[unapelosina]

Over reaction FTW!

[CKDIWEQ]

Shouldn't have carried the bombs on their heads then they wouldn't have been caught

[AnimeThat]

Originally posted by Theben
People who draw lines on paper for a living deserve to die. Yeah! Death to Rob Liefeld!

[Qualarrizab]

I always turn to the comics before drawing up my death list too.

[Nicihntm]

[q=BBC]
Danish Muhammad cartoon reprinted
Protesters burn a Danish flag in Pakistan in February
The row saw Danish flags being burnt in Muslim states
Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world two years ago.

They say they wanted to show their commitment to freedom of speech after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings.

Three suspects were held in Denmark on Tuesday "to prevent a murder linked to terrorism", officials said.

The cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

Danish embassies were attacked around the world and dozens died in riots that followed.

'Defiant'

Jyllands-Posten and many other major newspapers - including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende - reprinted the caricature in their Wednesday editions.


Kurt Westergaard (15/09/2006)
I have turned fear into anger and resentment
Kurt Westergaard
Cartoonist

The cartoon depicts Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.

The editors say no-one should feel their life is threatened because of a drawing.

"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," Berlingske Tidende said.

The cartoon was also broadcast on national television, and even newspapers that were originally against the publication of the caricatures are now backing the campaign to defend freedom of speech, the BBC's Thomas Buch-Andersen in Copenhagen says.

One Danish tabloid published all 12 drawings, the Associated Press news agency reported.

'Deeply shaken'

On Tuesday, the head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (Pet), Jakob Sharf, said its operatives had carried out pre-dawn raids in the Aarhus region.

The three suspects - two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan origin - had been detained "after lengthy surveillance", he added.

The Danish citizen will be released pending further investigation, while the Tunisians will be held until they are expelled from the country.

Map

The Pet did not identify the target of the alleged plot, but the online edition of Jyllands-Posten said its cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, was the focus.

The newspaper, based in Aarhus, said Mr Westergaard, 73, and his 66-year-old wife, Gitte, had been under police protection for the past three months.

In a statement on Jyllands-Posten's website, Mr Westergaard said: "Of course I fear for my life when the police intelligence service say that some people have concrete plans to kill me.

"But I have turned fear into anger and resentment."

The editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, said he and his staff had been "deeply shaken" by the news.

"We'd become more or less used to death threats and bomb threats since the cartoons, but it's the first time that we've heard about actual murder plans - that's new," he said.

Muslim anger

The BBC's Thomas Buch-Andersen in Copenhagen says the arrests have stunned people in Denmark, where the furore over the cartoons was thought to have passed.

Mr Westergaard was one of 12 artists behind the drawings but he was responsible for what was considered the most controversial of the pictures.

The cartoons were later reprinted by more than 50 newspapers, triggering a wave of protests in parts of the Muslim world.

The demonstrations culminated a year ago with the torching of Danish diplomatic offices in Damascus and Beirut and dozens of deaths in Nigeria, Libya and Pakistan. [/q]

[GoodLover]

Originally posted by Adagio
The cartoons needs to be printed by every newspaper in the world Oh God No! Unless you can make them funny, and not just obvious racist crap.

[phenterminediett]

Originally posted by muxec
If they are so upset about images it is their weakness. We just do not know how to exploit it. It's easier to exploit people when you don't piss them off. A weakness would be being to trusting of people trying to exploit you.

[healty-back]

Originally posted by Adagio


If we don't, then the terrorists have won You got me there.

[IamRobot]

Classic Kid, just classic.

Pray tell how a cartoonist satirziing truth about the Islamist movement is exploitation?

[lodsemelf]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Classic Kid, just classic.

Pray tell how a cartoonist satirziing truth about the Islamist movement is exploitation? Not what I said.

[vasyasvc]

Originally posted by C0ckney
kid, surely even you can't fail to see that the significance of these cartoons goes far beyond their artistic merits. I don't think they are significant or artistic. I think the creators are stupid racists without any talent.

[jimbomaxf]

Originally posted by Murg
And killing people because of them is a huge overreaction.

(...)


Now what exactly the punishment for that bad taste is would certainly be less than killing the artists. Which is why I said both sides are at fault. Yeah, killing would be a bit much. Maybe they could just be publicly beaten, incl. their family members.

[Uhmavano]

It's memist! Discrimination against memes!

[Zs3ZASpA]

Originally posted by onodera
I do not like what you publish in your paper, but I will defend to death your right to publish it.
Hasn't someone said something like that? Close :

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

[indianstory]

murg, i can understand that reasonable people might be offended by those cartoons, but that's too bad. i'm a reasonable person and i often see things which i find offensive, but that is the price you pay for living in a democracy. personally i think it is a price worth paying, some people clearly do not share this view.

if you are offended by an image or an article, then you can always write a letter to editor or your MP or boycott that publication or its parent company, you can even have a (peaceful) protest on the streets if you feel that strongly about it. in fact, i think reasonable people who found the cartoons offensive did exactly those sort of things. the fanatics and zealots were and are the ones calling for people's heads to roll, and pandering to them is not something that a democratic country should be doing.

[MattJargin]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


That is patently impossible. I can think of zero opinions that could be expressed without the possiblitiy of offending someone.

Being offended sometimes is a Very Good Thing. It keeps the mind open. What if no one had ever said "capitalism sucks" because they were afraid of offending the capitalists? Well if you hate muslims and want to continue a war against them than offending them doesn't matter that much. But if you want to live peacefully with them then offending them is a very bad idea.

Also, saying capitalism sucks is different here isn't it? I'm not being a racists or a bigot if that's what you want to call it. If someone is offended because I say capitalism sucks the problem is probably with them, not with me.

[Lidawka]

Originally posted by C0ckney
free speech isn't just about the government. if people can't say controversial things about, or even make light of religion without attracting threats of violence, then that is limiting free speech. Free speech is only about the government. Threatening people with violence is another illegal activity and it has nothing to do with free speech (it would be just as illegal if you were doing it to keep someone from posting a comic as it would be if you threatened then to close down their business).

So if you threatened to kill someone if they talked to you at the mall you wouldn't be arrested for infringing on their free speech, you would be arerested for threatening someone. Likewise a club doesnt infringe on free speech by telling a presenter that he cant cuss during his show, and a parent doesnt infringe on free speech by telling their child to thank their grandma for giving them a cookie.

This is the first admendmant, it only says the government won't interfere, thats it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[texbrease]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but thats pure BS. Journalists aren't supposed to control what happens as you suggest - they are supposed to reveal all the dirty things and if that offends someone, well, so be it. So then you wouldnt think a paper that posted the offensive comics I listed would be showing bad taste?

Remember we arent talking about the reporting aspect of jounalism, we are talking about their ability to influence.

For example we want journalists to post news about Barack Obama, but if one posted that he was a muslim extremist with links to terrorists we would all agree that they were using their influence in an unethical way.

If you dont think journalists influence public opinion, then you may be underestimating their power.

[KneefeZes]

[q=Murg]For example we want journalists to post news about Barack Obama, but if one posted that he was a muslim extremist with links to terrorists we would all agree that they were using their influence in an unethical way.[/q]

Bullshit, but...no, still bullshit. Can you prove the point? If not, then don't print it, if you can then fair dues.

[mr.memo]

Originally posted by Murg
Can you prove the picture of mohammad with a bomb in his turban? Or is it slander that muslims are terrorists? Isnt that false accusation?

I dont think being able to prove something is true is the qualifier. It certainly doesnt apply to political cartoons.

You have seriously missed the point about that drawing.