Two Chains Reject Magazine With Muhammad Cartoons

Another supine surrender to mob intimidation:

Yes, but I’m sure their next “Banned Books” display will make them feel really brave. :rolleyes:

It may not be the bravest course of action but if it keeps American citizens from being murdered sounds it good to me.

When I first saw the news about that cartoon, my thought was “gee, good thing those guys never pick up El Jueves”.

It’s a satiric Spanish mag where God has a page in every issue and Muhammad has been seen hanging around in several occasions, both in that strip and others. The God strip is one of the longest-running pages.

Oh wait - I hope Garzón doesn’t go and make a connection there… he might close down El Jueves for the Madrid bombings :smack:

This should be in the pit. I cannot express my feelings about the cowardice of Borders and Waldenbooks using language appropriate to this forum. I guess I’ll have to shop at B&N or Amazon from now on.

Cowardice? I don’t understand whats cowardly about not selling magazines that deeply offend countless people.

That isn’t the issue, or they never would have carried Free Inquiry at all. They explicitly admit that they are bowing to the threat of violence, not to simple objections:

Glad to hear that- so, they’ll undoubtedly pull “The Da Vinci Code” off the shelves any minute now, because they wouldn’t want to offend Christians.

Moving thread from IMHO to The BBQ Pit.

Customer care at Borders:

I send them a note already. Please be concerned, not insulting.

But here on the pit I have to say that this is a coward thing to do, let us hope they reconsider.

Who cares? Border’s/Waldenbooks have no responsibility to carry magazines with the cartoon.

Interesting attitude. Do you know they ALSO sell Mein Kampf, Fahrenheit 9/11, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)…as well as videos by Playboy (and other things that some would consider pornographic). All of which would and do deeply offend others.

So, you still feel the same? Should they remove these and myriad other things from their shelves…or just things that offend Muslims?


Right, because not selling the magazine will keep the ire of the radical Muslims off our backs. In fact, they may send us a package of warm fuzzies!
Cowards and, dare I say, censors. I’ve seen some of the shit those two not only stock, but actively promote that are much more offensive to many in this country. The worst that could happen is they carry the mag and watch a middle east protest the next day. The best that could happen is they censor the mag, and wait 2 days for them to find a reason to violently protest.

Of course, I haven’t seen the cartoons published in newspapers of record. Why expect a bookstore to allow unfettered access to information that isn’t illegal?

Me. I don’t really care about the magazine or the cartoons and have no intention of buying it. But I care enough that if they follow through with this I won’t be buying ANYTHING from either of these companies again. They probably won’t care about that…unless I’m not the only American who feels this way. It smacks of self-censor ship and a dual standard (one driven by fear from my perspective)…and to my mind at least its a huge slippery slope. One some of you Euro types (though I see you are from the UK so it probably doesn’t include you…think of it as the royal ‘you’ :)) have already started to slide down. I certainly don’t want to see us following their noble examples.

True enough. THough they carry OTHER things that some would find as highly offensive so it kind of begs the question…why the double standard here? Is it because of the threat of violence by Muslim extremists? If so…its a slippery slope. Once you cave in here then any nutball or group of nutballs has you by the balls and can make you censor literally anything…because you know that SOMEONE is going to be offended, and highly offended in many cases by just about anything.


Sending the message that we will cater to the demands of murderers results in more murders, not fewer.

You don’t stop terrorists by acceeding to their demands. That’s a call for more terrorist demands. You stop them by ignoring their demands. Put me down as another disappointed with Borders/Waldenbooks. (Not that they’ve gotten any of my business in the past few years - being broke has meant I get books at secondhand places or ebooks.)

Especially since the cartoons are so lame. I mean, do all the people who are defending them as some sort of shrine to free speech know what they showed? It’s not like we’re talking relevant commentary here.

Which is not to excuse acts of violence. But they were deliberately inflammatory and nothing more than that. We’re not talking The Satanic Verses here - it was shit-flinging, pure and simple. Sure, I support the freedom of people to express themselves in puerile ways - but I’m not about to claim a Klan demonstration is what democracy is all about. And these cartoons were about as relevant as that. If I had edited those newspapers, it wouldn’t be an issue - the editors shouldn’t be publishing crap like that. I know it’s all edgy and shit to be deliberately offensive, but it’s mind-boggling that they were published in the first place.

Free speech does not entail any moral obligation for others to be a forum for that speech. That’s the deal that most people don’t seem to understand.

You may dare, but if you did, it’d be factually incorrect. If a business does not choose to be a forum for some kinds of speech, it’s not censorship. That’s not what the word means.

Did you look at them? How many of the twelve fit your description? I count two of them as pretty neutral depictions, two making fun of the newspaper itself, and several making serious comment on the reality of the Muslim world circa 2005. Please, which ones of these, specifically, do you equate with the KKK?

I think I smell a rat.

I thought the most likely reason was that Free Inquiry decided to print the cartoons in the cover and that would have indeed been a reason not to put it in the stand.

But that is not what it is in the cover:

Only **4 of the cartoons ** are shown inside, and that is in the context of how secularists in America are looking at the controversy and the history of the representation of the human form in Islam

Oh, you did not notice that Free Inquiry was a Secular Humanist magazine?

To be blunt, I now think the magazine ran afoul of the politics of the owners of those business; or the owners of the business felt others beside Muslims would be offended, not only their religious sensibilities, their political ones too.

Not allowing the magazine in the stands was even a more cowardly action IMHO.

Look on the bright side, at least we know now that The Jews don’t control the mainstream media.

SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?

Hirsi Ali*): Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it’s already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled “Aisha,” was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder**) and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don’t notice how much abuse we’re taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn’t give an inch.

*) Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film “Submission” may not be broadcasted again. Several Imams and muslim organisations have forbidden it.

**) A song called: “The knife of God” was also cancelled due to muslim pressure.
As soon as the singer/writer heard the verdict, all copies of the song had disappeared from several websites.,1518,399263,00.html

This is also an interesting link:

No censors, huh.
My foot.