Freedom of speech in Scandinavia

[mogster]

An anti-racist demonstrator at Hillebro are being arrested. Around 100 demostrator was arrested as they demonstrated against a demo by the neo-nazi party Danish Front.


The cartoon of Jesus by Christoffer Zieler that Jyllands-Posten cencored in April 2003, reason: 'We don't think our readers will be amused. In fact, we think there will be a public outcry'.

From:


to


The front page of the (supposedly liberal) Norw. paper Dagbladet a week ago, before these cartoons was published. The upper picture contains the word 'ghetto', which is removed for archiving purposes as the article sinks below the first huge ad. That is; the word exists only when the article is top news.
Self cencorship, and an ugly example of journalism in the NWO. For the record; I live in that 'ghetto' and was very offended by this.


The logo of the band Gatas Parlament. The grafitti says; 'Norway out of Iraq'.
In 2003 they published an anti-Bush website depicting Bush as a shooting target, one the domain www.killhim.nu. It was taken down on the request of the US embassy in Oslo. And frankly; I could understand why. But it wasn't threat against Bush, it was an example of Norw. humor meeting reality. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, one must adapt to other people's feelings.
Here's some of the graphics from the web:



The Norwegian journalist Petter Nome who, early in 2003, was taking a very public stand against the war in Iraq.
He was about to become a spearhead for the movement, with connections in many countries.
He was to lead the popular summer prog. 'Sommeråpent' on the state channel, but was forced to resign due to his role as a peace activist.

People, freedom of speech isn't absolute. It never was.

This is what's called double standards. The so called 'western' culture is full of double standards, and the printing of the Mohammed-cartoons was an example of how we pick our 'freedoms' to suit our politics.

Peace, Muslims. We're learning ;-)

[vi5]

1. You're right, we really all need to watch what we say.

Maybe the republicans are right. We all really need to watch what we say and should limit what gets published and reported.

I'm really confused. Are what a sizable number of people on here saying is that because they censored stuff previously that censorship is o.k.? Are they saying that because a cartoon offended a group that they have the right to act on violence? I wish someone would clarify this because it's really troubling to me to hear either one of those things on a liberal democratic message board. Would it be o.k. if Christians in this country rioted and destroyed property because they were offended that this Book of Daniel show wasn't censored?

If the point is simply that Scandanavia or wherever else these were published does not have the right to claim freedom of speech to justify the publication of these photos in light of their past acts then I would agree with that and apologize profusely for any confusion on my part in this whole deal . But freedom of speech IS an absolute and we should be more offended by the fact that they DIDN'T publish that earlier stuff than by the fact that they DID publish what they did that set this off.

[CJCRANE]

2. You're twisting the argument nt

[vi5]

3. No, I"m asking the questions......

Do people think they should have censored or not published these cartoons because they might have been offensive?
Do people think that the publication of offensive material justifies violence?

Very simple. Like I said if the argument is that Scandanavia has not previously supported freedom of speech as an absolute then that is a very different argument to make as long as the indignation is that there would be censorship in a free society not "they censored that stuff so they should have censored this too"

[mogster]

6. Not censorship

> Do people think they should have censored or not published these cartoons because they might have been offensive?

How about; common sense and a friendly approach? Norway has had that as a policy for many years.

> Do people think that the publication of offensive material justifies violence?

Look at the first picture. It depicts a bodily reaction to free speech.

> they censored that stuff so they should have censored this too

You've finally got it.
I'll advise you to go back to 2004 and read about the Republican convention and how freedom of speech was subdued then.

Lockdown Manhattan
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/09/09_404.html

[vi5]

9. I'm still very confused then...

Who defines what is common sense and friendly?

Should this Book of Daniel show have been cancelled or not aired because it might have offended some segment of the christian population? What about the Last Temptation of Christ?

Should Cindy have been escorted out because her shirt might have offended some segment of the american population?

Should that Tom Toles cartoon of Rumsfeld and the amputee soldier not been run, or should all those Ted Rall cartoons not been run because it might have offended someone?

Should we stifle our speaking out against the war because it might embolden the terrorists to attack american troops or make military families feel bad?

All I know is that my answer to all of these above question is no, and that every one of those things should be allowed and that it offends me that anyone believes that they shouldn't be.

So i don't see how in good conscience I can say that all of those things SHOULD be allowed but what was published that set off this firestorm SHOULD NOT be. The same logic is being and has been used by the right to justify stifling all of the above examples of speech. We all have our own takes on freedom of speech, but unless there's some universal arbitrator of what is common sense and what is friendly or what level of satire and offensiveness is acceptable then I don't see how censoring or stifling freedom of speech in any of it's forms is justified.

[mogster]

15. This argumentation technique is very interesting

To align this situation with the inner struggle of the US ;-)
This has nothing to do with US domestic policy, and you know that.

> Who defines what is common sense and friendly?

You. If you carry the power to start war with a billion people, this is your responsibility.

Freedom is a knife, just as religion is a knife. I have a zillion pictures that compares the Republican movement to the Nazi movement. I chose not to publish them, because I tried at home and saw that it hurt people. Norwegian-Americans. I also saw that this would hurt my country's relationship with the US, because if there's one thing the neocons can't stand, it's being called nazi's.
In general; I have behaved when I'm here in the US because I respect the right of other people to have dissenting views. Besides, any Norwegian is an ambassador for his country

You have two things wrong in your argumentation:
- the US government is in control and the examples you list is dissent from that control. The Muslims is threatened into silence, like the dissent in the US, they have no voice except violence.
- you take the view that this is a stand between two opposites, and that the process that led up to where this became an international issue isn't visible. To me it is, and I know that there's more to this publishing than meets the eye.

Peace.

[vi5]

18. Please see my addendum response below...

I had not looked at your profile and seen that you are from Norway. As I stated this is obviously very different in terms of our countries and the impact that such a publication would have there versus here.

Here there are numerous and many publications that publish offensive things on a daily if not an hourly basis and reactions are extremely different because of the size, scope and difference in the culture.

I still believe in freedom of speech as an absolute for all viewpoints and decry violence in all it's forms. But arguing that in the US versus another country that I am not familiar with is obviously very different.

However, there have been a lot of people on here as of late who are from the US who have been supporting and encouraging certain policies and stifling of views that less than weeks before were decrying the same tactics and that was the crux of my initial bewilderment over this issue. Yes, the political dissent issue is a different one. But here in the US there are at least dozens of examples probably over the past couple of months alone of extremist christian groups making veiled threats to certain groups and entities if they do not pull or censor things which they find offensive. Hell, you could have an intense argument even amongst nothing but Christians as to what is offensive and what should be censored.

[mogster]

19. I'm sorry for being so crappy, vi5

I'm just scared for Norway and us all.

Please note:
The man in the first picture could have been me, and it would have been no big deal. You raise your voice, it get's taken down. Out of it comes some kind of change, because no action - however how unjust it seems - is absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.
It's called democracy.

At home, this will make a change for the good, because the ethnic Norwegians has discovered that the world is closer than they think. The immigrant Norwegians often comes here as refugees from war and poverty, and they don't like the extreme reactions of burning our flag or embassies more than the ethnic Norw. community. They are Norwegians now.

I'm more worried about the world situation, and how this will inflict upon a desicion to go to war against Iran.

[mogster]

4. Then why was

Cindy arrested?

Isn't the censorship already present?

My point was double standards, not freedom of speech. Of course we have the right to offend a billion people, we just did.

Some years ago, these three terms was unassailable:

- Freedom
- Democracy
- Freedom of speech

The whole world knew the values of these words, wether they supported them or not.

Today the interpretation is different.
- Freedom (means our freedom, and the right to attack a country based on fake data and bring hell into their daily lives)
- Democracy (means cheating as hell in elections, and subdue the opposition)
- Freedom of speech (means that any political point of view can be subdued as long as it goes against the policy of government)

The Muslims reaction isn't because of the Mohammed-cartoons, it's because of our double standards and harsh attack on the countries where most Muslims live. Attacks that has the same feel and tone as this defence of the right to free speech.

That doesn't excuse this violence, and my apology does not extend to the people that burn down our embassies.

But, in the name of true free speech, let's talk about it.

[vi5]

5. Then I totally agree with you....

Arresting Cindy was wrong. Stifling dissent is wrong. Censorship either by the government or self censorship as the result of threats of action or violence is wrong. And yes, yes, a thousand times yes, a double standard on any of this is wrong, wrong, wrong. And I apologize if I misinterpreted your post. But there have been more than a few posts on here as of late that do seem to be justifying the violence and do seem to be saying that these cartoons should have been censored simply because they would offend a certain group. And all of this flies directly in the face of what we should be fighting for and what we should be indignant about. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post as such.

But a lot of the arguments that people are making on here could easily be turned around on us our on speech that we support so in good conscience I could never support that position whether it applies to speech I agree with OR speech that I disagree with.

[mogster]

7. My country's embassy was burned down, friend

My heart bleeds today.

I'm not an apologist for violence, but I won't allow myself to be dragged into this very simple and staged battle.

Because I'm free :-)

[UL_Approved]

8. You should watch what you DON'T say

The cartoon on Jesus should have run. No religious caricature except for the purpose of purveying violence or discrimination against other people should be censored. This removal of anti-NAZI protesters is bull, since they have a right to dissent (unless they used violence). The total outcry over this will have to unfold.

One thing is certain: this is a critical breaking point. I hope that it brings about positive resolution, not negative.

[mogster]

10. There are many things I don't say

But maybe they need to be said as well?

Previously:
'Some people' needed a reason for going to war with Iran. But they were weak because of poor support from the population, and Iran doesn't pose as a credible threat. Then twisted rumours appear that confirms the threat. Many more signs seems to build up on this.
Later, a set of cartoons that has the power to increase anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world are published by extremist Christians.

Now:
We're set for the Apocalypse.

[vi5]

11. I had not read your profile...

I did not realize that you were from Norway. This is obviously a much closer and real situation for you and far beyond the hypotheticals that we are discussing on a message board form. I still believe everything i am saying on here and that freedom of speech is an absolute. But my understanding of the situation is obviously vastly different than what you are facing right now over there.

I'm not religious or a believer, but my thoughts and best wishes are with you and your country.

[mogster]

16. Thank you!

:-) I'm not a religious man either, but I have a big heart both for Americans and the Muslim countries.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. I think DU

like many in the world, is confused and troubled by this paradox.

Interesting article... and I always thought the Scandinavians were beacons of freedom. Maybe there aren't any beacons.

[JCMach1]

12. Racism in Europe is palpable in ways I never feel in the U.S.

This will be a huge ongoing problem as European countries face-down demons they thought exorcised a half-century ago...

[billbuckhead]

14. You must not know the US very well

If Muslims can't get along with Scandinavians, they aren't going to get along with anyone. Wherever Islam meets other religions or nonreligion there is strife. India, Phillippines, Africa, Indonesia, it's not just Europe.

[JCMach1]

22. When was the last time you traveled and talked to people in europe?

[JCMach1]

23. I am American... I know the US very well thanks...

and yes there is racism in the U.S.

Over the past few years as I have travelled in Europe, I have be shocked at how much racism there is... even among friends and colleagues I know to be good liberals.

It is VERY real. And yes, I believe the problem is currently worse than what we face in the US.

[mogster]

17. We have a lot to learn from the US regarding racism

I have always carried that point of view. This is the primary reason I like your country.

And you Americans carry the key to solve this, by reinstating the democracy and supporting the elected president.

To be fair to Europe, remember I'm a European and so are the people depicted in the OP.

The picture isn't black or white ;-)

[Bosun]

20. some misleading pictures

The first picture shows a demonstrator being apprehended but what is not mentioned is that that one groups of demonstrators 'de autonome' threw bottles at the neo-nazi semonstartors and attacked the police with stones and other missiles. The police then separated them from the other demonstrators and apprehended 160 or so.

For those curious de autonome (the autonomous) are an anarchist/communist movement that is against capitalism, imperialism and racism. They also occupy houses and turn them into youth-houses.


The text of the Dagbladet.no tells of an immigrant who says that immigrants should move out of the ghettoes. The issue here is that non-western immigrants have a habit of settling in areas where their countrymen live. As a result the capital now has areas dominated by foreigners and schools where over half the student body consist of foreigners. The effects this has on integration should be obvious in terms of getting acquainted with Norwegian culture and language.

'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A ghetto is an area where people from a specific ethnic background or united in a given culture or religion live as a group, voluntarily or involuntarily, in milder or stricter seclusion.'

-Seems like an accurate use of the word to me.


So freedom of speech isn't absolute. Funnily enough this has all happened before. Years ago another holy prophet was insulted: Monty Python made 'Life of Brian'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/
This movie was in fact banned here (Norway) for its blasphemy. Now do you think it should not have been made out of consideration for Christians in Norway? Should Norway have responded with arson and boycotts?

[mogster]

21. Interesting, and thanks for kicking

But I come from a country where throwing some bottles at neo-nazis isn't considered a sin, besides I haven't taken a stand either for or against the demonstrator depicted. It is simply an illustration that freedom of speech is not absolute.

As for your second example, the paper uses the word ghetto (getto) on the front page while removing it from the archives. That is my point. It's self-censorship. Besides, ghetto has a definitive negative slant in Norwegian.
Look, this paper isn't all good or all bad, it's Dagbladet. But they have to, and will, receive criticizm of their work. As it happens, their political editors played a major role in making this case go big.

> Should Norway have responded with arson and boycotts?

You would be amazed at what levels of fire and brimstonethe Christians in Norway threatened to unleash at the time ;-)
As it happened it was censored, so we will never know to which extent they would take their threats.

This post isn't pro or con freedom of speech, it's to show that freedom of speech isn't absolute in a democratic society.

[trigz]

24. This debate could go on for a while

Mogster,

(ah, another Norwegian. Hei!)
It's not difficult to agree with your point of view that freedom of speech is not absolute, of course it isn't. The public discourse is kept within certain frames in any society. However I do not think that this is the issue at hand in the matter of the Muhammed pictures. For me, it's all about analysing the reactions of the extremist Muslims, particularly, of course, in the Middle East, and how those reactions have gone completely overboard. (See my own thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x329757 if you want to). Or, indeed, what level of respect such violent reactions deserve on our part (or, put less subtly, what exactly the f*ckers expect to get in return when they burn down our embassies).

However in the case of Dagbladet changing the ingress of the article, it would most probably have been the journalist himself publishing the article, poorly-edited, before a sub came along and altered it. I know enough about the pace of an internet news operation to assure you that this might very well have been the case. And, of course, journalists are stupid people and not at all as good with words as one might expect. I recently read an article at VG.no which claimed that Lillestrøm was the capital of Romerriket...(sic!).

In the case of the Muhammed pictures, I suppose anyone would agree that Vebjørn Selbekk is a provocative idiot and that the publication was completely unnecessary. But as I've said already, even though Selbekk is a prat, I'm going to defend his freedom to be a prat without having to go into hiding and receive death threats for his actions. And I think the reaction from the Middle East is despicable, over exaggerated and despotic.

[mogster]

32. Hi there, trigz

Good to see more Norwegians here :-)

It's a huge paradox, the freedom of speech, and this is such an interesting time to debate it. It seems the Muslims stumbled upon our hidden 'religion' by their reaction.

I'm sure the Dagbladet had less intention in their getto-ing than I put into it, but I like to beat them around the bush for it because I live in that area ;-)

I had another interesting experience just before the US election in 2004, at another board.
Now, this was about a user that registered with the nick 'assassinatebushnow', presumably an American girl if I remember correctly, and posted a couple of posts under that nick. Along comes a Republican (moderate) and says the admin should tell the user to change that nick because it threatened Bush, and the admin agreed.
So, the user changed the nick to 'dropbushnotbombs', and everyone but me was happy.

Why? Because if you choose to interpret the first nick verbally as a hostile suggestion towards the Prez., you should also interpret the second nick that way - else there's no logic. And to drop Bush from a B2 would fit into the unacceptable category, seen from a govt. perspective.
Maybe the reason was because the word 'drop' was interpreted as 'time to drop Bush', but then the assassination could also be a political assassination. Or just some in-the-moment inspiration after a :beer: or two, I don't know. I didn't percept the user as violent in any way, this was a board for moderates.

Anyho, it show how useless it is to try to regulate free speech of ordinary people into a setting where it is acceptable logically.
For a publication of some consequence different rules apply, and this episode should never have been embraced by the established newspapers, but left to die in silence on the page of that little extremist rag. Then, if he was threatened, the journalists could have shielded him by giving him publicity. But not as the beforehand announced 'now we're gonna print pics of Mohammed'-campaign it turned out to be. This was directed at the local Muslim community in Norway, and just turned bigger than expected.

Reason? The Danish Muslims used freedom of speech to tell the rest of the Muslim world about it to increase pressure. But they did not intend the violence to occur, just kinda rally support for their point of view at more official levels.

Welcome to the Scandinavian kindergarten, folks! :rofl:

[Eric J in MN]

25. Two wrongs make a right?

Police brutality against protesters in one country makes burning an embassy building in another country ok?

[PBass]

26. Freedom of speech is not without responsibility

I would like to see the folks defending the Mohammed cartoon to defend this same newspaper if they published a "holocaust denial" cartoon. Wouldn't that cartoon be "freedom of speech'? After all, some people really do deny the holocaust happened. Why are you censoring them? :sarcasm:

The fact is that some things can be classified as hate speech, and should not be defended. I believe the Mohammed cartoon can probably fall into that category. On the other hand, many of the other examples people are using in their arguments (Life Of Brian, Book Of Daniel, Piss Christ etc) can NOT be reasonably called "hate speech".

[Eric J in MN]

27. Personally, I haven't seen anyone defend the cartoons,

just the right to publish them.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. SINNER!!!

How dare you introduce logic!?

[PBass]

31. Oh, cute

But you haven't said anything... except that you are "Outraged by the outrage".

Free speech and hate speech are two different things. I do not support hate speech and I will not defend it.

The cartoon showing Mohammed with a bomb is hate speech, in my opinion.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Opinions

I think the cartoon with Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is beyond the pale, but hate speech? Possibly, but more just bigoted.

[mogster]

33. Pssst, BTA

You should give your point of view on this blogpost:

http://www.blogging.no/blog.php/otori/post/7781

I tried to politely ask him to take it away before the whole world thinks we're a racist nation, but he wants to provoke with his 'freedom of speech'. Use yours.

PS. If you need additional argumentation, he's supporting the Israel boycott :evilgrin:

[Behind the Aegis]

35. You should see the new picture he has up!

[mogster]

37. I answered him

I'm angry, this is so gross :evilgrin:

[Behind the Aegis]

38. I am glad.

Of course, I can't read Norwegian (remember my attempt to say "thank-you" to you a few months back? :))

[mogster]

39. I answered him in English, here:

"This is a giant stumble so gross it's fucking unbelievable

Skrevet av: mogster , 06.02.2006 kl. 21:27
So, which rock did you crawl out from under?

Is to be a Norwegian the same as being an ignorant blatant offending prick with an attitude? Do Norwegians live and breathe out of being asswipes with no direction in life but rubbing our offensive psychotic ramblings in other people's eyes? This 'artwork of speech' proves one thing; you can offend Jews as well as Muslims. And any other decent living being with it's obscenety, if that's the fucking point.

Listen up you son of a bitch: I do a lot of debating on the net and happens to meet with these people every day, and have to explain every moronic Norwegian outburst of racist idiocy to a lot of people _at length_, so why don't you get that fucking picture off the net!

Snap out of your bubble and get some air, you fucking brainless idiot."

I try to be friends with both Jews and Muslims, and these people doesn't actually help? :shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

40. WOW!

:applause:

[mogster]

41. I'm apologizing, BTA

I'm so sorry. I don't want to see this kind of rethoric being used, and I want to make a point here.

This is freedom of speech and it is hate speech, they come bundled these days it appears.

People, if you read this and don't like it, feel free to kick back. I mean, it's not an attack on free speech to respond with .. um .. even more free speech, no? :shrug:

But: no threatening words, just casual pissed off-ness.

I'll invite him here afterwards to see the debate.

[trigz]

47. Well, I reckon you fell for his trick

He obviously wants just those kinds of reactions to his stupid drawing to emphasise how people will react differently to different provocations under the banner of and in the name of freedom of speech.

The point being (without having studied his blog any further) that the culturally-hegemonistic framework from which you shape your opinions on right and wrong in terms of what can be expressed makes for differential reactions to different kinds of provocations.

Clearly the cartoon this guy has published is disgusting and repulsive. However he is using the same excuse that the editors that published the Muhammed drawings used to defend it. Your gut reaction to it comes from the same camp as the reactions of the average Muslim to the Muhammed drawings, only from a different cultural viewpoint.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly enough, so I'll repeat it in Norwegian (excuses to all non-Norwegian speaking readers):

Han vil selvsagt fremprovosere den samme reaksjonen fra deg som fra muslimene i forhold til disse tegningene. Du reagerer med avsky og sinne på samme måten som muslimene gjorde - bare fra et forskjellig kulturelt standpunkt. På samme måte som vi lever i et kulturelt referanserammeverk der antisemittisk dritt som dette reageres voldsomt på, legger muslimenes kulturelle rammeverk til grunn at alle fremstillinger av Muhammed skal reageres på like hardt. Med andre ord tråkker du i revefella hans.

[rockymountaindem]

45. Yeah, that makes me mad too

I wish people wouldn't publish stuff like that. I'm offended by that cartoon he posted there. If that dude owned a business, I wouldn't shop there. I wouldn't patronize his place of employment. I'd write some nasty words to him in Norwegian if I knew any.

However, I wouldn't go around attacking him violently (at least until he did something violent, or was announcing he would) or try to burn down his place of employment. I'm not going to extrapolate that all Norwegians feel that way, or anything.

That is the difference between a responsible reaction, and burning down the Danish embassy, see (I know you do, but others seem not to)?

[mogster]

46. I'll send him an email as myself

It makes me sad, but I think he's on a 'freedom of speech'-high. I'm gonna appeal to his good concience.

Why is suddenly every Norwegian hellbent on smearing our name, to offend others? :shrug:
Don't they understand that a non-Norwegian reading that post would see only the offense, not the real message?

I'm sure it's important to take this debate now, but sorry for dragging you in, BTA. Be sure to drop a link to this debate as well if you post somewhere about that picture.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all.
Do I have a right as a Norwegian to yell at other Norwegians for their freedom of speech? Yes, I have. It's their right to publish, it's my right to portion out critique verbally, and, as we live in the same society, I have a democratic right to further my values to oppose his. In his blog? Yeah - if he opens it for comments. I'd consider it my damned democratic duty to comment, to at least leave some clue about what other people think. And if he removes the picture as a response to my response, it wouldn't be a breach of the holy Speech but a sign of dialog.

No matter how rough that dialog becomes (I mean - he chooses a strong language here for starters), as long as it is kept under a certain set of rules:

There will be no consequences after the exchange except for what's in issue: wether or not he will remove that picture on my request.
There will be no hints of later consequences during the exchange to affect any of the participants in the exchange, during the exchange.

That's the juice of free speech. And it must of course be absolute, else there's no point in it.

My final question is; how the hell can we see this so different? Why am I so adverse to this kind of publishing while he uses it so freely? I schratch my head.

[mogster]

36. Some translation:

'Svar på kommentar' means Answer comment and if you want to answer the OP, scroll to the bottom.

Let's zing this guy! I'll help :evilgrin:
Then we'll lead him back to this constructive debate to see why we do mischief in his blog.

Freedom of speech, threads on the internet; with his attitude on 'freedom of speech' he should at least have pointed out to him that someone outside Norway reacts to this as well? :shrug:

[trigz]

29. The cartoons are

unnecessary, and there is no reason to defend them. Unless you want an escalation of the general conflict level in the world, of course, and if so, you're an idiot. But the right to publish the drawings is irrefutible.

[mogster]

43. And

So is the public debate about them ;-)

We need to level with the world, and this is an offense. This is a public blog, and the finer details goes past the non-Norwegians (He's actually provoking, and not an anti-semite). I like to use these examples to make a point from now on, because I don't like that kind of image sticking to my name.
We yell a bit about Norway now, but don't worry. This is a process going on in a lot of countries, and we need to dare that debate.

It is freedom of speech, bro! :-)

[Igel]

42. I would defend the printing of the holocaust denial cartoon

if it were in the right context.

If all it did was express hatred, I wouldn't. But if holocaust deniers felt physically threatened and intimidated by Holocaust-defending Jews, afraid to speak up and engage in respectful speech, I wouldn't be averse myself to trying to draw a cartoon that depicted some of those Jews as Auschwitz guards, and even put cartoonists in their camp. If the dominant group engaging in intimidation were Mauritanians, I would make Mauritanians the camp guards. It would be hyperbole, but does anybody seriously want to claim that cartoons and caricatures never, but never, engage in hyperbole? P'shaw.

Forced obedience to a set of externally mandated rules is not tolerance. It's despotism. In a civil society, I have the right to say something offensive, but also the right to shut up and be civil. When I self-censor, I say things like, "X will find this offensive, so I shouldn't say it unless I have a damned good reason." Moreover, I do not have the right to intimidate; nor should I calmly tolerate being intimidated. In fact, if I feel intimidated by a section of society for expressing something that I find respectful, and get no reasonable dialog in response to it, I think I'd probably assert my right, and consider it a civic obligation.

Why the cartoons were published in Norway, I can't say. Sounds fishy and irresponsible to me, but I'm not concerned enough to look into it, and leave the publication there aside. The publication of them in Denmark I can understand, given the discussion that preceded and accompanied their publication; it was asserting a right in the face of perceived boorish behavior and unwarranted limitations on that right. Whether or not the perception was accurate, I can't say--perhaps van Gogh can, or maybe that's a completely irrelevant coincidence. Their publication in France and other countries might be an act of solidarity; it might be an act intended to enlighten their populations about what all the ruckus is about; it's doubtful that it's intended to show disrespect to Muhammed.

[EFerrari]

30. Those uniforms freak me out every time I see them.

:kick:

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Point is Europe values "Get along" more than "Free Speech" so....

When all those papers decided to keep reprinting the cartoon that was considered blasphemy by Europe's muslim population, it was a great big SLAP in the face of Europe's muslims and told them exactly where they sit on the totem pole in Europe which is right on the BOTTOM.


In the US, Free Speech reigns supreme and it is ok to tell a group "Suck it up. Words cant hurt you." In Europe, that is not how things are done. And if you tell them that, you are also telling them "YOu dont count."


I learned this lesson at the Anne Frank House where visitors take a poll and the Americans would all pick free speech and the Europeans would all pick freedom from being offended as the number one priority.

[Gullvann]

48. Since when, has violence constituted freedom of speech?

The demonstraters attacked police by throwing rocks and other missiles.