That is basically the message in Bruce Ramsey's column this morning: Free speech leavened by a thing called judgment. Ramsey rejects calls by Seattle Times readers and this blog for the Times to publish the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons. His argument is that we all need to self censor to get along -- a very Seattle attitude.
Another part of the First Amendment is freedom of religion. Legally, this is about freedom from the government. Again, there is a cultural side dish: In America we make religious freedom work by not attacking the other fellow's beliefs.That is what those cartoons do. The believer thinks it's a sin to picture Muhammad, and we do it anyway and say, "Hey! Get a load of this."
Respectfully, this is exactly backwards. Freedom of religion in the West works not because beliefs aren't attacked, but because we are mature enough to ignore the offense or to respond in kind, with argument. By Ramsey's standard, there would soon be no freedom of speech or religion at all. The most easily offended person could dictate the boundaries of speech. Ramsey argues there are separate legal and cultural standards, and we would still have a legal right to say what we want. But if culturally we restrict ourselves, we lose our freedom just as effectively as if it had been legislated away.
Certain times call for being offensive, and this is one of them. Our freedom of expression has been challenged, with members of the press in hiding for what they have written. The whole press needs to show solidarity with the cartoonists and editors who have been threatened. If we don't draw a line here, it won't be long before Islamists will be demanding an apology from the Seattle Times for running a cartoon supporting gay marriage. The sorry thing is the Times would probably give it to them.
I sincerely hope you remember the words you wrote today when it comes time to publish photos of the Fremont naked parade, (offensive to some people) or photos of the gay pride parade (offensive to some people). Or, on the other hand, omit photos of a pro-abortion rally, thereby slighting pro-abortionists in favor of not offending the religious.
Will you print photos of the Iranian contest drawings of the Holocaust?
Sorry, I'm not buying your lip service, it's all just words.
Posted by: dan on February 8, 2006 08:36 AMMuslims need to realize there is no real "true religion." They have no more clearer insight to the mind and will of the Supreme Being than any other religion. Islam needs to have the equivalent of a Protest Reformation and join the rest of us in the 21st Century. Enough of these deadly temper tantrums!
Posted by: Skylar Vandergrift on February 8, 2006 08:38 AMSo, if someone really believes in freedom of expression, does that mean they should wear a Nazi uniform and burn an American flag?
Of course not. And the Seattle Times has a similar right NOT TO PUBLISH the Muhammad cartoons.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 8, 2006 08:45 AMThe Left lives by causing offense. It's the left that is pulling their punches on this one. They say it's about sensitivity (which they've rarely exhibited) but I think it's about CYA.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2006 08:48 AMNever mind that 1 of those is enshrined in the Constitution; the other is not. And that the two are at loggerheads with one another.
Posted by: Steve_dog on February 8, 2006 08:49 AMJournalists (lefties by definition) believe in free speech when it---
---P!sses off people they disagree with
---Sticks it to "The Man."
---Reinforces their own viewpoint.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2006 08:52 AMThese cartoons are the same. Islam, as practiced by the radicals, is a threat to the West. To not call it out and shine the light of truth on it is to lose out to it. The cartoons are offensive, but they also speak truth.
Is the Times afraid to take a stand when it really counts?
Posted by: Janet S on February 8, 2006 08:58 AMSTOP THE APPEASMENT NOW! WE DO NOT NEED TO TOLERATE THIS BEHAVIOR! or attitude. The fanatics (note I said fanatics, not Muslims) want to have the benefits and comforts of Western countries and then have their, in my opinion, barbaric laws - sharia ?sp - in the country to which they voluntarily moved. Could it be their stupid laws kept them back? Have the infidels build up somewhere nice so that they can come and change it to their liking because their laws stifle any advancement?
Come on you pathetic press, stand up for a principle for once.
Posted by: fred on February 8, 2006 09:28 AMHe's depicted as one of the great law givers in one of our federal buildings in the Other Washington.
Posted by: gaelwolf on February 8, 2006 09:34 AMRamsey explicitly said this is not his standard: Nor does it mean the press has to bow to every person who has his feelings hurt, or else discussion would end. He said that to pre-empt black-and-white objections like yours, but you insisted on seeing the world in black and white anyway.
Stefan also claims: Freedom of religion in the West works not because beliefs aren't attacked, but because we are mature enough to ignore the offense or to respond in kind, with argument.
Eh? Freedom of religion works not for any of these reasons, but because we guarantee it. But this cartoon controversy has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has to do with the right of free speech, and (perhaps) morality.
My personal opinion is not so black and white (which means someone here will probably misrepresent it). Personally I strongly support free speech and the rights of any publisher to print these cartoons, and I abhor the violent protesters. But you could say the same thing about an anti-Semitic cartoon; that doesn't mean I morally approve of its publication. I think the moral question is whether the cartoon was intended to enlighten (by making a point) or just to provoke. Any writer or artist has the right to do either, but I don't think mere provocation is the role of journalism. I have seen these cartoons and think they're kind of on the border between provocation and enlightenment.
When a Islamofacist riots (i.e. throws a temper tantrum) we need to sensitive to them and impose their values upon ourselves so as not to be offensive. When Muslims voice any complaint we are to comply and be sensitive.
Where is Brucey's sensitivity for Christians at all the "offensive" art and media?
Ramsey needs a cranial rectatomy to cure is illness, once the air gets to what few brain cells he has he might be able to think a little more clearly. (not gonna hold my breath)
Posted by: JCM on February 8, 2006 09:53 AMWhile you're waffling, can you tell me if printing photos of the Fremont naked bicyclists parade is intended to provoke or enlighten? Maybe it's just serious journalism to you?
Posted by: dan on February 8, 2006 10:05 AM"By Ramsey's standard, there would soon be no freedom of speech or religion at all."
He wasn't talking about a legislative mandate, he was offering the idea that having a right to say something is not the same as being right in saying it. He was appealing to the social contract.
"The most easily offended person could dictate the boundaries of speech."
Again, balance this. The easily offended person or group) could voice their opinion, and society DECIDES whether to inculcate that advice. In the case of ethnic labels, we now use hyphenated appelations instead of chromatic designations-- not by law, but by social construct and adaptation.
"Ramsey argues there are separate legal and cultural standards, and we would still have a legal right to say what we want. But if culturally we restrict ourselves, we lose our freedom just as effectively as if it had been legislated away."
A balanced consideration here: it is an accepted cultural norm not to use a certain vile six-letter to refer to African-Americans, whereas it once was in the South. Isn't this a very positive cultural restriction? I don't think we "lose our freedom" when we are sensitive-- but there's a balance. Legislation, in one sense, is the threat of violence, and is oppression. Cultural restrictions are in the area of good manners.
"Our freedom of expression has been challenged, with members of the press in hiding for what they have written."
That's a different level: the threat of violence is something entirely different and we should never capitulate to threats and presumptions of authority.
"The whole press needs to show solidarity with the cartoonists and editors who have been threatened."
Agreed on principle, but not on method. You can show solidarity in many ways without mere spite.
"If we don't draw a line here, it won't be long before Islamists will be demanding an apology from the Seattle Times for running a cartoon supporting gay marriage."
They can demand, but can't command-- and that will be the Times' judgment call. It's clear to me they wouldn't accede to such a demand... it's one thing to change your politics on the basis of a threat or fear of one. It's another to snarkily print what a group considers profaning the sacred.
I feel confident that the Times will not run sacreligious cartoons profaning Christian or Jewish dearly held beliefs. (Maybe they will... dunno). Why should they make a decision to tweak Muslim anger by printing an image that directly offends? They can, and are free to... yet choose not to be offensive. This is not a bad thing, this is courtesy. If I felt it was some capitulation to threats, I'd agree with you. I don't think Ramsey was threated to not run the toons.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on February 8, 2006 10:58 AMDon't print the cartoons, fine. But also don't be afraid to print any image of the prophet just because someone might be "offended". Don't be afraid to print an editorial critical of Muslims or Islam. That is the problem. The media doesn't just censor offensive cartoons about Islam, it completely censors OPINION about Islam.
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2006 11:13 AMPresident Bush, who wants us to fight a war against Terrah, and supporters of Terrah, thinks it is fine to bomb, shoot, kidnap, torture and wire tap radical terrah minded Muslims, but god forbid we publish and cartoons that might offend these very same people.
The National Organization of Women is outraged at Poland for denying a woman an abortion, but is absolutely silent in the face of the march of sharia law, whose ultimate aim is the subjugation of women into a 6th century life of slavery.
But the foolishness is not limited to infidels. Apparently it took the muslims five months to figure out that they should be really angry about a cartoon. And while Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries are quick to rid their store shelves of cheese and soda from the offending countries, I don't see any of them turning down Danish cash for oil?
Posted by: Kevin on February 8, 2006 11:22 AMDan, the nude Fremont bicyclist photos are intended neither to enlighten nor to provoke, but to amuse and titillate.
Posted by: Bruce (no relation to Bruce Ramsey, though) on February 8, 2006 11:23 AMThey will print what does or doesn't support their agenda under the protection of the constitution.
Hence they WILL print classified materials but not these cartoons.
Reminds me of another publication: Pravda
Posted by: Jack Burton on February 8, 2006 11:28 AMApparently, neither has the Times' editorial staff, because they all portray said cartoons as ultra-horrible blasphemies (in other words, as the imams who organized the 'spontaneous' riots did). If one looks at the original 12 cartoons (no thanks to the Times), they range from innocuous to somewhat tasteless - but not nearly as offensive as the average anti-Bush cartoon here.
They're rioting at a coordinated campaign by the 'elites' in certain antidemocratic countries, who have taken months in preparation of Danish flags to burn and selecting the proper timing for maximum Western media exposure. The cartoons are a pretext - practically anything could have served as well, say a bathing beauty contest.
If the Times wants to exhibit submission to its concept of the inner feelings of all Muslims, fine, but why should we trust it any further to inform us of daily events if it's taken on the role of censor DESPITE the American principle of adequately informing the electorate of currrent events?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 8, 2006 11:29 AMOnce again, well said.
Brian Crouch,
Say what? The Seattle "newspapers" haven't printed sacreligious cartoons profaning Christianity. What edition have you been reading? Horsey & Co, as well as the Times, regularly defame Christian and Jewish "dearly held beliefs" when they continually ram the sodomite culture and abortion "rights" down our throats!
And since when did we tweak Muslim anger? Was it after they bombed two of our embassies?...perhaps their bombings of our military barracks?....maybe after the USS Cole?....the first World Trade Center bombing? My God, man, get a grip! These subhumans killed our people and destroyed our property without rational justification for 20 years before we defended ourselves! And we shouldn't offer satire of them in our media at the risk of offending them?
And to equate offense to Christians with offense to Muslims? When have nations flying the banner of Yahweh or Christ attacked the U.S.?
Posted by: Saltherring on February 8, 2006 11:42 AMNo, I don't side with the Muslim protestors. I'm siding with Bruce R. in his editorial though, for the logic I laid out above. I don't think he's giving in to fear. I don't think he would have run the cartoons a year ago, or a month ago, for the same reasons he's not running them now.... So why contend he is more obligated to do so now?
Posted by: Brian Crouch on February 8, 2006 11:56 AMWhen was the last time you read an article or saw a news piece in the Times or other MSM sources that was really critical of Muslims or Islam? I would like to see it.
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2006 12:08 PMJesus is continually depicted as being "tolerant" of anything and everything the morally-bankrupted left believes acceptable, most notably homosexuality, which is defined in the Bible as "an abomination" (Lev 18: 22, 20:13). Scripture also states homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 9-10), but will receive the "due penalty of their error" for their "indecent acts" (Rom 1:27). And to show homosexuality in a positive light is not blaspheming to believers?
I never stated Ramsey should run the cartoons, only that he and any American citizen should not be intimidated by defenders of Islamofascism.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 8, 2006 12:15 PMWell, then we're in agreement.
See, it seems to me that that many are saying Ramsey is betraying his own values in this case. But Ramsey would not have run the cartoons whether or not this rioting happened out of cultural sensitivity. It's a decision independent of the Islamic outrage we're reading about.
Think about it: to run them just to spite the Muslim protestors, for the sake of defiance, would betray his values!
No one has to agree with his values, or the paper's, but they do have to be consistent to be fair. In other words, another paper that has demontstrated that it doesn't care about offending religious sensibilities, if it now said "we can't risk pi$$ing off the extremists," well, that would be capitulation and giving in to the opponents of freedom. In such a case I would applaud calling them hypocrites, calling on them to run the cartoons, etc. because of that inconsistency and duplicity.
As we see, the Stranger is running them because they don't care about what religion they make angry or offend. The Times has a different set of values I guess, and thus they are being true to them, by not running them.
If I owned the paper, I would probably run them, as a new item for reference. All I'm saying is Ramsey is being consistent and shouldn't be derided for it.
Burdabee: Horsey draws for the PI not Times.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on February 8, 2006 12:36 PMFor well nigh a decade now, the term "liberal" for me has come to connote a pack of fawning, slobbering, unctuous eunuchs.
Posted by: Cartman on February 8, 2006 12:39 PMWhat country does he live in? The right attacks the left as heathens, the left attacks the right as fundementalists. The difference between here and there is that here we don't burn down embassies, we turn the page or the channel.
I find every single cartoon by Ted Rall to be completely and totally offensive, as well as the majority of cartoons printed by the Stranger and Seattle Weekly. But, as Voltaire, I'll defend to my death their right to do it.
If the Seattle Times and the rest of our U.S. newspapers can see fit to report on the story without showing the images, I'd like an explanation of why they published the photos of Abu Ghraib? Couldn't they have reported on the story without the images that they KNEW would inflame the 'Arab Street'?
Apparently our media outlets have a different standard when the story will make people angry at newspaper editors rather than at the U.S. Government. If the story will encourage bombings of U.S. troops, it's probably okay. If it will encourage bombings of newsrooms, well, we can't have that.
Posted by: Larry on February 8, 2006 12:57 PMFYI, in case anyone wants to see a sample of the cartoons routinely published in the Arab papers that are deeply offensive.
http://levin.nationalreview.com/archives/089357.asp
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2006 01:01 PMIt is so brave defying the Bush administration and printing national security items when your head is safe (at least from the admin, maybe not from the same thugs that want to blow up a US city), it is another to be oh-so sensitive to a bunch of thugs.
Posted by: fred on February 8, 2006 01:03 PMWhile you in your superior intellect may find nude bicycling in public amusing and titillating, I find it extrememly offensive to anyone else with any sense of propriety. Not to mention against the laws of public nudity. (if they still exist) You feeeel it to be acceptable so it has to be acceptable to everyone. Guess what, it's not!
Posted by: dan on February 8, 2006 01:08 PMJesus is continually depicted as being "tolerant" of anything and everything the morally-bankrupted left believes acceptable, most notably homosexuality, which is defined in the Bible as "an abomination" (Lev 18: 22, 20:13). Scripture also states homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 9-10), but will receive the "due penalty of their error" for their "indecent acts" (Rom 1:27). And to show homosexuality in a positive light is not blaspheming to believers?
Ummmm... I don't THINK SO. Perhaps you need to purchase a better edition of the Bible or stop listening to bigoted preachers. Scripture certainly says no such thing.
I'll use biblegateway.com:
Lev. 18:22 -- "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Lev. 20:13 -- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
PERHAPS a reference to anal sex, but not to gay people in particular.
1 Cor -- "7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry. 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died."
Pagan acts of worship. Perhaps ritual sex with priests and priestesses?
Rom 1:27 -- "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Here's the only one you might be able to make an argument for, and there's plenty of interpreatations out there for this one...
This is a clash between civilizations and agendas of powerful people. Nothing less!
Newspapers routinely print cartoons offensive to readers. However newspapers will not print cartoons offensive to Muslims because they have been know to kill the authors. Any other given reason is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 8, 2006 07:00 PMBesides, this is getting way OT
Posted by: Sid on February 10, 2006 11:21 AM