Monday, February 06, 2006
Cartoons and Chaos
There are a lot of people out there that seem to have major issues/problems with cartoons.
The real question is: where does freedom of speech end and defamation (libel and slander) begin? And if someone is offended what amount of compensation are they entitled to, to make them whole again? Do they deserve retribution? This is also an issue of freedom of speech and the press.
Here are some people's take on the subject:
A cartoon of their own, Iran following the lead, The Syrians, Michelle Malkin, Insults Unpunished, Little Green Footballs
Is it perhaps a bit too selective?
Here is something by a Kranky Konservative.
The real question is: where does freedom of speech end and defamation (libel and slander) begin? And if someone is offended what amount of compensation are they entitled to, to make them whole again? Do they deserve retribution? This is also an issue of freedom of speech and the press.
Here are some people's take on the subject:
A cartoon of their own, Iran following the lead, The Syrians, Michelle Malkin, Insults Unpunished, Little Green Footballs
Is it perhaps a bit too selective?
Here is something by a Kranky Konservative.
Comments:
<< Home
Let's assume for a moment that the Danish newspapers' depictions of Mohammed were defamatory. If that is the case, injured parties should receive recompense in accorandance with the law. In most cases across the West, the question would be settled in court.
The problem with militant Islam is that adherents do not respect systems other than their own. There is no respect for the laws of other countires, other religions, other cultures. We don't see Muslims across the globe clamoring for the Danish paper to be sued; we see them clamoring for blood.
So, let them boycott Danish products. Let them cancel subscriptions to papers that reprint the cartoons. These are peaceful and lawful protests against practices with which they do not agree. But militant Islamists must understand that Western culture has laws that are just as sacred to individual freedom as their laws are to practicing Muslims. Western civilization should not change its tradition of respect for due process or individual freedom for any reason - religious belief, or otherwise.
The problem with militant Islam is that adherents do not respect systems other than their own. There is no respect for the laws of other countires, other religions, other cultures. We don't see Muslims across the globe clamoring for the Danish paper to be sued; we see them clamoring for blood.
So, let them boycott Danish products. Let them cancel subscriptions to papers that reprint the cartoons. These are peaceful and lawful protests against practices with which they do not agree. But militant Islamists must understand that Western culture has laws that are just as sacred to individual freedom as their laws are to practicing Muslims. Western civilization should not change its tradition of respect for due process or individual freedom for any reason - religious belief, or otherwise.
Here's the Liberty Belles Take:
http://toughlove.catallarchy.net/blog/2006/02/03/those-darn-cartoons/
http://toughlove.catallarchy.net/blog/2006/02/03/those-darn-cartoons/
Bloggledygook:
(Also main page today- http://www.bloggledygook.com/bloggledygook/)
http://www.bloggledygook.com/bloggledygook/2006/02/some_muslim_voi.html
(Also main page today- http://www.bloggledygook.com/bloggledygook/)
http://www.bloggledygook.com/bloggledygook/2006/02/some_muslim_voi.html
Betsy's Page:
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/
02/daniel-pipes-looks-at-what-is-stake-in.html
NY Sun:
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=27151
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/
02/daniel-pipes-looks-at-what-is-stake-in.html
NY Sun:
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=27151
The Irish Examiner:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story
/did-sgb0plVOt-0ywsg7IQHSmeYhNE.asp
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story
/did-sgb0plVOt-0ywsg7IQHSmeYhNE.asp
Sheldon Richman says this:
http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2006/02
/need-this-be-said-perhaps-so.html
"Threatening or using violence against the person or property of anyone who has not initiated or threatened force when one's own life is not in peril can have no justification whatsoever. Religiously offensive cartooning -- even if intentionally provocative -- is no exception to this basic rule of civilization. Each individual who is tempted to join a violent mob has the power to think about what is doing -- and to abstain from doing it. If he goes ahead anyway, he is a monster. Period."
http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2006/02
/need-this-be-said-perhaps-so.html
"Threatening or using violence against the person or property of anyone who has not initiated or threatened force when one's own life is not in peril can have no justification whatsoever. Religiously offensive cartooning -- even if intentionally provocative -- is no exception to this basic rule of civilization. Each individual who is tempted to join a violent mob has the power to think about what is doing -- and to abstain from doing it. If he goes ahead anyway, he is a monster. Period."
Here's an editorial from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=5494602
Post a Comment
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=5494602
<< Home
