Suppose then that a boycott was called of the newspapers, with street protests in cities with large gay communitites.
Suppose then that he rest of the press said "oh, you find those cartoons offensive? Well, you obviously don't understand freedom of speech. Have some more cartoons, they're on the house!".
Suppose someone got so enraged by the whole thing that they ended up getting into a fistfight with one of the cartoonists, and subsequently found guilty of assault. Free speech would have been vindicated!
We have laws against antisocial behaviour. We have laws against harassment. If A says someone to B and B says "A, I find that offensive, don't say it again", and A continues to do it, B might even be able to get a restraining order on A on the grounds of psychological harassment, freedom of speech notwithstanding. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I still haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that JP did not intend the cartoons to be a pure and simple provocation of the people who are now closing down the EU's offices in Gaza at gunpoint.
I agree the governments of muslim countries have no reason to expect state action against these newspapers, but Anders Fogh Rasmussen had every reason to expect that refusing to even meet 11 ambassadors was going to lead to a diplomatic mess. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
To Muslim leaders in Denmark like Akkari and fellow imam Abu Laban, the images provided evidence of an Islamophobia that they believe permeates Danish society. Worse yet, they felt their protests against racism had been ignored. Newspapers failed to publish their letters to the editor and politicians seemed unwilling to listen. "As a group in society, we've simply been ignored," Akkari told the Aarhus-based daily Stiftstidende earlier this month.
Let's just agree to disagree here. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
