If I had a newspaper, I would publish it. If this is causing such a furor, I would want my readers to see what the fuss was about number one. And number two to show that threats will not determine policy. For the record I would also publish it if it was Jesus with a bomb on his head, or Jesus standing at the gates telling dead American soldiers they are not welcome as murderers of innocents.
This to me is not an issue of freedom of speech/expression it is issue of a group of Muslims using threats and acts of violence to force non Muslim nations to follow a part of the Sharia.
Hehehe. I wouldn’t know where to start. 
Some more:
In the heyday of their multicultural utopia, the Dutch political and intellectual elites believed that radical Muslims and radical libertarians could exist peacefully together in the same society. In recent years it has become clear that such a belief was an illusion, although the politically correct media long tried to avoid the whole subject.
Mr. Fortuyn, in his outspoken political career, broke the taboos surrounding the problems of immigration and paid with his life. Mr. Van Gogh paid the same price for a provocation that, had it been directed at Christianity rather than Islam, would have hardly raised an eyebrow.
From the Associated Press:
Brilliant. It would appear she’s accusing the paper of enciting religious hatred while the people who are doing the religious hating escape comment. :smack:
Yep.
Happens all the time. 
The editors and the cartoonists who just went into hiding. Anyone and everyone who might want to satire Islam or make any sort of pointed criticism of it. This is about freedom of expression more than it is about the ‘rights’ of certain fanatical moslems.
I find it annoying that CNN and other media won’t just show is the derned things, so we can see what the fuss is about. But with a little patient googling, I was able to find a newspaper that puts informing the public at a higher premium than parenting the public. I expect now that newspaper will be stormed by Muslim extremists, who do a far better job of caricaturing the adherents to their faith than the Scandanavian cartoonist in question. The cartoons are actually pretty tame, bordering on lame, and are, like all editorial cartoons, completely humorless.
Yes they were. CNN is showing a picture of the Danish flag being burned on the same article where they talk about being respectful to Islam. That is politically correct . Their motive is understandable though.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/03/cartoon.wrap.reut/index.html
Not at all. The Jerry Springer show generated a lot of furore here in the U.K. But there was nary a peep from the Moslems.
While personally, I think this is much ado about nothing. I don’t think CNN would have hesitated to show a cartoon that may have been offensive to believers of the Hindu, Christian, or Buddhist, religions.
Do I think it should be run? Yes. Not as some sort of free speech protest, but to provide information so the public can see for themselves what all the excitement is about. After seeing the cartoons, I think the vast majority of the North American population will have the same reaction as I, ho-hum. If the media continues to not display the images because someone might be offended, I fear our culture is lost.
This is not about the images themselves. After all, they were printed in September. IMHO, This is being driven by organizers with the explicit purpose of taking away free speech and a victory here will just embolden them for more and more claims of offense. While it may be ugly, to give in and censor your news for something that doesn’t amount to anymore than this, puts us on a very slippery slope and I don’t want any part of what’s at the bottom.
I have no idea what show you’re talking about. When did Jerry Springer have Jesus on his show? Why would Muslims give a fuck? Are you suggesting that if every Muslim in te world doesn’t protest every single Western depiction of Jesus then no Muslim anywhere has a right to be offended by a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist? What is your point, man?
What’s disrespectful about showing the Danish flag being burnt?
I agree. See my comments earlier - granted, it’s not a different religion, but it’s the first comparable thing that I thought of. CNN did show an image of the stamp in question on their Web site, and maybe on the TV news as well.
In America there are efforts to make it illegal to burn the American flag (you can still burn anyone else’s flag though). Why wouldn’t the Danish be any different? I’m sure some people there find it offensive when their flag is burnt.
I thought this thread was about CNN’s decision not to run the cartoon. Events in other countries are irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. Can we agree that nobody’s right to free speech has been suppressed in the US?
“Satire” is a noun, not a verb.
The preferred spelling is Muslim with a u. “Moslem” is still sometimes used but disliked by Muslims as it leads to mispronunciations.
I doubt many Danes would care. The obsessive veneration of flags is pretty much a uniquely American pathology.
It can’t be compared to a religious offense in any case.
Nope. It has zero to do with the question posed in the OP, which was only about a decision made by CNN.
You may be right. But what I’ve got to wondering about is this:
**Where was all this fearless defense of the freedom of the press and noble defiance of radical Islamist outrage last year, back when many Muslims worldwide were protesting and rioting over press reports on allegations of Qur’an desecration in American prisons? **
The allegations of desecration at that time were certainly frequent and substantial enough to count as news, and it’s certainly an important topic that people deserve to be informed about. That seems to me at least as deserving of press coverage as a bunch of deliberately provocative anti-Islamic cartoons.
Yet during the desecration controversy, lots of people were not only criticizing the Muslim rioters (and rightly so, IMHO), but also bitterly attacking the Western press—specifically, Newsweek, which reported such allegations made by a government source who later retracted them. The complaint was that the media shouldn’t have unnecessarily and irresponsibly stirred up so much negative opinion in the Muslim world. We had numerous threads on the topic around here last May:
Way to start a holy war, Newsweek
So.
May 2005: Newsweek reports on credible allegations about a very explosive issue that involves anti-Islamic sacrilege. The Muslim world erupts in outrage.
People start bitching right and left about this criminal irresponsibility on the part of the media, and saying they should have avoided giving the fanatics an excuse for violence and increasing Muslim hostility towards us, and won’t somebody please think of the troops, and so forth.
February 2006: A Danish paper publishes a bunch of gratuitously offensive anti-Islamic cartoons. The Muslim world erupts in outrage.
People start cheering right and left about this heroic gesture in defense of free speech, and declaring that we should never let fears of Muslim violence affect what we show in our press, and any media outlet that doesn’t want to reproduce those cartoons is being cravenly PC, and so forth.
I can only conclude that a lot of people must think that disseminating tasteless political cartoons about Muhammad is a much more important freedom-of-the-press cause than reporting on allegations of detainee abuse in our prisons.
I sure as hell can’t figure out why, though.
Just an FYI: According to an NPR report I heard today, the Shia sect of Islam is ok with images of Mohammed. They report that his image is readily available for purchase all over Tehran, among other Shia-dominated cities.
I would guess that the American Moslem Foundation might disagree with you.
And the United Negro College Fund blah blah blah. I’m sure the preferred spelling is “Muslim” - that seems to be most popular, and if I had my AP Stylebook on hand, I’d guarantee it says to use that spelling.