Cartoons of Mohammad: Freedom of Speech

[louis c]

I was brought up to respect the First Amendment. I know that these cartoons have hit a raw nerve in the Islamic world, however here's my take on it.

When American's were in Saudi Arabia, the women had to follow Muslim customs by being veiled in public and by not driving cars. I agree with that. We're in their countries and we should abide by their customs. That's why I think that we shouldn't be in Iraq at all. Let them run their own country.

By the same token, I hold my freedoms just as dear as they hold their religious customs. In our country, you'll respect our customs, and one of them is free expression. I remember Stokie Illinois and the Nazi march. Nothing could have been more distasteful to the Jewish population and WWII veterans than that. Yet, we supported their right to free expression regardless of how offensive.

We already have a guy who is trying to remove the Fourth Amendment, I believe there is no room to even compromise the First.

Anyway, here are the cartoons (all twelve) in question. I can understand the editorial opinion of most of these cartoons, whether or not I agree with them is another matter. Of course, defending free speech has nothing to do with agreeing with the content.

LINK:
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

[ComerPerro]

1. Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis

[Dying Eagle]

10. LOL

thanks Comer., i needed that!

[Crazy Dave]

2. What sets foreign Muslims off more than others is:

For them, their religion is all they have. I do mean all and everything. In general they have no jobs, no economy, no opportunities, just their religion so to them it's an attack on the most important thing they have.

[EFerrari]

5. Boy, it that right. n/t

[louis c]

6. The press can not be intimidated

by anyone for any reason.

By their very nature, a political cartoon is supposed to offend someone. It was the reason Tammany Hall fell in the 1920's. They make their point in a manner that everyone can understand.

[LSdemocrat]

31. Also very few legitimate forms of expression

Ordinary people in many of these countries don't have the institutions and citizen-based advocacy groups to give people a voice to express grievences in a more civil manner, which is why you see a few bad apples resort to violence.

[Crazy Dave]

50. I agree

"which is why you see a few bad apples resort to violence"

It's always the squeakiest wheel that gets the oil.

[brokensymmetry]

3. Good points.

Freedom of speech is critical - without it, we return to tyranny. It doesn't matter who the authors of the tyranny are - the abuses will be the same.

My compliments on your courage and your thinking.

[Jacobin]

4. Why no outrage over the Jesus cartoons?

[EFerrari]

7. Imho, it's pretty simple.

The Jesus people have a great deal of wealth and power. They can buy and sell policy, even governments.

As a writer, freedom of speech is my daily bread. As a human being, I see these images as a ham fisted attack on disenfranchised people. For the most mercenary political purposes.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. And Yet, . . .

. . .it seems counterintuitive to express outrage over the cartoons, which appear to make Islam out to be an aggressive and violent religion, by burning down buildings and committing violence.

Not only counterintuitive, but quite counterproductive.
The Professor

[EFerrari]

18. This whole thing stinks to heaven. Resurrected racist images?

Qui bono?

[ProfessorGAC]

19. No Argument

The point made by the cartoon seems churlish and apropos of nothing. The reaction is equally useless.
The Professor

[cali]

8. I've said the same thing so often

I keep whittling it down to it's most succinct forms: Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. The NYT, for example, has a greater burden to act responsble than The Onion, or South Park. Individuals and newspapers edit themselves everyday. That's a good thing. It's the difference between Pat Robertson and John Danforth.

[Nye Bevan]

41. I agree

I agree that just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.

But just because someone says something that they shouldn't, doesn't mean you should go rioting and burn down embassies.

[Yupster]

53. That's true but newspapers

have a right to make mistakes too.

If anyone feels they've gone too far, they can be sued. Then the courts decide whether they crossed the line or not, not the angry mob.

[zbdent]

9. Remember the firestorm over Piss Christ?

Seems that some people were ready to torch a few museums . . . but decided to gut NEA instead . . .

[Cobalt Violet]

13. Oh, I remember.

As someone fresh out of art school looking for a grant, I was personally hurt by that reaction. It was a very distressful time for people in the arts. The fascists were alive and well then. No one stopped them then and now they're going after everyones favorite government programs.

[Yupster]

54. But if my memory is right

on PissChrist (and just imagine what would be going around in the world today if there was a PissMohammed) nothing got burned down, and the argument wasn't even whether PissChrist should exist.

The argument was whether government grant money should be used to fund it.

[Warpy]

11. Freedom of speech is never an excuse for bad manners

and that's what's behind the outrage in the ME. Bad manners should be apologized for, whether or not the offender "gets" the offense given.

I've talked to some of the fire breathing types in the ME, and an apology is what they've looked for, nothing more and nothing less. Instead, the Danes are defending their juvenile and insulting cartoons as though there were something sacred about offending someone else.

People defend their religions more than they'll defend nearly anything in their lives, even their own children. When someone says you've offended his religious beliefs, apologise. It doesn't cost you anything and will forestall a lot of hard feelings for a long time to come.

Let's face it, nothing looks sillier than somebody else's religion. However, our right to free speech doesn't mean we can slander or libel each other, and it means that although we have a right to make asses of ourselves occasionally, those of us who exercise prudence will apologize over the worst of it.

[Cobalt Violet]

14. Bad manners is no excuse for death threats and embassy burning.

IMHO. Just exactly who should apologize. Every Dane? Norwegian Americans? Any one who looked at the cartoons. The ones who drew the cartoon? The editor?

[Warpy]

20. No, and two wrongs never make a right

but the whole thing could have been avoided with "We didn't realize how deeply this would offend you and we're sorry." No groveling, no public flogging of any of the cartoonists, no dissolution of that particular newspaper was required.

Instead, they tried to defend this stuff and it's all escalating to a really stupid height.

Wouldn't the apology have been easier and cheaper?

[Cobalt Violet]

24. I don't think bad manners is illegal or very serious at all.

If someone doesn't like the cartoon, don't buy the paper.

[Gullvann]

30. I believe that both

the Danish Prime minister as well as the newspapers editors in question in both Denmark and Norway has said exactly that: "We didn't realize how deeply this would offend you and we're sorry."


From Jyllands-Posten:

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.


To see the entire letter from Jyllands-Posten see:

http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

Is that enough? Too much? Just right?

Reasonable people can disagree.

Muslims in Denmark certainly do.

Some think it is too ambigous, or is not satisfied with an apology and want to see the newspaper and the cartoonists punished.

Others accept the appology. The kid of one Imam who accepted the appology was beaten up by fundies.

[Cobalt Violet]

36. I don't believe any apology will work with these radicals.

I don't think it would've ever worked even in the begining. All that they want now is blood, blood, blood.

[Gullvann]

40. Agree to some extend, even though

"these radicals" is a bit imprecise. Who are they?

Certainly some groups in the Middle East has made it clear that any apology will not suffice, so in the case of "those radicals" you are absolutely right.

A terrorists group have promised to cut us into little pieces, and I prefer to stay in one undivided bit, so for me the vital question is how many are "these radicals".

I think this whole issue is very difficult, and I have tried to follow it in the news, and also reading the comments here at DU. Heck, at least the cartoon sage brought me out of lurk mode :-)

So far it seems like the radicals on both sides are the only ones profiting from it.

[Gullvann]

58. Check this out.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com

[Yupster]

55. I think an apology is the exact opposite of what's needed

What's needed is enough offensive material so that the angry mob realizes that their prophet will get on fine even with an insult now and then.

Then they'll learn to change the channel, not look, throw the paper in the trash, etc, like the rest of us learned when we were ten.

[louis c]

16. These cartoons are political in nature

Muslims have mixed religion and politics just as Bush has mixed Christianity and politics.

Once you do that, you are fair game in the political arena.

Suicide bombers are making a political statement by their actions and receiving a perceived religious reward for their "Martyrdom".

As a result, the cartoon depicting Mohammad at the gates of heaven greeting the latest suicide bombers with "Stop, Stop, we have run out of virgins" is right to the point. It is a political statement by the cartoonist that is not only free speech but valid comment.

[louis c]

60. kick in the evening

[NaturalHigh]

21. Rioting and burning embassies...

qualify as "bad manners" more than cartoons, IMO.

[Dutch]

29. You think cartoons should be subject to the rules of polite conversation?

Should they exercise good manners towards George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld or Pat Robertson? Political satire, cartoons especially, have never been very concerned with "manners" or the kind of restriant one would perhaps show when dealing personally with individuals - and if you have a problem with that, well I hope your a fan of the boring, the unfunny and the mediocre. But perhaps arrogantly and condescendingly presuming to tell others what they should apologise for gives you all the pleasure you need- isn't there a gay couple around you can harass into apologising to some Christian or Muslim fundy monster who finds their very existence offensive?

[CJCRANE]

12. The cartoonists have had their day in the limelight

why keep on repeating the insult?

It's not like the newspaper readers are going to complain : "Dammit, where's my Muhammed cartoons! Only reason I get this paper!"

Same as people don't complain that they don't see the "Black & White Minstrel Show" on TV anymore, or excerpts from Mein Kampf in their favourite magazine.

[Blackflon]

17. It's not about the cartoons

This religion is rapidly getting out of control. Muslims can murder 200 school children and their parents, shooting kids in the back, in Chechnya and the Muslim world hardly pauses a moment to notice. Let some draw a cartoon of their so-called "prophet" and they start burning embassies and looking for Europeans to kidnap or murder. The more our Western leaders make excuses for their behavior, the bolder they become. These Muslims torching embassies and rioting around the world are not what we might consider highly educated. They have little or no understanding of Western culture and the concept of freedom of the press is entirely beyond the grasp of most of them. They believe that anything printed in any newspaper constitutes the official opinion of that country's government.

[louis c]

22. Bush was the first to apologize

Mr. Big Balls couldn't wait to say "I'm sorry" about another country's cartoons.

But he hasn't apologized yet for killing tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. That's OK with him.

Bush has the same respect for the First Amendment and the Radical Muslims.
Finally, they have found common ground.

Nice first post, I hope your second can find some way of criticizing the Fascist in the White House.

[Warpy]

23. 'Scuse me, but that's wrong on so many levels

I hardly know where to begin.

In the first place, Muslims are not a species apart from the rest of us. They are not demonically possessed, nor are they demons, themselves. Most are exactly the type of folks you see in the suburban supermarket every day (some of whom are undoubtedly Muslim, by the way, no matter where you shop) and most were shocked and disgusted by the mess in Beslan, just as we were.

The young males you see torching embassies are no different from far right Christians who are only dreaming about this stuff at present, not quite ready to put it into action. They're no different from angry young men anywhere, hating whomever they have been given permission to hate. In the absence of an apology, this was their excuse for a bonfire, and they took it. Espect to see the same sort of thing happening here in the US as hate radio is allowed to spew, unopposed.

As for their not understanding western freedoms, you are in error there, too. Talking to people in the middle east gives one a good idea of what they've always deeply admired about the US (and still do). It's not our nuclear arsenal or our strong GOP leadership. It's our FREEDOM.

[Blackflon]

26. They are not the majority.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

[LSdemocrat]

33. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there

Don't trust the media portrayals. Given the choice of covering hundreds of peaceful protests, or a couple of groups torching an embassy, which do you think the media is going to cover?

[Gullvann]

38. Well last year, there was hundred of thousands of people

out in the streets of Amman, Jordan, prostesting against Al Qaeda.

Similar demo's have taken place in Marroco.

Spanish muslims have put out a fatwa against bin Laden.

So it is not true that no one are taking to the streets or taking other actions...

I guess the media is more interested in reporting on murder and mayhem, than on peaceful demonstrations against the violent fundies.

At the same time I think many are afraid... As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one imam who accepted the Jyllands-Posten apology is being threatened and his little kid has been assaulted.

For the record, I think that Norwegian muslims have acted honourably throughout this affair, and muslim leaders have denounced the violence taking place in the middle east.

[Blackflon]

44. The media

This is absolutely insane. What we are witnessing is the ultimate conclusion to militant political correctness. Many leftists would excuse this behavior...because these Muslims are "offended." Know this: in the world of the new York Times, there is no greater crime known to man than offending Muslims. The more violent radical Islamists become the more the politically correct elements make excuses for them.

[Gullvann]

46. I like you.

You are passionate...

But, how is this (The riots) the result of political correctnes?

[Blackflon]

51. My point is.....

You don't very often see the major media in the US writing something the Muslims may not like for fear of "offending" them. That makes it a politically correct issue.

[louis c]

62. kick in the morning

[seaglass]

75. What newspaper, during the height of the clergy abuse scandal

would print a cartoon of a smiling Jesus raping a young boy? That would have been funny - don't you think?

I feel sorry for people who don't understand manners and think that if you don't support offending people then you are politically correct. There is no way for this world to get any better when people have no common decency.

I do not condone the violent reaction. It takes away from a very real complaint.

[Gullvann]

32. I think we at least has learned one thing from this whole

affair. The world is a lot smaller now. What is printed in an obscure Danish newspaper can provoke reactions on a global scale.

I am glad I am not a newspaper editor :-)

[Bridget Burke]

35. "The religion is rapidly getting out of control"

What percentage of Muslims, worldwide, have participated in the protests? Quite a few Muslims ARE highly educated--but they are probably not among the protestors.

What do you propose be done about Islam? Planning another Crusade?

Unfortunately, far too many Muslims have been introduced to "Western culture" through imperialism.

[TalkingDog]

25. We are all Danes now.

An Op-Ed on that very subject

snip:

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/05/we_are_all_danes_now/

[The Stranger]

28. And thanks to Jeff Jacoby.

Why doesn't Mr. Jacoby try to get the Globe to run a racist, bigoted, stereotypical hate-filled cartoon of a disenfranchised group in the U.S.? If he were somehow successful -- without losing his job -- he wouldn't be pontificating about violence ensconced in a fancy lie about the First Amendment, he would be run out of town by the group he had villified.

[The Stranger]

27. Bigoted caricatures get angry responses.

As another poster so eloquently stated, these are disenfranchised peoples who had beneath their land the greatest wealth the world had ever seen, yet it was robbed from beneath them these past 75 years.

Imagine running a sterotypical, racist, bigoted, hate-filled cartoon in a U.S. newspaper involving African Americans -- do you think that cries for "freedom of speech" would be shouted from the rooftops of Faux News and CNN?

I didn't think so either.

[Balbus]

34. Except you're referring to race, these cartoons are referring to religion.

You don't think there's a difference?

I thought so.

[Bridget Burke]

37. I know Muslims of all colors here in the USA.

Blond & blue-eyed, black (all born here). And I know immigrants from Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc.

In Europe, most Muslims are Arab immigrants or descened from them. And they have been victims of racism, even in "civilized" Euripe. Islam is just a handy way to single them out.

Can you see the difference? I doubt it.

[Balbus]

39. And there's people that like to turn any sort of confrontation,

no matter where it takes place, into a racial issue.

Know what I mean? Thought so.

[The Stranger]

43. "Other" religious and racial groups are often disenfranchised and despised

They also form a neatly defined "Other" which can be used to demonize and subjugate them. African-Americans, women, Jews, Japanese have all been this "other" before. Defining and dehumanizing the "Other" is how one group (usually a racial and/or religious group) remains in power over -- and even wars and exploits the natural resources of -- another.

When disenfranchised groups are demonized in mass media, they often lack the political and economic means of responding as would an empowered group. Whereas "Christians" would have the newspaper destroyed politically or financially, these people do not have that power.

But the question here is not really about freedom of expression at all. It is about the demonization and objectification of millions of people in preparation to launch yet another war, and the lack of any legal or moral justification for that war.

[Karenina]

47. I hope many will carefully reflect

on what you've written, The Stranger. The stench rising off this mess is unbearable. One MUST ask, after the problems in Denmark last September, WHO lit this fuse and why? WHO mobilized the people in Syria (where NOTHING goes down without official foreknowledge and/or sanction) and Lebanon? WHO figured, correctly, that framing this as a "free speech" issue (it is NOT) would get Western knickers in a twist, manufacturing European consent for widening military action? Something is rotten all over this globe...

[The Stranger]

57. . . . and in the State of Denmark.

Hamlet allusion, no? Thanks for the kind words.

See you on the protest lines -- or in the camps.

[Bridget Burke]

49. Yes, I know what you mean.

But the message I'm getting from your posts is probably not the one you intend to convey.

[fujiyama]

48. Making excuses...

I'm sorry, but claiming this is the reaction of a disenfranchised minority is a poorr excuse.

I'm tired of hearingn the constant excuses from leftists that all Muslims aare just poor victims of western imperialism. Muslim nations have not the only vicims of the west, yet we don't see these sorts of actions by Hindus and Buddhists when their religious figures are mocked.

There is something seriously wrong with the thousands thaht have resorted to violence over thte caartoon, even if you consider it bigoted and racist.

There are some Muslims that have legitimate greeivances like Palestianians, but these actions don't help their cause in any way.

[Bridget Burke]

52. The Hindu/Buddhist protests/riots are not covered here...

The Muslims happen to be sitting on more oil, so they get more publicity.

Hindus worldwide protested a Russian cleric's demonization of Krishna.

Moscow, Russia – A letter addressed by the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Mayor of Moscow that purportedly demonizes Krishna, a Hindu god, has earned the ire of millions of Hindus worldwide.

On November 30, Archbishop Nikon of the Russian Orthodox Church wired a letter to the Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, urging the ban of a construction of a proposed Hindu temple in Moscow and calling Hindu god, Krishna, “an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God”, and “a livid lascivious youth.”

The archbishop had requested the mayor to disallow the construction as it would otherwise become “an idolatrous disgrace erected for the glory of wicked and malicious ‘god’ Krishna.”

http://in.christiantoday.com/news/wor_545.htm

Buddhists protested Hindu portrayal of the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu

Minor skirmishes broke out Sunday over the issue between Buddhists and Hindus gathered in Bodh Gaya, the pilgrim town 110 km south of this capital city, where Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment....

Buddhists from Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of India gathered in large numbers at Bodh Gaya to celebrate. But they objected to Hindu rightwing groups trying to portray Buddha as the "ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu."

But some say the real bone of contention between the two groups is control
over the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya.

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/05/1376.shtml

Gosh! Here are Americans protesting a proposed Hindu temple in California:

A proposal to build a Hindu temple and a cultural centre, tipped as the largest in southern California, is causing much disconcert in the Chino Hills area, a media report said in California on Tuesday....

"Our issue was very clear. We would like it to be an asset to the community," Govind Vaghashia, spokesman for the project proponent Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), was quoted as saying by the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday.

However, Chino residents have protested vehemently against the temple, saying it would generate too much traffic, ruin the city's atmosphere and become an unwanted regional attraction.

Objections also surfaced from opponents who said the project would turn Chino Hills into a "Third World city" and "a haven for terrorists." One petition to stop the project said the temple would play a role in "changing the city's demographics forever."

http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/hinduism/america_residents_protest_construction_of_hindu_temple_in_california

Guess the folks of Pearland, Texas, are more enlightened.


www.orangeshow.org/eyeopener/eyepg2.html

[fujiyama]

61. Wow Chino Hills sounds like it has some real ass holes...

So much for the theory that 'blue state' residents are brighter than those in red states.

BTW, good for Pearland, TX. It sounds pretty tolerant.

[corporate_mike]

42. I support Denmark (and the Danish press' freedom of speech)

eom

[noonwitch]

45. I agree-people rioting and threatening lives want to riot and kill

They're just looking for an excuse. I'm not giving them one.

[NNN0LHI]

56. Why hell yea. You can scream fire in a theater if you want to

Just don't cry about it afterwords when the police cuff and stuff ya. Thats all.

Don

[Dutch]

59. Apple, meet orange.

:eyes:

[louis c]

73. kick in the evening

[JCMach1]

63. So, you support child porn

KKK and NAZI broadcasts on cable
Anne Coulter calling for the death of liberals>>?


You support these things>????

[mongo]

65. Wow. Slippery slope anyone?

You seeem to lump Child porn and Ann Coulter into the same catagory.

Child porn = the filming of an actual crime. NOT FREE SPEECH

Ann Coulter, KKK, and Nazi's = POLITICAL SPEECH (even if it's disgusting)

I don't have to agree with someone's views to fight for their right to speak.

But appearently, you think that only views you agree with should be heard.

[louis c]

66. I support the right to express them

there is no case that can be made against the right to political opinion.

Our founding fathers made no exception to free speech.

Take a look at some of the articles and cartoons from the election of 1800. After you do that, you tell me where the line should be drawn.

I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion that I do.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

[rman]

64. Check out the original Nazi cartoons about Jews

Those were "cartoons" - ie "freedom of expression"...?

If you look at those cartoons it is very obvious that the intent was to create hate against Jews.

So, just the fact that it's cartoons doesn't make it ok.

[louis c]

67. To fight such an expression

is by opposing views.

The fact that only one side of the issue was given in Nazi Germany, with the opposing view suppressed, proves my point.

[robbedvoter]

68. Did the Jews start burning stuff because of them?

Hate speech vs hate actions.....Not a good example.

[rman]

70. hate speech vs cartoons - difference

that's my point

[Kellanved]

72. Which is precisely why Denmark can not apologize

The Nazi "cartoons" were murderous instruments of governmental propaganda efforts to induce anti-semitism and ride the wave of the existing anti-semitism. The Danish cartoons are a strawman argument used by irresponsible (religious) leaders.

They are the product of a free press and were published by the free press - to a small, regional reader community . They are not propaganda and they are not murderous. Apologizing for something Denmark had not under control (and has no reason to be ashamed off) would open the gates for the bizarre Nazi cartoon comparison.

[NNN0LHI]

69. There is no First Amendment in Denmark

Try waving a swastika around there and see what happens to you once.

Don

[Kellanved]

71. Totally different thing

For starters, there is a "first Amendment" in Denmark. There is such a thing in every single EU nation and the Danish are no exception.

The differences in the Implementation of free speech when compared to the US, there is no way to use a blanket statement for the whole of Europe - no two countries have identical rules and court decisions.
The swastika decisions in some countries are complicated to explain: opinions are free and protected, but in cases of threats and/or false factual statements, the rights of thirds can be deemed to be more important than the (lesser) speech.

One thing is uncontested: the "cartoons" were very much covered by free speech.


Funny, how the whole world goes crazy over four months old bad cartoons in a Danish regional paper. Funnier that people seem to believe that there can be any justification for the obvious behind-the-scenes hatemongering.

[louis c]

74. kick in the morning