Should the Danish Cartoons of Mohamed have been published?

Question

It was a while ago, but lets bring the subject up again. If no why, if yes why?

Freedom of Speech and respect for religious beliefs.

One or the other or is it possible to have both?

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Answer 1

Just because someone has the right to say something, doesn't mean that is what he MUST say, just what he MAY say.

The question is whether the cartoons should have been published, not whether there should have been a law forbidding the cartoons from being published.

If the Danish paper choose not to publish the cartoons, no one's freedom of speech would be denied. If the government fined or jailed the publisher for publishing the cartoons, THEN that would be a violation of freedom of speech!

Answer 2

That some sect of some religion is unhappy with a cartoon in a newspaper in some other country should be of absolutely no concern to anyone. That is particularly true when it is remembered that the cartoons had previously been printed in countries primarily Islamic and there had been no outcry.

This was entirely a political effort by some Islamic leaders to work up their people against the west.

If we look at things from a perspective of individual freedoms, it is a competition between one philosophy which promotes individual freedom and another philosophy which minimizes the importance of the individual. From this it isn’t difficult for me to decide that I really don’t care about those Islamic sects that go on a rampage destroying property and killing people.

Answer 3

No, because the cartoon was racist - at a time in Europe when many are working hard to dispell the horrendous belief that all muslims are terrorists - the picture was insulting on many many levels. All the cartoon did was contribute to more hate on this belief.
It would just be like publishing a cartoon taking the mick out of 9/11. Deeply insulting to America, and indeed all those affected by the incident.

The way they expressed their anger was not at all on - i will not condone violence - but the cartoon was insensitive, and thoughtless.

Yes of course we have a right to publish whatever we want - but with that comes responsibility = sensitivity - care - consideration of what it will contribute to society. Especially for a newspaper. This cartoon did nothing.

Answer 4

Why not? Denmark is a democracy and freedom of expression is something that must be respected even when it appears to take disrespectful forms; flag burning, for example.

People take the Lord's name in vain all the time, even though that is as expressly forbidden in the Christian's Bible as creating images of old Mo' is in the Muslim Koran.

Besides, fundamentalists of ALL religious persuasions are fun to fvck with.

And the truth is, Mohamed was only p!ssed because most of the cartoonists exaggerated his already rather extraordinary nose. Always been a touchy thing with him.

PS: Can you people start listening to the tiny voices of the intelligent, modern, moderate Muslims so this faith can be rehabilitated and I transfer Mo' out of Hell? He's a crashing bore, frankly. And those awful wails he calls "music" are making the other guests in his section nuts.

Thanks

~B

Answer 5

Most people do practice both , but restriction of free expression is a greater threat to the common good than occasional upset over someone's expression.

I hadn't seen these cartoons before. The originals seem reasonable ,some making important points about oppression within Islam etc.
The images added for Muslim consumption however were just rude,crude and insulting. Not really the sort of quality you would expect in a European paper, so it's surprising Muslims were taken in by them . I didn't see the Iranian holocaust cartoons, but perhaps they were by the same people ?

Answer 6

Wow... Old question...

Of course. Freedom of Speech is what allows for freedom of religious expression, and therefore it trumps it. The cartoons were satirical. Satirizing as a form of critique is as old as religion. It keeps different groups involved in a conversation. I, for one, believe it's important that we not back down on the subject of radicalist Islam. As outsiders, we cannot suppress this increasingly dangerous force in the Muslim world. That is a job for the Muslim community at large. It is up to them to discourage the kind of radicalism that in the eyes of the rest of the world has beocme the face of Islam. I believe that this is the message of the cartoons: Muslims have allowed and encouraged a growing number of people to hijack the words of the prophet Mohammed and attack us, we are starting to see all of the peaceful honest Muslims as the exception and not the rule. Unfortunate.

Answer 7

Basically the editor seeked out cartoons from a bunch of artists. Only a few responded. There was no newsworthiness to them, basically he was just testing the boundaries, it's like pissing with a lion, let's see how much we can prod him before he bites off our arm.

THey should not have been published. There are too many poor muslims who are easily led by power hungry facists who use religion as a way to gain power over the masses.

Answer 8

Yes. Freedom of free speech is an unalienable right. There is no such thing as the right of "respect for religious beliefs", there is the right of freedom of religion. This right allows people to choose whatever religion they want to follow. It does not force people to respect these beliefs or to refrain from criticizing them

Answer 9

The depictions of Mohammad were offensive, but free speech gives people the right to offend other people. It would be nice if the cartoonists had shown more concern for how Muslims would respond to the cartoons, but they also had every right to publish them.

Answer 10

No, because its publication has hurt so many hearts. Although, its not a physical violence, non the less it's violence towards one group of people.
Freedom of speech is necessary in modern world, but if its going to hurt not few but millions of people of Islam faith, or any other faith, then that 'freedom of speech' is not acceptable to any one who has some knowledge of others religion or faith.