So, if a newspaper had a picture of a mangled accident victim with no face

[Harper_is_Bush]

should they print it?

Wouldn't that give readers a more complete picture of the story? Or could they present the story suitably using words alone?

Assume the body is so mangled that it's unidentifiable and the name of the victim is witheld, so privacy is not an issue.

The family - understandably - will be deeply offended, but should the newspaper weigh that against the informative value of the picture?

[Catch22Dem]

1. Keep trying

This is only the 1000th time.

[stillcool]

2. you mean like New Orleans...?

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. Very good example.

I suspect in NO the media rationalization was that the dead bodies would not be recognizable by family...that they were wholy anonymous.

In my example, the dead body is known by the family members to be thier own.

[PVK]

3. That's not necessary and would be a violation of privacy.

The deceased cannot give their permission anymore to use their photo; so family should be consulted.

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. No, not a violation of privacy.

As stated, the face is mangled and name witheld.

The only consideration is the offensiveness to the family.

[PVK]

13. Doesn't matter.

I worked for an ME in a major metro area.

Can't just print a face without consent from kin--mangled or otherwise.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. Really? What a terrible affront to freedom of speech! n/t

[PVK]

18. Read this: The Favish Decision.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost12.htm

[Oeditpus Rex]

21. Nothing prevents a newspaper from running a photo

of anyone, provided the photo was made where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Consent is not necessary.

[PVK]

22. Did you read Favish?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=13096

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. Not until after my OP

This is troubling.

[PVK]

31. Tell me about it. n/t

[OneAngryDemocrat]

4. Apples & Oranges

A mangled body as the victim of an accident should NEVER be compared to the mangled body of a victim of public policy.

In the one case, the person is the victim of unavoidable happenstance, while in the other, the person is not.

You are comparing apples & oranges, my friend.

Visit my anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com

[Catch22Dem]

8. Yes

"You are comparing apples & oranges, my friend."

And will continue to do so over and over. It's simply not a valid argument. Posting a picture of a rape victim (as was espoused in another thread) in NO way compares to a fucking cartoon. As I've said over and over since this thing started, I care about this as much as I care about a Jesus cartoon. None. It's not apathy, it's common sense and reality. There will always be something that offends. Christians offend me, but I don't go torching churches. Muslims offend me equally, I don't torch mosques or embassies. Peaceful protest is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged, but making an argument that torching an embassy is somehow justafiable because a goddamn cartoon, is asenine.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. "Christians offend me, but..."

If it were not for the fact that most of the cartoons in question were calculated to offend, the mere depiction of Mohammed has as much logical reason to offend Muslims as the mere existence of Christians has to offend you: none.

Furthermore if you lived in Europe, you would know that many of the people saying "Muslims offend me because of my liberal tolerant sensibilities"...

are the children of the very people who said "Jews offend me but I don't go torching synagogues like them Nazis" 60 years ago!

If you don't believe me consider that the Jewish Quarter is a major Disney-style tourist district in the town of Krakow, with gussied-up synagogues, delis, etc. Jewish population left in the area? Almost none. Note the pride in the almost exclusively Catholic-or-secular residents' voice as they talk about their restored Jewish quarter!

That's the way Muslims will be viewed 100 years from now after they've been cast out of Europe in a fit of anit-immigrant bloodletting. "Tolerant, secular" liberals will piss and moan and then go about enshrinng the remains of those poor Muslim's restored ghettoes to promote how multicultural they are after the offensive burka-wearers have been assimilated or deported. Sort of like they're planning to do to blacks in New Orleans. (Conveniently enough, most black people in the US are devout Christians, so the black civil rights movement should offend you, too.)

[Catch22Dem]

25. Wow, so let's sum up your characterization of me, shall we?

First, I'm void of logic. Ok, I see your point, but I don't take to the streets as a result of my offense to religion. I don't damage property, call for beheadings, or threaten violence in any way. I simply voice my opposition to offense over anything that criticizes religion as a result of my indifference to religion and the religious beliefs of others. My end goal is to desensitize people to matters of religion.

Second, the Nazi comparison. Very nice. I'd say apples and oranges, but it's more like apples and fucking carburators. In absolutely NO way have I advocated doing anything whatsoever to prohibit the rights of people all over the Muslim world to protest that which they find offensive. If millions of Muslims choose to take to the streets in defense of their religion, more power to them. However, violence is never an option. If a protest turns violent, whether it's over a cartoon or the Iraq War, it doesn't matter, it should be stopped. If people are getting hurt, they've gone too far. As I've said, though, don't expect me to care about your religion. I'll care all day about your rights though, that's a promise. So, my indifference to religious matters does not warrant your cute little Nazi remark.

Third, I want to push Muslims out of the western world, and apparently the blacks (not all of them, just the New Orleans ones) as well. :eyes: Did I ever say ANYTHING about finding Muslims offensive? Certainly not. I find their religion offensive, but not any more than Chritianity and I'm not looking to move the Christians out of the western world either. Although, if you could give me 10 or so, I'd start with Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, and a few others, and go from there. No one should be forced to live anywhere they don't wanna be. My stand is, "I don't give a fuck what your religion is, but don't get offended that I don't give a fuck."

Last, I'm against the Civil Rights Movement because most blacks are Christians. One of the dumbest things I've ever heard said about me, but whatever. The civil rights movement was one of the single most important events in the 230+ years of this nation. To accuse me of thinking otherwise is complete bullshit.

[stillcool]

9. very cool site!....

you've got a lot going on there!..:hi:

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. The analogy is based on offense. You read to far.

Look at this pic:

Should a Philadelphia newspaper, for example, publish this knowing that it would greatly offend and possibly cause violence? Is that threat of violence a impediment to thier free speech?

[LoZoccolo]

5. Yeah, rock on! Guy with no face!

:woohoo:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catch22Dem]

11. A more realistic analogy

The newspaper prints a Dick Tracy cartoon where there was a horrible car accident. Someone who was in a horrible car accident is offended by it. Did the newspaper do anything wrong?

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. That is not a realistic analogy at all.

You can be facetious about it, obviously.

The issue deserves better treatment than that.

[Catch22Dem]

14. That's exactly the analogy

Let's not forget this whole thing is about a cartoon that offends some people, whereas you're talking about an actual photograph.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. And therein lies your lack of understanding

it's not just a "cartoon". It's a depiction of a sacred religious Prophet which is deeply offensive to many millions.

As offensive as seeing a dead relatives picture used to sell newspapers.

This isn't Archie and Jughead.

[Catch22Dem]

19. That's the second time you've accused me of that.

Look, I respect your position on this matter, but I simply don't agree with you. You accuse me of not understanding (twice now) but I do. I understand the anger people feel about this, but you're confusing my lack of sympathy for a lack of understanding. I simply don't care about it. Call me callus, call me insensitive, call me an asshole if you like, but don't accuse me of not understanding.

Here's the deal, I think the entire world, all religions, need to re-think the validity and importance of religion itself. I aproach this with the same zeal as a missionary trying to prostelytize a nation of "heathens." So, where these folks are deeply offended that their beliefs have been trampled upon by a cartoon depicting their prophet as...um...a cartoon, I'm just as offended that ANYONE could actually give a shit. Believe me, my belief structure is deeply rooted in years of skepticism, and when I see this stuff, my blood boils at all religions. I won't apologize for it any more than a devout Christian would apologize for their love of God.

So, I'm not going to apologize for a paper re-printing it because I don't think it's wrong to do so. I'm also going to disagree with your rape and accident analogies because they reference real people in real situations. They're not cartoons, they're photographs.

But I will say, once again, I respect your position, and I bear no ill will toward you at all.

[SPKrazy]

20. And, It was a dumbassed thing for the newspaper to print it

They had to know it would fuel anger

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. Exactly. What if that Philly newspaper printed this:

Should they be surprised if a rock or two gets thrown thru thier window? Is that an assault on "free speech"?

Of course not. Thanks for cutting to the meat of the issue.

[Catch22Dem]

26. So, are you saying a cartoon about Mohammed

Is representative of an entire race of people? Since Muslims aren't a "race" is a cartoon about him representative of an entire religious group? The reason I ask is because the above cartoon IS offensive because it is meant to represent an entire race of people. That, to me, is the fundamental difference. Now, if that cartoon was about one person, ONE person, like Jesus, for example, then no it wouldn't be nearly as offensive. If that cartoon said "Even when Jesus is stone sober, his speech is slurred..." becuase that would be about Jesus, not an entire race.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Do not read into my analogy beyond what was specified.

It is my analogy, after all.

The fact that the picture is offensive is enough.

The decision to print considering the results is the crux.

[phrenzy]

28. YES - physically threatening them w/ beheadings, etc

and burning down the newspaper building certainly ARE threates to free speech.

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. You avoided the central point of the post:

Obviously newspapes have freedom of speech to print something like this:


But if they know that they are likely to cause huge offense and perhaps spark violence, should they print it?

Should they print it just to prove they can exercise free speech, in spite of the consequences?

[QC]

32. False analogy.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm