|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 402 of 432:
| 
Feb 22 21:46 UTC 2006 |
They're both a strong ally and partner and they work very closely with us in
sharing important intelligence.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 403 of 432:
|
Feb 22 22:55 UTC 2006 |
AND they back the TALIBAN!
|
tod
|
|
response 404 of 432:
|
Feb 22 23:17 UTC 2006 |
UNCLE WIGGLY is secret code for TALIBAN UNOCAL
<eats note and wraps aluminum foil on head>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 405 of 432:
|
Feb 22 23:23 UTC 2006 |
hamid kharzai MAYOR OF 3/4ths OF KABUL!
|
tod
|
|
response 406 of 432:
|
Feb 22 23:44 UTC 2006 |
MIXED ACCOMPLISHMENTS!
|
richard
|
|
response 407 of 432:
|
Feb 23 00:56 UTC 2006 |
re #399 Mary, one of the cartoons printed was depicting Jesus Christ,
Moses, Buddha and Mohammed in front of a television showing two groups
of people about to start a fight. The caption read "We did not teach
them to do that..." So obviously it is in err to call Jyllands-Posten
bigoted. They refused the earlier cartoons about Jesus probably
because there was no larger statement to make. Those aren't the kind
of cartoons you publish with just the intent to be entertaining. With
these cartoons they were trying to make a larger statement, not just be
entertaining.
|
richard
|
|
response 408 of 432:
|
Feb 23 01:08 UTC 2006 |
Other said:
"I don't think it was at all apropriate of the Jyllens-Posten to solicit
and publish these cartoons originally, but I do think it entirely
appropriate once the response gathered steam that other news agencies
republished them to inform their constituencies about the conflict and
its causes. Grex has no such role or responsibility, and for Grex to
republish these cartoons would be an act of unvarnished affrontery which
serves no justifiable real or symbolic purpose."
I disagree. Jyllens-Posten was trying to make a political statement,
which they have the right and even the responsibility to do on their
editorial pages when they feel it is warranted. When you have a press
that cowtows and refuses to do anything that offends, you have a weak
and ineffective press. You have a press that is CONTROLLED, as opposed
to a press that is truly free.
IMO those cartoonists have now become martyrs, heroes for the cause of
free speech. History is filled with examples of mass censorship
enforced by violence and of those who fought that censorship by any
means necessary. The radical muslims think that they can FORCE
repression of these images by rioting and violence, and burning
newspaper offices down. Every act of violence, and there have been
more today, should make each of us angrier and more resolved to fight
the censorship.
Grex's raison d'etre is to provide a censorship-free conferencing
environment where anybody can say anything about anything. Surely you
can see that if any of us accept even one small attempt at censorship,
we are giving in to the system and endangering the whole ideal. These
people want to censor those cartoonists, to repress their work and to
repress any others who attempt work like theirs. Other seems to be
saying that this is okay, that nobody else need get involved in the
issue, "let'em censor" I'm saying you can't take a principled stand
against censorship if you don't stand up against it in every shape and
form.
Grex reposting those cartoons is standing up against censorship,
EXACTLY as posting that free speech blue ribbon was. If I had to
choose between not offending someone and accepting censorship, I'll
offend someone every day of the week. Because those cartoonists
freedom of speech could damn well be my own, and your own, at any given
time.
|
crimson
|
|
response 409 of 432:
|
Feb 23 01:35 UTC 2006 |
#408 indulges in fallacy. There isn't an either-or between "Grex posting the
pictures on the home page" and "Grex kowtowing to censorship," or "not
offending someone and accepting censorship," either. The newspaper's editorial
page is an editorial platform for advancing the political opinions of the
newspaper; Grex's home page is not.
|
other
|
|
response 410 of 432:
|
Feb 23 02:32 UTC 2006 |
Yes, #408 presents a false dichotomy. This is not a black and white
issue, and the appropriate response is definitely grey.
As an example, I -- as a strong proponent of free speech and a free
press -- can sincerely and strongly proclaim my abhorrence of the
violence and intimidation of those who would publish an image of
Mohammad, but I don't have to wear an image of Mohammad on my t-shirt to
do so.
Why should Grex (or anyone else) be held to a different standard than
that?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 411 of 432:
|
Feb 23 02:34 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, Richard's out to lunch on this one. He's free to make whatever
arguments or comments he wants about the issue, on grex or elsewhere.
Hell, I'm sure he could download the cartoons and post them on myspace or
flikr. And with a little initiative, he could even host his own bbs. He's
personally free to do all those things he's asking grex to do. Go for it
Richie!
|
crimson
|
|
response 412 of 432:
|
Feb 23 03:03 UTC 2006 |
He's even free to post the cartoons on his *own* Grex page. (Oh, wait --
someone's already done that!)
|
drew
|
|
response 413 of 432:
|
Feb 23 04:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #400:
http://jasonlewis.packetnexus.com/000347.html
|
mary
|
|
response 414 of 432:
|
Feb 23 12:04 UTC 2006 |
Re: #407 Not sure that particular cartoon mocks any of the gods depicted.
It's really mocking all (violent) followers. Did this newspaper print
cartoons mocking Jesus?
|
tod
|
|
response 415 of 432:
|
Feb 23 12:20 UTC 2006 |
It refused to do so a couple years ago. They didn't want to incite riots.
|
edina
|
|
response 416 of 432:
|
Feb 23 15:50 UTC 2006 |
The editor of the paper had this in the Washington Post's op ed section on
Sunday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR200601702
499
.html
|
jep
|
|
response 417 of 432:
|
Feb 23 16:21 UTC 2006 |
I can't read that, even by pasting the URL together and inserting it
into a browser. Can you please tinyurl it and post it again, Brooke?
Thanks!
|
edina
|
|
response 418 of 432:
|
Feb 23 16:27 UTC 2006 |
Oh God....why do you have to call me out so that I can show how little I know
about how grex runs? Why!? It's from Sunday's Washington Post Op Ed
Section.. this much I can say: www.washingtonpost.com
|
jadecat
|
|
response 419 of 432:
|
Feb 23 16:40 UTC 2006 |
Psst, Brooke- go to www.tinyurl.com, paste the link in their lil box and
it'll give you a tiny url to post. ;)
|
edina
|
|
response 420 of 432:
|
Feb 23 16:55 UTC 2006 |
http://tinyurl.com/cyc42
Neat! Thanks Anne!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 421 of 432:
|
Feb 23 17:00 UTC 2006 |
:)
|
naftee
|
|
response 422 of 432:
|
Feb 23 21:47 UTC 2006 |
url.rexroof.com
|
other
|
|
response 423 of 432:
|
Feb 24 02:48 UTC 2006 |
That is an amazing and eye-opening statement. I am not entirely
convinced that publishing those cartoons was right, but no longer am I
certain that doing it was wrong. I think that the text of the article
that originally accompanied them is highly relevant to how they should
be judged by posterity, but I have not seen that text. Links anyone?
I am, however, still and immovably certain that Grex has no business
republishing the cartoons as an official act, but if individual users
want to do so, that is their own business. In both sentiments I remain
as I was before, though I did not specify the latter earlier.
|
gull
|
|
response 424 of 432:
|
Feb 24 07:24 UTC 2006 |
Right. Grex's only duty here is to not prevent individual members from
publishing those cartoons. Grex should not censor them, but it doesn't
have to overcompensate and official publish them, either.
|
keesan
|
|
response 425 of 432:
|
Feb 24 15:54 UTC 2006 |
You can't put images at a grex website (or at least nobody can download them).
|
jep
|
|
response 426 of 432:
|
Feb 24 16:21 UTC 2006 |
Sorry, Brooke, I didn't mean to show anyone up! Thanks to Anne for the
explanation she gave.
Psst, janc, how about a convenient "tinyurl" button or window in
Backtalk?
|