" to do that.

[Sperk]

21. THIS they resign over??? How about being strong armed by this

illegal corrupt administration? PNAC anyone? How many of your readers know what PNAC is? How far do you think they'd get running an indepth series on PNAC? Give me a friggin break.

How about telling your readers that Gore won in 2000?
How about telling your readers that thousands had their votes switched to * in 2004?
How about telling your readers that Smirk and Co. ordered that the air in New York be declared safe after 9/11?
How about an indepth story on the person who was THREADENED if he reveiled the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug program?
How about an investigation on WMD BEFORE the war started?
How about telling your readers that Papa Bush and Cheney are making millions off this war?
How about one, single, solitary intellegent question probing the official 9/11 story?
How about telling your readers that we have raised the debt ceiling at least 3 times since Idiot got in?
How about telling your readers that Smirk has borrowed more from foreign governments that all other presidents COMBINED?

etc., etc. etc. I'm sure the Duers here could help me give you all some examples of how you could be exercising your rights of free speech.

Spare us the phony concern...bastards all of you.

[watrwefitinfor]

24. I do wish I had your way with words.

Thank you.

On edit: Not being facetious. You speak for me!

Wat

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. No shit. Bunch of opportunits, probably waiting for the phone to ring now

stupid.

[sandnsea]

45. Stunning isn't it?

Of all the things in the world to make a freedom of the press stand, the media chooses idiotic cartoons. Of all the things to be plunged into a religious war over, pointless cartoons completely devoid of anything astute or intelligent. What a joke.

[Judi Lynn]

49. Your post could NOT have been better. Thanks so very much. n/t

[gtar100]

58. Hammer --------->Nail

Well said.

[magellan]

78. Wish I could recommend your post

I was going to say the same thing...you said it so much better. Thank you.

[iverglas]

82. "how you could be exercising your rights of free speech"

Oh damn, I feel sarcasm coming on again.

Shurely we should never question how someone exercises his/her freedom of speech, or suggest that people in positions of influence have some responsibility to exercise it for the public good. Shurely we must simply sit passively by while it is exercised, and then denounce those who do question that exercise as enemies of freedom.

I'd like to say surely not, but I'm feeling I'd be on rather shaky ground.

[Sperk]

88. yes, we should question....and stop calling me Shirley...HA

that's from Airplane, the movie, for all you youngins

[iverglas]

89. ah, I was speaking Canadian ;)

http://www.sceneandheard.ca/article.php?id=1348&morgue=1

The return of Frank

Racy, satirical mag re-launched online Sept. 20
By Liam Lahey

Somewhere, Byron Muldoon and Lord Tubby of Fleet are quaking in their boots. Shurely.

(That's ex-PM Brian Mulroney, and you may recognize Lord Tubby of Fleet as ex-Canadian Conrad Black, Lord of whatever he is or wants to steal.) Frank Mag, a sort of low-brow Private Eye aiming its barbs at politicians, mainstream media and corporate moguls, frequently editorialized its own comments by inserting (surely a mishtake!) and the like.

Of course I'm well old enough to remember Airplane -- especially given as how that immortal line was spoken by another Canadian (brother of Muldoon's Finance Minister, no less). ;)

Hell, Frank Mag even had its own little free-speech contretemps, when it announced a hokey contest to "deflower" Muldoon's daughter (who has since married Lewis Lapham's son, of all things), in response what was regarded as the PM's exploitation of his children for political purposes. A tad beyond the pale, in my own h.o.; even though it was arguably one of those caricatures of the intended target, the exploitive father, it chose a method that, in a context in which women are regularly assaulted and abused, was not decent.

[Robb]

32. What an absurd reason to resign.

A journalist should ask one question, whenever wondering "should we print this?"

Does it serve the reader?

...I've found over the years if you can answer that question with a solid "yes," you've got it. It's like printing names in a court or accident report. Does it serve the reader? Sometimes, not always.

But passing judgement on the cartoons themselves? "Simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons" is a statement for analysis, not reporting. And in that context it absolutely should be printed.

Why? Because it would serve the reader.

Kids these days. What the hell job do they think they have? :eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Does it serve the reader?

<<A journalist should ask one question, whenever wondering "should we print this?"

Does it serve the reader?>>

The reason right wing fascist Republicans print propaganda and lies, is because they feel it serves the reader to read such things, as it advances the Republican ideal (which to them is, of course, the best). Censorship is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't care whom it involves. It's WRONG. It's fascist. It's Repugnican. Even Arab/Muslims don't censor themselves when it comes to publishing cartoons which ridicule Hindu gods and goddesses, and Jews.

[Dunvegan]

34. Would interjecting the controversy over the

Mexican Memin stamp help?

Right. I didn't think so.

We're all still very touchy over a LOT of things...race...religion.

But where are the blessed peacemakers?

I know where the war-mongers are...DC.

Mexico's Memin Stamp Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem%C3%ADn_Pingu%C3%ADn#Controversy

Memín was criticized on its first runs (1960-1970), but the critics were more concerned about his popularity, since intellectuals of that time had a very low opinion of comics in general. The average age of the comic reader in Mexico was higher than in the United States, about 18 instead of 13 (Not Just for Children: The Mexican Comic Book in the Late 1960s and 1970s by Harold E. Hinds, Jr. and Charles M. Tatum), so the content of comics had a very strong influence on society. Memín was read mostly by low and middle class Mexicans. Some of the critics touch upon the racial aspects, but this topic was mostly ignored. The critics were more concerned to the stereotypes of the Mexican society shown in the story and the set of values, which reflected more or less the ideals of a Catholic middle class. Yolanda was very sensitive to critics, since they reflect heavily on sales. As Harlod Hinds comments, the study of these comics is important to understand Mexican society.

In June 2005, as part of a "History of Mexican Comics" series, the Mexican Postal Service (SEPOMEX) issued a series of stamps featuring the character of Memín. The stamps were deemed offensive by a number of African American community groups and politicians in the United States, including Jesse Jackson, prompting the Mexican government to assert that Memín had done a lot to oppose racism and that the stereotypical Warner Brothers' character Speedy Gonzales was never interpreted as offensive in Mexico. LULAC and NCLR, Hispanic Americans civil rights organizations, also issued statements calling the stamps racist.

The charges of racism stem from the unflattering, stereotypical manner in the which Pinguín is depicted. Pinguín is classic darky iconography, which has its roots in blackface and the American minstrel show tradition.

Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Luis Ernesto Derbez declared to the press that "it is a total lack of knowledge of our culture; it looks to me that it is a total lack of respect to our culture that some people are making an issue out of this which does not resemble the reality."

These different opinions come from the different racial attitudes by the British colonizers in the United States and the Spanish in Mexico, the earlier abolition of slavery in 1810 and the nonexistence of Jim Crow laws in Mexico. (see Afro-Mexican and the external article by historian Enrique Krauze).

The main point of contention from foreign critics is the depiction of Memín and his mother following the United States' stereotypes from the slavery and Jim Crow eras: the pickaninny (monkey-like child) and the mammy (fat, happy lady), respectively. These stereotypes were adopted by the early Mexican comic artists, following American comics, but they do not have the same meaning. The dress and attitudes of Memín's mother are a caricature of Cuban women of the time.

The criticism from United States officials was not only ridiculed by public opinion leaders in Mexico, some with bad records in racial issues, and by most of the Mexican population, but it also spurred interest in the stamps: from the day they were criticized, they were offered in Internet auction sites for several times their face value, and Mexican collectors bought the full edition of 750,000 copies in a few days. Sales of the magazine increased, and the publisher decided to relaunch the series from the first issue alongside the current printing. Curiously enough, Mexican intellectuals both from right and left have denounced this criticism as an attack on Mexico, and political magazines, like Proceso question the chain of events that led to the criticism.

[Igel]

61. You know, that's a really close parallel.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Transposed to a different context and society, the images are offensive. Taken in their cultural and political context, they lose their sting.

[iverglas]

84. Yeah, but I was damned tempted to myself a few times ;)

Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Luis Ernesto Derbez declared to the press that "it is a total lack of knowledge of our culture; it looks to me that it is a total lack of respect to our culture that some people are making an issue out of this which does not resemble the reality."

What one might point out (taking the validity of the Mexican response at face value, which I realize one need not do) is that it is a total lack of knowledge (culpable ignorance?) of the European context, on the part of a whole lot of people, including a whole lot of people in this forum, that underlies the failure to condemn the publication of the anti-Muslim materials in question here.

[IndianaGreen]

37. "and not especially offensive editorial cartoons"

These morons just don't get it!

The white man's burden shines again!

[Tigress DEM]

38. Sorry. Timing is everything.

Your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a common sense curbature of your free speech rights. Running a cartoon that is like putting gasoline on a fire and that is inflaming violence and murder is irresponsible.

You guys are as big of heros as Judith Miller and just as clueless.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Timing and censorship

Timing is timing. Censorship, however, needs to be a thing of the past.

And once again, I say, these individuals asking the Danes to censor themselves, are people who mistreat, dehumanize, torture, publicly execute women who are innocent. These are also people who publish in their newspapers insulting cartoons ridiculing the gods and goddesses in the Hindu religion. They also have ugly caricatures about Jewish people.

And I'm supposed to feel compassion here? I don't think so. I may hate Bush, but that's no reason why I have to blind myself to what these people are and what they do. Who the hell are they to censor the Danes?

[CJCRANE]

64. Don't fall into the "they" trap.

There are a billion muslims in the world, not all of them are doing what you say.

If an arab newspaper prints defamatory cartoons of Hindus and Jews, then you have a right to call them on it. In the same way muslims have a right to complain about defamation of their religion. Not all muslims are violent nor do all muslims go around denigrating other religions.

I could easily re-write your post and substitute all the bad things "Americans" have done: "shock and awe", Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, "extraordinary renditions", Hiroshima etc then go on to imply all Americans are violent. It's very easy to categorise a group as "they".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

100. You have to judge by their actions, not their words

Words are cheap.

[Tigress DEM]

115. Cartoons are cheaper.

Picture = 1000 words.

And if you were "judging" by actions then you just validated what he said. Not all Musilms are behaving that way - so their peaceful actions should cause you to have a modicrum of respect for the grief they have already suffered in this. Maybe a lot of peaceful Muslims here have people they don't know are even alive during all of this. Maybe a real journalist might pursue something different that just the controversial quick fix.

I am not saying that the people who are using these cartoons are justified by those cartoons to commit the acts they are committing. I am simply saying that further prejudicial taunting doesn't help the situation.

What I said about timing is like "some day" come back and discuss it when the middle east is not directly on fire. It's not censorship for a paper to have journalistic standards. If you keep filming the arsonist's work and he's getting off on it, and the police ask you to take away his fix....

But these are a people who have had "families" held and tortured. Every last member - no matter how young. If you haven't been in on those discussion threads, you have no idea of how much these people have put up with and why their anger is at a flashpoint now. Not the time to turn the flame up just a notch.

There are trials going on against our military for using rape as a technique of getting information out of people. Families were taken, Men, Women and CHILDREN. When the degradation of the men didn't work, when the raping of the women didn't work, then they started raping young boys so their parents would talk. The tapes depicting their screaming agony are so volitile that they have been deemed too dangerous for our public to listen to.

You want to be a public servant? Get those tapes. Plaster their redacted images and horrible sound track and play those for the US of A so we can finally get this asshole impeached.

While your at it, there is a whole group of our female soldiers who were raped by our own - their comrades at arms. 83 reports to a rape "hotline" that consisted of an answering machine in the states and no response from there or the CO. Dehydration deaths of some of them covered up because they essentially committed hari kari. Women couldn't get to latrines without getting raped so they stopped drinking fluids in the evening and wound up dying of dehydration in their sleep. That 3 star general who used to be a 4 star and had to take the rap for Guantanamo is investigating it.

There is a valid story for you.

FUCK the cartoons. There is plenty of truth to tell and you are abandonning your post for bullshit reason.

[iverglas]

86. talk about yer ugly caricatures

And once again, I say, these individuals asking the Danes to censor themselves, are people who mistreat, dehumanize, torture, publicly execute women who are innocent.
... what these people are and what they do ...

Say it all you like. It's always enlightening to see an ugly caricature in the flesh. When it's offered in a forum where one can expect it to be recognized it for what it is, it's not even indecent or unreasonable to put it out there to be seen.

Now if only I were certain that this were one of those fora ...

[superconnected]

99. the point is they're supposed to be ugly caricatures.

Nazi German Propaganda -

http://web.archive.org/web/20030413052329/

The cartoon shows a Jew politely asking for room on the bench, after which he shoves the previous inhabitant off. The poem notes that Jews behave the same way in other situations.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030413052329/http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm


http://web.archive.org/web/20020806015820/

It occurs to me that little good comes from poison or from Jews.


"Posters for the support of the Nazi regime and discrimination of the Jewish population were found everywhere. Political cartoons became popular. Jews were portrayed with huge hooked noses, bulging eyes, large ears, swollen lips, unshaven beards, long hairy arms and hands, and short crooked legs. The dominant characteristics were swindling and sexual perversion. The most notorious host of these anti-Semitic visuals was the newspaper Der Sturmer, written by Julius Streicher. It had started as a political paper, but by the time Hitler had a firm hold on Germany, it specialized in selling the idea that the Jews were the worst enemy of the Germans. "

http://janesville.k12.wi.us/cra/showcase/web/propaganda/Content/..%5CContent%5Cmedia.html

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. Arab-Muslim cartoons about Jews are almost identical.

Arab-Muslims also go to town on Hindus, whom they abhor. They ridicule them and their religion with a passion.

[iverglas]

105. and the ugly caricatures ...

Arab-Muslim cartoons about Jews are almost identical.
Arab-Muslims also go to town on Hindus, whom they abhor. They ridicule them and their religion with a passion.

... continue apace and unabated.

Caricature really isn't the appropriate word here any more than it was in referring to the editorial drawings at the root of all this, of course. Anybody who needs a term to apply will find one hereabouts without too much difficulty, I think.

[iverglas]

104. yeah, but

I was talking about the ugly caricature I quoted in my post. ;)

And once again, I say, these individuals asking the Danes to censor themselves, are people who mistreat, dehumanize, torture, publicly execute women who are innocent.
... what these people are and what they do ...

[superconnected]

108. "These people" - meaning all muslims.

Some muslims do what you said. Not all.

Btw, technically Americans fit the description you just sited. I know you are refering to muslim countries though.

The cartoons went after all muslims, not just extremists, or muslims in countries run by extremists. They went after muslims just like the nazis attacked the jews. The retribution for it - Iran printing clearly hate propaganda, is driving home my point. It was hate propaganda all along, even when the danes did it.

Using the excuse that some of them do bad things, doesn't justify hate propaganda against the whole people. If it did, then the Nazis were right about the Jews.

[iverglas]

117. this is moi you're talking to!

"Some muslims do what you said. Not all."

In my post 86, I was referring to the ugly caricature in post 46, which *I* didn't write! I just *quoted* it again in the post you have responded to!

(Maybe the formatting doesn't come out right in some browsers -- I used the <blockquote></blockquote> convention to indent the text I was quoting.)

The rest of what you said is what I too say to people who say things like (here it comes again!):

these individuals asking the Danes to censor themselves, are people who mistreat, dehumanize, torture, publicly execute women who are innocent. These are also people who publish in their newspapers insulting cartoons ridiculing the gods and goddesses in the Hindu religion. They also have ugly caricatures about Jewish people.

An ugly caricature, and one that I can't believe I find still visible in this forum.

[superconnected]

119. Yep, I still am not use to looking at nics before shooting

my big mouth off.

Sorry.

[fairplay]

47. Fundamentalists Muslims

Muslims get over yourselves, geeze!

[mdmc]

73. welcome to DU

I wish I was financially secure enough to quit over a cartoon...

[Harper_is_Bush]

123. In your title you refer to "fundamentalist Muslims", but in your post you

just refer to "Muslims", and submit they should "get over" themselves.

Can you clarify?

Do you want Muslims to "get over" themselves, or fundamentalist Muslims to "get over" themselves?

thx.

[Pooka Fey]

51. ...

[Judi Lynn]

52. Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark, from Slate

Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark
The Danish paper that printed the cartoons wanted to stir up trouble -- and the government wanted a culture war. They got more than they bargained for.
By Jytte Klausen

Feb. 08, 2006

~snip~
This all would have been very well if the paper had a long tradition of standing up for fearless artistic expression. But it so happens that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers. According to a report in the Guardian, which was provided with a letter from the cartoonist, Christoffer Zieler, the editor explained back then, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." When confronted with the old rejection letter, the editor, Jens Kaiser, said, "It is ridiculous to bring this forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammed cartoons." But why does it not? Can you offend Muslim readers but not Christian readers? "In the Muhammead drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons," Kaiser said. "That's the difference."

And therein lies the truth. The paper wanted to instigate trouble, just not the kind of trouble it got. And in this mission it acted in concert with the Danish government. "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid," boasted the minister of cultural affairs, Brian Mikkelsen, in a speech at his party's annual meeting the week before Rose's cartoon editorial last fall. Mikkelsen is a 39-year-old political science graduate known for his hankering for the "culture war." He continued, "The Culture War has now been raging for some years. And I think we can conclude that the first round has been won." The next front, he said, is the war against the acceptance of Muslims norms and ways of thought. The Danish cultural heritage is a source of strength in an age of globalization and immigration. Cultural restoration, he argued, is the best antidote.

The Danish government has protested that Danish Muslims and the Islamic countries have conspired in a misinformation campaign regarding both the paper's motives and the law of the land. Among the examples of preposterous misinformation are that the paper is run by the government, and that the government can do anything to regulate what is said or not said. While radical Islamists have exaggerated and exploited these themes to incite violent protest, the painful reality is that there is some truth to them. The paper is related to the government, not by ownership but by political affinity and history. And Denmark is no paragon of free speech. Article 140 of the Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."

Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits. Back in 1975, Jens Jorgen Thorsen, a multimedia artist belonging to the "situationist school," had a government grant provided to make a film about Jesus taken away. Five thousand young Christians had demonstrated in the street of Copenhagen against Thorsen and his movie and tumultuous scenes broke out. (Coincidentally, a police estimate held that about 5,000 people participated in one of the first demonstrations against the cartoons held in Copenhagen in October 2005.) Respected politicians spoke up and said that Thorsen had free speech, but if the blasphemy law had not been violated then certainly good taste and the feelings of religious Danes had the case dragged on in court forever with no conviction. Fourteen years later Thorsen had his government grant restored, adjusted for inflation.
(snip)

But neither Europe's growing domestic problems with religious pluralism nor a Danish newspaper's clumsy provocation of local Muslims explain the unwanted international crisis we are suddenly faced with. Rather, the cartoons apparently provided a grand opportunity to extremists: for radical elements in Islamic countries rife with internal dissent, and for right-wing extremists in Denmark and Europe, to mobilize supporters from the disaffected. Among the victims are the moderate Muslims in Europe and worldwide, who now find themselves increasingly wounded in the crossfire between xenophobes and Islamists.

-- By Jytte Klausen

(snip/...)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/print.html

[Judi Lynn]

90. Just noticed my mistake.Too tired to focus."Salon", not "Slate."Yikes.

While I've got your attention, I'd like to nominate Sperk's perfect post for "Best in Thread!" Woohooooo! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2092666#2092848

Read it! Read it again! Trolls, try to fathom it!

[Pooka Fey]

53. self edit

[Pooka Fey]

55. Goodnight everybody.

[nodehopper]

66. Four NY Press Journalists Quit Over Cartoon Flap

(CBS) NEW YORK The New York Press may be a free paper, but its editors are not free to print a controversial cartoon.

And now they're paying for it -- three editors and a reporter quit in protest.

"The fact that the press is self-censored over this is disgusting and I didn't want to be any part of it as a journalist," said resigning managing editor Tim Marchman.

Wednesday's front-page article before it was spiked by the publisher was: "Where's Muhammed -- the Danish Cartoon Madness" -- complete with reprints of the drawings portraying the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.

"A lot of papers haven't run these cartoons because they've felt threatened," said resigning editor in chief Harry Siegel. "And they've been worried about the consequences. And if that happens, then this violence has been worthwhile and it's accomplished its goal."

more here: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_038225451.html


(Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the
minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial groupconsisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editorJonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

We have no desire to be free speech martyrs, but it would have been nakedly hypocritical to avoid the same cartoons we'd criticized others for not running, cartoons that however absurdly have inspired arson, kidnapping and murder and forced cartoonists in at least two continents to go into hiding. Editors have already been forced to leave papers in Jordan and France for having run these cartoons. We have no illusions about the power of the Press (NY Press, we mean), but even on the far margins of the world-historical stage, we are not willing to side with the enemies of the values we hold dear, a free press not least among them.

This was not an easy decision. I've been reading the Press since 1988 and have dreamed of running it for nearly as long. The paper's editorial staff has worked impossibly hard hours and has come quite a ways in only a few months towards restoring the paper's tarnished editorial reputation and credibility. I'm proud of the work we've
done, and wish we'd had time to finish the job. I wish the Press all the best, and hope that under new ownership and leadership it can again be an invaluable read for all good Gothamites.)

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

67. He has a damned good point.

When you give in, they win.

It's a valuable lesson that needs to be held close in the greater struggle we're all in right now.

[rodeodance]

68. I tend to agree. There is the issue of being sensitive to others'

religious practices and i do not know how to reconcile the two. Maybe it does not even need to be a binary--one OR the other?--

[warrens]

69. Giving NY Sun credit for courage is a bit misleading

Those bozos are the type who think the solution to the MidEast problem is "glass 'em."

But congrats to the resigning editors. To SPIKE a story is a lot worse than wondering if it's necessary to run a bunch of dull, not particularly interesting cartoons.

[superconnected]

95. not particularly interesting cartoons... also known as facist propaganda

That would be interesting if you 1. could tell the difference between political cartoons and when they become facist propaganda, 2. Looked up the history of Nazi germany and saw their political cartoons and the fact that these along with posters and articles were the main way of swaying the people to hate jews, 3. Were part of the people targeted in this hate propaganda, 4. cared.

[rodeodance]

70. nominated

[MakeItSo]

113. The cartoon of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank is equally newsworthy

I wonder if Mr. Siegal would have published that as well?

[VirginiaDem]

101. Good for them.

I believe, contrary to many around here, that the various western papers that have republished these cartoons are doing the right thing. They may or not be doing it for the right reasons.

France, Denmark, the US, and Germany all have laws protecting freedom of speech. It is a central tenet of the political systems. That freedom is being directly, immediately threatened by these protestors.

In the end, westerners have a right to protect their laws and traditions.

This does not necessarily make me a thoughtless westerner--I would not, for example, make the argument that an English-language paper in Jordan run by expat immigrants(to grab a hypothetical out of my head) should reprint the cartoons because Jordan is, within some limits according to human rights advocates, allowed to make their own laws and have them respected by immigrants.

The laws of Islam apply to Muslims and majority-Muslim states and no one else. Non-believers are under no legal or moral obligation to obey the laws of Islam outside of majority-Muslim states, even if the laws of Islam claim that they are. This is the key distinction. If Westerners are being insensitive toward "the other" than Muslims are being insensitive toward "the other" in spades. IF the laws of Islam require Muslims to require non-believers to obey Islamic restrictions, then we're being backed into a clash-of-civilizations corner.

Edited to add two "majority-Muslim states" references for consistency.

[Megahurtz]

103. Good Move on Their Part.

All of this stupid lame-ass whining over a stupid goofy cartoon!:crazy:
How much more stupider:silly: can it all get?

[neuvocat]

109. Look!!! FIRE!!!!

Everyone run for the exit!!! RRUUUUNNNNNN!!!

[superconnected]

112. I guess we'll just wait and see.

Hate propaganda already coming up against the jews.

With these cartoons that are basically fascist propaganda, it's just like nazi germany all over again. They certianly used those tactics on people who considered hate propaganda free speech - oh and couldn't tell the difference between hate propaganda and political cartoons.

Ya think anyone will figure out the retaliation ones are ALSO hate propaganda, or do ya think it's still just political cartoons.

hmmm. I guess I just think the nazis were on to something when they started doing it. It started as their main weapon against the jews.

[4nic8em]

111. Hmm...if some other

country or religious culture (besides Christianity) were to publish a cartoonist rendering of, let's say, "Christ banging a goat" and disseminated this image across all of the USA, I suspect that there very well may be a similar reaction here in America. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, we Americans are so morally righteous and so entrenched in "freedom" that our citizens would never react to such a depiction in violence. For instance, like burning churches in Alabama, calling for assinations from within our "moral" leadership, or subscribing to theological "crusades". I think perhaps our country may be confusing "freedom" with "human respect" or "decency" in that other religions might not consider showing such an image, not due to a lack of "freedom", but because of adherence to their own beliefs regarding "respect" and what might be considered as "inappropriate"...whether we share a common disdain for each other or not. I believe that we do indeed subscribe to freedom of speech, verbally and in the press. However, given the state of current foreign affairs we've endured these last four years (regarding tolerance) it seems possible that the response we are witnessing from the worlds Muslims to these "freedom pictures" is exactly the reaction that should have been globally anticipated. Just because there are people in this world who are "free" does not in itself justify these same people from being "reckless" or "provocative".

[kskiska]

114. "en masse" = 4 people. Big deal.

"…the editorial group—consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

Four people quit a paper that's given away free.

[flashdebadge]

124. solidarity in any number is still solidarity. Give these folks some

credit for following through. How many people do you know who would walk away from their jobs for something they believe in. I find their actions rather inspiring. Too many people these days will allow themselves to be fed bull crap and not do anything about it. These folks showed they had principles they weren't going to compromise, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!

[MetaTrope]

126. I don't see the press falling over themselves to print

photos of young boys being sodomized in Abu Ghraib. Is that because they're too sensitive to Muslim feelings?

[Diresu]

118. Egyptian Paper printed same cartoons during Ramadan

Good for the NY Times staff. This whole controversy is made up bologna. Last October an Egyptian paper printed all of the cartoons during Ramadan and guess what? No rioting, no burning and no boycotting.

Some commentary and pictures here
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/

Original source here
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

[sakabatou]

121. Woah

:applause:

[Miss Chybil]

125. I don't believe in ideological purism

when it inspires the deaths of innocents. There is no reason to print those cartoons again. They are out there already.