"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

February 07, 2006
No One Is Laughing

I've been pondering what are rapidly being dubbed the cartoon riots.

In our society there's a feeling against publishing material that offend people racially or ethnically or gender-wise or sexually. Should "religiously" be added to that list? I'm not sure.

Since "religion" is a thing people choose, unlike the rest of the items on the list, it's "optional" and no sensible person is saying we should take care not to offend the optional beliefs of everyone on the planet. (If certain countries choose to try and make their religious affiliation indistinguishable from their ethnic heritage, that, again, is optional, so it doesn't change the equation that certain countries might try to mandate some specific religion.)

I do wonder why the cartoons originally printed* five or six months ago were picked up by the international press so recently.

Anyhow, since editorial/political cartoons are designed to make us think twice about something, should they be exempt from the normal rules? They're supposed to make us do a double-take.

Bottom line? No matter how you slice it, killing people over a cartoon, no matter how it offends you, is uncivilized. Anything up to and including non-violent demonstrations would have been acceptable.

Bottomer bottom line? Hate speech is unacceptable, no matter what group it's aimed at. But is it actually "hate speech" to take a group to task for how they implement their beliefs?


_____________________________


* Note, reading the interview, that the cartoons were commissioned. This isn't the exercise of a cartoonist's free speech being protested. Someone asked for cartoons about Muhammad, presumably unaware that images would be offensive.

So, ask yourself, is this kind of tit-for-tat behavior okay with y'all?

In my eyes, it's not the same thing. An image of a religious figure versus mockery (one presumes) of the deaths of millions of people? Iran would have been on more solid ground commissioning images of Jesus.


Update: Public Eye chimes in on the debate.

Update update:: Pen-Elayne was wondering the same thing about this timing. Unlike my lazy self, she went looking for an answer....

Posted by AnneZook at 09:12 AM


Comments

I liked Jonathan Reynolds point at Cliopatria this morning, that the Muslims rioting over disrespect fot the Prophet are skirting awfully close to shirk idolatry themselves, which is a grave (pardon the reference) sin in Islam.

Posted by: Ahistoricality at February 7, 2006 12:18 PM

If you're wondering "why the cartoons originally printed five or six months ago were picked up by the international press so recently," check my blog today. I was wondering the same thing, and I found out. It's those lovely Saudis again, apparently.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at February 7, 2006 01:53 PM