Comments on: A Free Speech Question

By: The Mahablog » Hate Speech and Its Consequences

The Mahablog » Hate Speech and Its Consequences — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:22:02 +0000

[...] Back during the Danish cartoon flap I mused over whether American news outlets were right not to republish the cartoons. Malkin was heading up a crusade to get those cartoons re-published all over America, saying that not publishing the cartoons was giving in to terrorists. I said in the earlier post that solidarity with the free speech of Danish newspapers was certainly a compelling stand. [...]

By: Elliott Lake

Elliott Lake — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:29:59 +0000

The cartoons were solicited by the paper’s editor in an effort to bait the Muslims in Denmark & incite racial hatred in the same manner as the Aryan Nations used to march in their parade in Coeur d’Alene every year, hoping to proselytize and to stir up violence–they aimed to start a race war in the US.

These cartoons were solicited, drawn and used for similar purposes. Why other papers re-printed them, I don’t know.
I do know that when the Aryans & other such groups sent out mailings with their hateful lies in them, I felt like having my mailbox exorcised.

No, of course rioting is no answer to the cartoons–but I can understand how things could easily get out of hand. The rioters were played rather skillfully, first by the editor & his cartoonists, then by the Saudis later.

By: Bozwellian

Bozwellian — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:57:05 +0000

Supposedly the cartoons were requested in order to attempt a dialogue..That they were taken and manipulated elsewise and seemingly easily as those in the Islam afaith have been viewing what appears as a reassugence with a vengence of those CRUSADES of oden times and perhaps, given all ..well, just the straw that broke the camels back and they need to assert THEIR position and demand the West layoff trying to REFORM them in Western image (which in way, is kinda’ Osama’s supposed contention as well…)
The Bushlers looked to Iraq as a place to get a “footprint” , they had been told that it was coming, the need to get off of Saudi sacred soil to ease things for the Royal RUlers there…Iraq was a “natural”..had good “global” position on the map, had oil and was so decimated from Saddam rule , was figured to be used as a BIG easy SHOWTIME EXAMPLE to all others of just how magnificent the USA powers were and to intimadate others into no further messings with US…Well, it has backfired and Osama and Iran and others ARE THRILLED with the Bush INEPTNESS which has USA in a quagmire using up valuable resources , bogging the military and draining the national treasury to support at the expense of programs and needs of the homeland citizenry..Osama and others never dreamed , ony prayed they could be so successful in achieving such results.
We are into the SIXTH year of bungles, bumbles and blunders by the Bush Brigade and we have the last three yet to endure and can but like but PRAY we survive and recover !! Suggest all cross their fingers for extra measures of luck…for we keep getting told God is BLESSING the USA and one wonders for sure if we can afford much more of Gos blessings as they are indeed being played out and about !!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:47:23 +0000

Propaganda and distraction from other things that are happening.

By: Swami

Swami — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:05:40 +0000

Every time maha points out that the Danish cartoons were baiting Muslims, I want to shout, “Yes! Yes!”

I think that they are more than baiting Muslims.. they are baiting us in the same way that Bush lumped various act of terrorism together in his State of the Union speech as being the product religious extremism rather than to address them as acts committed by perceived political injustices in different situations. The terrorist find strenght and consolation in their religious beliefs,but their motivations are political.. 9/11 was not carried out for religious reasons, it was done for political reason….If killing infidels was the goal than they could have had a greater success in attacking Hong Kong.

By: joanr16

joanr16 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:23:30 +0000

The Guardian editorial that maha links to strikes me as straddling the fence. It did clarify one important point, however. The editorial refers to “cartoons which, even though offensive and provocative, say something about uncomfortable issues that are central to the modern world.”

The caricatures of Muhammad are simply that, caricatures, and could just as easily have been spray-painted on the wall of a mosque by vandals. In no way do the cartoons, by themselves, “say something about uncomfortable issues.” (On the other hand, a cartoon that might have been published on 9/12/2001, showing Muhammad weeping over the terrible misinterpretation of his teachings, is easily defensible under the “Guardian doctrine.”) Every time maha points out that the Danish cartoons were baiting Muslims, I want to shout, “Yes! Yes!” The Danish publishers had to know what can happen when a sacred figure appears to be disrespected. And since the cartoons serve no other purpose (the fatuous “exercise in self-censorship” excuse notwithstanding), they served only to… gosh, bait Muslims. Indefensible, to my thinking. And unbelievably stupid.

As for the Toles cartoon, I’m still amazed that anyone can think Donald Rumsfeld is a sacred icon. Jeepers. Toles’ cartoon is a classic example of the kind described by the Guardian editorial. It can’t be much more specific in its commentary.

By: erinyes

erinyes — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:10:19 +0000

I certainly agree with your comment, Maha.
On Keth Obermans’ show last night, he asked a panel their take on the cartoons. The response to the cartoon depicting the “battle hardened” soldier and Rumsfield was negative, but nuanced among the three. My opinion about that cartoon (based on my life experiance of completing dangerous assignments at the requests of chair-butted superiors) the depiction is not dissing the soldiers, but slapping Rumsfield for his arrogance.
If I were a soldier on a second or third deployment in a hostile land for no good reason, watching my comrads getting maimed or worse, I’d be drawing some damning cartoons myself.
The people on these news shows need to be very cautious of what they say, it may cost then their jobs or worse, and this is the danger to free speech.At least things have “loosened up” a bit in the last year or so, people are not so quick to shout “Traitor!!” at dissenters. All but one of the hard core Bush supporters I know are VERY pissed at his performance ,calling him a liar “worse than Clinton”. Part of me is happy about this, but I realize there is over a year left in his term, and since he is has been anointed with a
reverse Midas touch”, this is a danger to the whole world.
As far as the Mohammed dissing goes, I’m sure the reaction of some of the Muslim hard core is intentionally trumped up to reinforce the “crazy Muslim” meme. Sane people know that not all Muslims are fanatic, just like all Christians are not rapture cultists, but it’s a whole lot easier convince people to accept the killing of crazy people than to accept killing innocent families in predator drone strikes and the torture of “suspected” terrorists.The whole world is watching.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:08:41 +0000

I’d just like to add that, as an elementary school teacher, “they did it first!” is the most frequently heard excuse for bad behavior. I spend a lot of time explaining that retaliatory behavior makes both people wrong. You’d think a lot of adults would have somehow gotten the idea. But no. Wars start this way, and we don’t have to think hard for examples of this!

By: maha

maha — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:16:04 +0000

Sorry, but I can’t see how cultural sensitivity and respect (which are good) should EVER trump a fundamental value in our own culture. … Why call for that just because its muslim fundamentalist culture?

That’s the essential question I was asking myself. I considered your point of view. However, I believe the essential point of the cartoons in question was to reinforce bigotry and bait Muslims. Republishing the cartoons amounts to enabling hatespeech. And I think the reason Malkin et al. on the Right have been obsessing over this story for the past several days is that it gives them a “righteous” cover for expressing their hate of Muslims. Leave me out of that, thanks.

By: Tito

Tito — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:21:06 +0000

Ok, there are two values in conflict here a) freedom of speech. b) “cultural sensitivity” for other cultures and values

As liberals we value both and they are in conflict in this situation. Yes the cartoons are dumb. But in this case, it’s blatant that many from another culture are calling for us to give up freedom of speech.

We’d are up in arms when our government tries to do this. What is so different here? “Because we need to be sensitive to their culture?”. Sorry, but I can’t see how cultural sensitivity and respect (which are good) should EVER trump a fundamental value in our own culture.

If we viewed christian fundamentalist culture with that kind of deference, we’d have packed it in a long time ago. Why call for that just because its muslim fundamentalist culture?