Skip to main content

View Diary: My Hero Jihad (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you know that (4.00)
    muslims were among the most vocal in support of protests against "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

    Do you know why?

    Don't get me wrong - I think that such protests were stupid, and I think that the outrage over these cartoons is way, way overblown.

    On the flip side, I think that the people at that newspaper are entirely hypocritical, have a racist, xenophobic agenda and are hiding that behind "Free Speech" with the willing assistance of many who cannot see beyond their naive and willing misunderstanding of what free speech really means.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:37:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I've looked at the cartoons more than a few times (none)
      now. Sorry... they are patently tame, and many of them are funny. This is a free speech issue, especially when such tame depictions are used to incite violence.

      There is nothing "naive" about my interpretation of free speech. Free speech is free and has no master... whether it be self-censorship or Muhammed. That is why it is even called "free".

      Now, if they supported the protests, it is likely because they also consider Jesus Christ a prophet. Unfortunately, they probably weren't supporting the freedom of the protest, but instead a restriction or ban of the speech and depictions about the prophet and the religion. Those who engaged in that are clearly enemies of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

      •  And so how do you interpret the (4.00)
        fact that the same newspaper refused to publish cartoons depicting Christ in offensive or insensitive ways, saying

        "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."?

        I interpret that as indicative of serious, fundamental hypocrisy. The fact that the same editorial board is now screaming and yelling about free speech indicates that they wouldn't know free speech from an anal lesion.

        And when we start talking about violence or intimidation against free press, why aren't we talking about multiple bombings of Al Jazeera HQ in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the killing of journalists in hotels (tank fire), at checkpoints, and by snipers...all carried out by the US military?

        Or are those questions just too complicated to deal with?

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 06:54:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From your link... (none)
          "In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten."

          "Unsolicited Cartoons"... that seems clear. I don't think that needs to be explained time and again because it is irrelevant. The paper has a right to print whatever it wants. They will likely solicit the work that they want.

          "I interpret that as indicative of serious, fundamental hypocrisy. The fact that the same editorial board is now screaming and yelling about free speech indicates that they wouldn't know free speech from an anal lesion."

          It actually has everything to do with their freedom of press and freedom of speech. They have a right to choose exactly what they will or will not print, and they are standing up for that right.

          "And when we start talking about violence or intimidation against free press, why aren't we talking about multiple bombings of Al Jazeera HQ in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the killing of journalists in hotels (tank fire), at checkpoints, and by snipers...all carried out by the US military?"

          A lot of people do talk about that, but this is a current story which is causing massive turmoil around the world right now in places which are not warzones. It stands out.

          "Or are those questions just too complicated to deal with?"

          They aren't too complicated, unless you are confused about free speech and the freedom of the press. Most of us don't support US actions in the mideast, so it is not the best example for you here. Looking for "moral parity" of these militant Muslims with something that most of us disagree with is a silly exercise at best.

          •  Sorry, (4.00)
            But that editor's statements, and your own, are pretty weak tea. That's a cheap dodge at best.

            The fact that the Christ cartoons were rejected, and the explicit reasons given for that rejection, indicates a serious double standard.

            That double standard indicates that the cries of "Free Speech" in this case, are specious.

            The fact that unsolicited cartoons were rejected out of hand, and that the paper was actively looking for cartoons that were directly intended to insult a huge demographic speaks for itself.

            There is an agenda at work, and the editors and apologists for that agenda are hiding behind free speech.

            Don't get me wrong - I support the right to be stupid and say stupid things (I think insulting other peoples' religions is pretty stupid, even though I am strongly atheistic - I do not participate much in religious arguments unless directly asked).

            If that paper had published both cartoon series, I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever. But publishing one and not the other, just like allowing the KKK to march and speak and denying the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers (which has happened in many US cities), is indicative of hypocrisy, double standards, and specific agendas.

            The free speech argument does not fly in this case, just as the right to free speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:20:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Newspapers (none)
              aren't public propert, which is at odds with everything you wrote there.

              A newspaper has the right to print whatever it wants to print. They do not need to have images of anything that they don't want to, and that isn't a double standard.

              It is there freedom of speech and press to publish whatever they wish to. They aren't hiding behind it... it is the exact right they have with a paper that is their own private and intellectual property.

              "The free speech argument does not fly in this case, just as the right to free speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater."

              It actually does fly. People have a right to publish whatever they want to.

              You honestly believe they don't have the right to publish what they want to? Well I do.

              •  Your understanding of Free Speech (none)
                is shallow.

                A newspaper has the right to print whatever it wants to print.

                No, it doesn't. In addition to libel and slander, newspapers have a huge list of things that they are not allowed to print, for numerous reasons (National Security, Public Safety, Incitement, and so on).

                The right to Free Speech with respect to News Media does not include the right to publish whatever they want. Not even close.

                The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:34:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your comments and mentality are shallow (none)
                  Opinion pieces, political cartoons, and satire are allowed any statement they wish to make, and receive the highest, most absolute protection of free speech.

                  Have you ever seen a political cartoon in a newspaper of Bush that would be considered libelous or slanderous? I'm willing to bet most have.

                  Truly, a paper can publish whatever they want, especially if they use these devices to do so.

                  •  Find me a cartoon (none)
                    of Bush, published in a major print newspaper, that shows Bush snorting cocaine.

                    Find me a cartoon showing Laura Bush running over her ex-boyfriend.

                    Find me a cartoon showing W fucking a goat. Or a cartoon showing W plotting with Osama and planning the 9-11 attacks.

                    If you can find me those kinds of cartoons, then you have a point.

                    If you cannot, then you need to think about the definitions of "Libel" and "Slander" and wonder why such cartoons have not been printed/published...because you know that such cartoons have been drawn or conceived.

                    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                    by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:47:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jay Leno did a skit of a Bush head with a sweeper (none)
                      for a nose and he cleared line after line of cocaine with it.

                      These things exist throughout society, and you can buy anti-semitic and anti-muslim books. I'm not your  personal researcher so you'll have to open your eyes a little wider and find that information for yourself.

                      I know the definitions of slander and libel... I was an Editor of the opinion section of a newspaper. Guess what... you do have a right to say what you want in print.

                      There are more than enough "white power" websites and books in our society to make your commentary entirely baseles.

                      •  You were an editor, too! (none)
                        my GAWD!

                        It's a swarm! Both you AND Kraant were editors!

                        What a coincidence!!

                        And you are flat wrong - you CANNOT print "whatever you want".

                        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                        by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:59:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Except.. (none)
                          that I've done it. I've actually printed things that would make you squirm. I don't expect to see legal action any time soon either, but thanks for sharing your opinion and lack of experience on the issue.
                          •  It's not a question of (none)
                            printing things that would "Make me squirm" it's a question of basic journalistic ethics, the law, and the relationship between free speech and the press.

                            As an editor you are NOT allowed to "print whatever you want" - until we reach a basic agreement on that point, this discussion is pointless (and annoying).

                            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                            by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:20:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (none)
                            read the link I left for you below to actually get a grasp of the reality of libel and slander. They aren't what you think, and opinion, political cartoons, and satire all are capable of allowing a person to publish whatever they want and have a strong legal footing.
                        •  If you want to educate yourself though (none)
                          Here is the link through which you can easily scroll down to US law on the matter.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          Here's a money quote for you:

                          "In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest."

                          This is the standard I used as an editor, and most others do as well.

                      •  Oh, and the fact that (none)
                        you seem to be unable to discern between a website, a book, a newspaper column, an editorial, and a political cartoon leads me to believe that you were either a) not an editor of anything, or b) a really bad one.

                        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                        by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:01:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't see where (none)
                          I was not able to discern the difference. Free speech and free press are pretty universal in all of those areas. They all revolve around private property as published works.

                          I suppose you know something the rest of the world doesn't know, like the real discernible difference between avenues of free speech.

            •  Thank you (none)
              If that paper had published both cartoon series, I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever. But publishing one and not the other, just like allowing the KKK to march and speak and denying the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers (which has happened in many US cities), is indicative of hypocrisy, double standards, and specific agendas.

              The free speech argument does not fly in this case, just as the right to free speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

              Thank you for your amazingly logical and coherant argument. I bow my head in awe and trembling at your  amazing skill in weaving your opinion. I am utterly convinced and submit unconditionally to you. I wish to be your love slave and bear your children.

              Yet again. Thank you for posting.

              •  No, no, (none)
                thank YOU for inciting my creative and intellectual talents to such heights.

                The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                by RedDan on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:49:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site