Today's Seattle Times reports on The Stranger's decision to publish some of the Danish Muhammad cartoons -- "Local alternative paper: Let the readers decide". (The Stranger's terrific article is here). Some are offended by The Stranger's publication of the images
some of the other cartoons — especially one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban ... — are clearly defamatory, some local Muslims say.Why is this defamatory? Is it incorrect to point out that there are people in this world who spend their time bombing for Allah? In any case, the Seattle Times will not publish the cartoons:
Managing Editor David Boardman said the newspaper's policy is to avoid publishing material that is hurtful or offensive to certain groups, except when that material is essential to readers' understanding.Hmm. Boardman might be on to something. Is it just me, or does anybody else in our group of readers find, say, Joni Balter's columns both offensive and inessential to our understanding? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 09, 2006 04:44 PM | Email This
My wife received a reply from the NW Life editor suggesting that we screen what our children read, just as we would screen what movies they see or websites they visit.
My wife replied that this was ridiculous if not impossible, and repeated that the column was vulgar and offensive. She cc'd Boardman this time.
Boardman replied to several editors and accidentally cc'd my wife, his message stating "We should discuss this." He immediately recalled the message but it was too late--we saw it. Apparently they discussed it and decided kids need to read about male sheep ejaculating onto each other--it's essential to their understanding--because the column still runs.
Hey Boardman--this column is offensive to me, my wife, and many others. I know you read SP. Yank it, you hypocrite!
Posted by: Organization Man on February 9, 2006 05:37 PMWhen did the "offense standard" take root as a form of non-governmental censorship?
I could actually give a rip that the crocodile tears are flowing from the muslim street.
Their publications and media routinely publish far worse screeds of "cartoons" than anything I've seen so far from the Danish cartoon issue. They publish cartoons showing rabbis sacrificing children and drinking their blood. They’ve published videos showing the beheadings of innocents with dull pocket knives… all without a peep from the muslim street. Goes on a lot... and no one says anything. Now, all of a sudden, they're on the receiving end and they don't "like" it? Tough.
You tell us, falsely, that "In America we make religious freedom work by not attacking the other fellow's beliefs."
Does the name "Ken Hutcherson" ring any bells with you? How come your "not attacking the other fellow's beliefs" rule doesn't apply to him? Or am I mistaken that you people have taken shots at him because his beliefs happen to conflict with yours?
The media of this country use Christianity as a piñata every hour on the hour. They even make TV shows about it, one recently cancelled. Do we take to the streets? Do we kill? Maim? Burn?
There was NOTHING wrong with publishing those cartoons. Your lack of courage in failing to do the same, while disappointing, here is not surprising, given that "victimizer as victim" thing the left is all about. If the muslim population of this planet wants to make an issue of this, then they can feel free. If they want to hate US more (even though WE didn't do it) then they may feel free to do so. If they add this to their growing lists of alleged slights as a reason to destroy us, then, well, they may feel free to "bring it on."
Oh.... I'm sorry.... did I offend you?
I'm offended by your paper's switch on the gay marriage issue to your paper's rabid support of the concept.
It not only offends me, it offends tens of thousands of us here in Washington State.
And if we were to apply the same standard YOU advocate, then your paper would show "judgment." You know, "...Not censorship, which is what government does, but judgment, which is that cultural side dish that goes along with free speech." You would cease your advocacy of this social anathema, because, after all, it offends thousands of us in exactly the same way these cartoons "offend" the muslim population of the world.
The only real difference in "offense" is the Christian world's response to it.
Your paper and editorial board feel no compunction in publishing your pro-gay agenda stance. Would your position on the issue be the same if Christians were to take to the street and use it as an excuse to kill gays, burn buildings and vandalize our communities?
What level of outrage would be required to pique YOUR sensibilities to avoid offending ME?
I spent far too many years wearing my country's uniform to worry about giving offense to any particular group of people by expressing my opinion. Clearly, with your paper's support of the minority gay agenda, your paper feels precisely the same way about insulting those with
a belief system different from your own... which makes your hypocrisy on this issue even more difficult to grasp.
In the end, it is no more appropriate for muslim cultural norms to dictate what anyone publishes then it is for me to dictate what you publish. The muslim media has no such constraints on what THEY publish about us; which makes it an even bigger mystery as to why you would fret about publishing unflattering CARTOONS about them. The vast majority of your readership has no idea what all the fuss is about; and if they were to actually see the cartoons in question, most would become furious at the juvenile idiocy displayed by an entire religion over this issue.
You know, CBS once showed a special. A couple of French film makers just happened to be in New York on 9/11, oddly enough, filming a documentary on the FDNY. They made a stunning, visually overwhelming program on what happened that day.
It was broadcast precisely once.
It should be shown on all 3 networks, every year on 9/11. It isn’t, of course, and we slide back into our comfort zone, fat, dumb and happy. We occasionally see some footage, but, by golly,we don’t show the bodies leaping to their deaths, hitting the ground because they had to make the awful choice between burning to death slowly or dying in a second because they’ve just fallen 86 floors.
Is the failure to show that truth on a regular enough basis so that we don’t forget it a result of your type of “judgment?” Is CBS worried that if they show this special again, to remind us of the reality of that day, that President Bush’s numbers will improve?
I will IMMEDIATELY concern myself with muslim sensibilities the MOMENT muslims concern themselves with mine. The Danish paper was right to publish. Your paper is wrong; and you are wrong to attempt to provide ANY justification for the muslim response. And, by publishing this column, that is precisely what you’ve done.
I doubt you'll agree, however, because this case is, somehow, "different," and I, obviously, don't get it.
Posted by: Hinton (Former Seattleite) on February 9, 2006 05:48 PMFreedom includes learning how to deal with being offended. Freedom of speech guarantees that someone will be offended!!
What if someone drew a cartoon showing Mohammed having sex with a woman while her husband's beheaded body lies nearby. According to the Hadiths, this actually happened at Medina after the Battle of the Trench.
Now that would be offensive, but it is part of official Islamic literature.
Posted by: Kafir Forever on February 9, 2006 05:51 PMDo you mean Thomas Shapley of the P-I?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 9, 2006 05:52 PM"The question isn't, 'Why are these images in The Stranger?' The question is, 'Why aren't they in the Seattle Times and the PI and the Weekly and Eat the State and the Tacoma News Tribune and the Thrifty Nickel.'"
Posted by: Dan Savage on February 9, 2006 06:33 PMThis stuff is right out to the National Socailist handbook.
Need a clue? Search the meaning of the word:
Reichskristallnacht
The only real difference is the green scarfs.
Posted by: Mike P on February 9, 2006 06:56 PMI've never seen so much twisting and turning trying to justify not publishing a key piece of a story as is happening in the local papers.
It makes me wonder if they have some fear of reprisal.
Posted by: Janet S on February 9, 2006 07:45 PMThe other MSM are showing to be neutered and steeped in political correctness aka Islamofascist sympathizing.
Posted by: KS on February 9, 2006 09:02 PMBut can you blame the editors? After all, publishing a newspaper is just a way to make a living selling brassiere ads with a little news thrown in. It's not a calling. It's certainly not something to die for. Who wants to live like Salman Rushdie for the rest of their lives? Much easier to poke at groups who won't hunt you down and kill you, like Christians.
Makes one appreciate the courage and sacrifice of our founding fathers. Live free or die.
Note to the Times: drop the eagle masthead and replace it with a more representative bird.
Posted by: Organization Man on February 9, 2006 09:04 PM(Note to the perpetually clueless: The above is meant as dark humour and should be regarded as such.)
Posted by: Burdabee on February 9, 2006 09:24 PMNo sympathy for the tortured logic of the oh-so-sensitive 'editors' who turn themselves into pretzels using their exquisite sensitivities as backdoor conduits to... selling out freedom of the press, and terminally breaching the separation of theocracies from civil government. Our local bureaucracies are stultifying enough, but following the intellectual trends of these mindless 'editors' just drags us bit by bit toward a mullahcracy.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 9, 2006 10:25 PMGo and knock yourself out!!!
I will be sensitive only when they get upset over all the killings!!! SCREW YOU SENSITIVE LIBERALS TOO!
Posted by: dcat on February 9, 2006 11:31 PMThe MSM in not leading any kind of resistance to submission is in fact submitting in our name -- not only are they compromising freedom of speech but they are also enabling and aiding the establishment of a state 'religion' -- one which demands total conversion/extermination or in special priviliged cases -- life among them as an infidel - but only upon the payment of special 'taxes' - i.e. protection money -- WAKE UP -- from this day on -- any advertising or subscription money paid to any submitting MSM newspapers or news magazines should be considered to be partial payment of the dhimmie tax -- anyone reading this who subscribes to any submitting MSM publication should immediately cancel their subscriptions --
Posted by: Bill on February 10, 2006 12:26 AMAt least they are consistent. They quite often fail to publish information that is quite "essential to readers' understanding." Much of what happened in the 2004 election, yet went unreported, comes to mind.
And the circulation numbers continue to plummet... Like a good captain and his officers, Boardman is going down with the ship.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 10, 2006 12:59 AMI'm guessing it was "essential" for "readers' understanding" that the Times was lock step in opposing the Iraq war and willing to print anything to advance the anti-Bush action line?
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 10, 2006 01:17 AMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/259018_cartoons10.html
Quotes :
1
"People are trying to vent their frustrations in a positive way, and I'm happy about that," he said.
But the response local Muslims have received from non-Muslims is double-edged. No one lumps them in with rioters in Europe and the Middle East, but they haven't received support from other faith communities, either, Junejo said."
Response:
Hmmm, like where was the Muslim support for Christians when "p*ss christ" was in the headlines? Just google that one for yourself.
2
"The reprinting of the cartoons in Europe was done with "intentional hatred" toward Muslims, said former Army Muslim chaplain James Yee of Olympia. He was imprisoned for 76 days as part of a government espionage investigation and ultimately exonerated a year ago.
Many of the rioters are "so disenfranchised," he said, that for them, "what good does it do to respond by legitimate means?"
Response:
Mr Lee, I would really like to know "why" Muslims could not legitimately/nonviolently respond to a cartoon?
Where or when were the "peaceful" protest marches that were ignored?
Why now have Muslims called for a cartoon contest for "holocaust" cartoons?
(and you talk about "your" lack of interfaith support)
Muslim men can't keep it in their pants, so they require women to wear burqas. That way they won't be tempted to assault them in sinful ways.
Muslim people can't stop idolizing what they see, so they forbid any depiction of Mohammed or anything living.
What happened to self control? Burqas are not a part of the teachings of Mohammed, and there have been pictures of Mohammed throughout Muslim history. So what is happening now?
What is happening is that a religion has been hijacked by radicals. We only feed that fanaticism by responding to their "sensitivity".
It's time Muslims join the modern world, including the locals families who are so worried about being offended.
Posted by: Janet S on February 10, 2006 08:10 AMPerhaps the Ostrich should serve as their logo.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 10, 2006 08:31 AM1. Where does the line of courtesy and civility cross over to rude and offensive? Is it okay to be rude and offensive to make a point? Or is it just a matter of course?
2. Is it okay to be offensive unless it creates violence?
My opinion? For 1 I think that we need to cross that line on occassion to get our point across. Otherwise people just don't listen or care. On the other hand, to do it out of spite or for the "fun" of it, is wrong. For 2, it is precisely that violence is created from an offensive that we MUST keep doing it. We would be held hostage to someone else's ideals and beliefs if we did cave in to it. Are we victums or do we stand up for what we believe in?
As Americans, I believe we only push when shoved, but we take careful measure of our push to send the messsage that we will stand up and fight--to the death if necessary. Your call, Osama.
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech - anyone certainly has the freedom to print any such garbage as they see fit - it is simply in bad taste.
I wonder how many people sticking up for the decadent European media also criticize Hollywood and the US music industry for excessive sex, drugs, violence and profanity in their work.
I'm also wondering why anyone would stick up for the arrogant, holier than thou, "we are the conscience of the world and know better than all of you", envy-ridden American-haters that predominate in the Continental European press.
Posted by: LoneWolf on February 10, 2006 08:36 AMResponse:
Mr Lee, I would really like to know "why" Muslims could not legitimately/nonviolently respond to a cartoon?...
I have a better question... How does a paper in Denmark printing a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a turbin "disenfranchise" people in Syria to the point that they see fit to burn an embassy?
Answer: It doesn't. He's just making an excuse, trying to portray the violent rioters as "victims" of those "oppressive" Danes and their political cartoons.
(Seriously, when was the last time the Danes did anything to anybody?)
Posted by: Mike H on February 10, 2006 08:42 AMNewspapers and websites are being shut down by governments in S Africa, Sweden, Canada and elswhere. We seem to be on the long slide to a religion dictating how we should live. Despite the words of PC free-thinkers.
Women - beware - your western costumes are offensive to my eyes and cause me to rape you. Will that be the next shot fired?
Posted by: dan on February 10, 2006 08:49 AMThis is a perfect example. You are offended by the cartoons... some of which made some very valid political points... and express yourself here... without threatening peoples lives. People in Syria are saying that the Danish government must oppologize and cut off the cartoonists heads, that they (the Europeans) don't have the right to express their beliefs when they are contrary to their own.
I work in media, and as a conservative Christian I'm more than happy to criticize all the crap in it... but I'm not going to go try and kill Heath Ledger for starring in a gay cowboy movie. I disagree with it, but they still have the right to make it.
That is what this is about, the right to express your beliefs, even if your viewpoint offends someone, without being bullied by the threat of another 9/11 for expressing it.
Posted by: Mike H on February 10, 2006 08:56 AM"Freedom of expression is Western Terrorism"
Posted by: dan on February 10, 2006 09:25 AMIncreasingly it's not just a "handlful of deranged madman" and that is the problem. More and more Muslims in foreign countries are jumping on the bandwagon by either committing actual violence, or passively condoning such acts.
It's pretty clear where this is headed. There's going to be an all out confrontation between East and West. The Muslims are forcing the issue by continually bringing violence to the West, however small the perceived offense. They are the ultimate in intolerance. As many have noted, where are the peaceful protests?
There were a lot of warning signs as Hitler rose to power, and there were a lot of Germans who looked the other way. My perception is that most Americans are not willing to let Muslim hatred get anywhere near as far as Nazi hatred.
As Shannon C noted, Osama, it's your call. There is a line to cross in provocation of the West. Once that line is crossed, we will unleash the dogs...
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 10, 2006 09:45 AM