Right to offend

[Someday]

Looks like the Danes are at it again.
I am for freedom of speech, even if it's offensive. My question is why go out of your way to be offensive? Would they reprint purposely racist or sexist propaganda in the same manner just as proof of their right to print them? Having the right to say something does not mean you are free from whatever implications arise after you say it, does it?

blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Originally Posted by Someday

Looks like the Danes are at it again.
I am for freedom of speech, even if it's offensive. My question is why go out of your way to be offensive?

I wouldn't be surprised if they reprinted it just for publicity. Any mentioning of their paper is lilkely to increase circulation.

greets,
Peter

[Brad]

What the papers are doing are showing some solidarity with the original cartoonist.

Even if you believe that the cartoon was offensive (and I can understand that it could be to some Muslims if taken out of context), then is it not an example of a deluded mind to say that the cartoonist should be put to death?

I'll wager that however strongly someone posting in these forums believes in their faith, none would ever, or could ever, suggest that blasphemy should be punishable by death.

The cartoon has, actually, become self fulfilling. He drew it to show that some fundamentalist muslims are prepared to use violence in the name of their faith and he is now in fear for his life.

I'll always man the barricades against fundamentalists of any kind (there's enough on this forum to keep me busy), but these guys are criminally insane.

[Om wagishwari hum]

Originally Posted by Brad

What the papers are doing are showing some solidarity with the original cartoonist.

Even if you believe that the cartoon was offensive (and I can understand that it could be to some Muslims if taken out of context), then is it not an example of a deluded mind to say that the cartoonist should be put to death?

I'll wager that however strongly someone posting in these forums believes in their faith, none would ever, or could ever, suggest that blasphemy should be punishable by death.

The cartoon has, actually, become self fulfilling. He drew it to show that some fundamentalist muslims are prepared to use violence in the name of their faith and he is now in fear for his life.

I'll always man the barricades against fundamentalists of any kind (there's enough on this forum to keep me busy), but these guys are criminally insane.

A man can climb to the top of the highest mountain, explore the deepest depths of the sea, even leave the planet he calls home. But he will still be unwilling to leave the saftey and confines of his own mind

Love, Om

[Mycernius]

The original twelve cartoons were published and nobody caused a fuss when they first appeared. Then some fundie Muslims Imans found three other offensive cartoons, one which was proved not to be of Muhammad as a pig, but a French politician, and used these three cartoons as the main ones to stir up the hatred after going to Saudi to publise them along with the previously inoffensive twelve.
This was pointed out when the original fuss kicked off, but it seems that neither the west or the muslims want to know that. After all why let the truth get in the way of radical ranting and wilful ignorance.