My main problem with all of this is: What was the purpose of publishing this cartoon? Was it simply to offend? If so, they have certainly managed to do so. It certainly appeared to be malicious, which is not in the spirit of freedom of speech. In Europe there is a lot of uproar when anyone's sensibilities are offended. Take, for example, when Prince Harry dressed up in a Nazi outfit. The discussion was not about freedom of speech but what is considered offensive. It's the very same in this debate.
It certainly appeared to be malicious, which is not in the spirit of freedom of speech.
In Europe there is a lot of uproar when anyone's sensibilities are offended.
Take, for example, when Prince Harry dressed up in a Nazi outfit. The discussion was not about freedom of speech but what is considered offensive.
It's the very same in this debate.
This man is a moderate? He doesn't "get" what free speech is all about. The Prince Harry story is a good example, and as he says, the discussion was about whether it was tasteless or offensive, not about whethere he had the right to do it - because everybody agreed that he did.
With the cartoons, we have the exact opposite. I have not heard a single muslim voice saying that the papers had a right to publish these. quite the opposite, the pretty much explicitly ask that these cartoons be forbidden, that official apologies be presented - which by the way shows a terrifying ignorance of what the relationship between the press and governments is in the West - and that such caricatures never ever be published again.
If it was a matter of taste or offense to start with, it certainly isn't now. It is freedom of speech we are talking about now.
The Danish failed to understand how offensive it is to caricature the Prophet Muhammad. In the Muslim world we are not even allowed to have any images of the Prophet Muhammad, never mind ones that caricature him.
This is all bollocks. The JP knew exactly what they were stepping into. And the JP is not in the Muslim world, whose rules DO NOT APPLY in Europe, just like the rules of the VATICAN DO NOT APPLY.
Abortion is offensive to some catholics. The worst kind translate their offense into violence, and they are rightly condemned. The Muslim voices we hear today belong in the same category - fanatical ideologues. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I frankly think you are being willfully obtuse here. You only want to see this controversy on one plane. And that is a legitimate plane. And your general point about free speech is correct. But not everybody sees the world as you do. And I think one should try to understand these other viewpoints. I think to see simply as an example of European anti-clericalism is a bit weak.
In My case, there is a strong component of anti-clericalism, but the fact that I found these cartoons to be pretty benign, seriously. People get offended way too easily today.
And to answer Migeru's point yesterday (that I was selective in the bigotry I recognised, i.e. only anti-French and anti-Israel), the core of the problem is not that Muslims want to make us acknowledge the supposed tastelessness of the cartoons, it is that they want us not to publish these things, not as a courtesy to them, but as an obligation.
When I criticize the anti-French bias (as I see it) in the English language press, (i) I absolutely am not trying to prevent them from publishing their stuff, (ii) I am not contesting their right to have such opinions, (iii) I try to make more visible some hidden assumptions or prejudices, and (iv) I am trying to get across different perceptions or different facts, i.e. I am trying to bring new information on the table to try to convince whoever is reading me to weigh the original article differently. Here we are told that we must not represent Muhammad, full stop.
And I'll say it again. These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly (the original 12, not the additional 3, which are indeed highly offensive).
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
...and we didn't accept that obligation. (Making public apologies is no such obligation.) Rasmussen could have told this to the 11 ambassadors instead of snubbing them, alongside with acknowledging the insulting nature. The above is not the core of the problem. The re-publications were pure posturing.
When I criticize the anti-French bias...
I think Migeru saw you not noticing Danish bias.
These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly
You are not the one to decide that. And to repeat our point, it's not the cartoons alone, it's the context and motivation too.
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked.
On that, fully agreed. And this should have been done back in September already. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Well, first of all, yes it is up to me and any other individual to decide that, as free and independent individuals. And this is exactly the point Jerome and many of us are emphasising, that no one should be allowed to decide what we are allowed to say or do as long as it is within the legal framework of a society. By saying this you are depriving individuals their right to have an opinion and stating it. I could illustrate this by saying who are you or any other individual (in this case Muslims included), to decide whether I am competent or even allowed to have an opinion on this matter?
The ban on depicting Muhammed is an Islamic ban and not a Universal one. It is a religious ban and thus can not be expected to be upheld by non-Muslims or non-religious people. You could, and often should, out of respect, refrain from doing such a deed, but you can not be forced to silence through violence or threats of violence.
As for the motivations behind this whole issue it is pure speculations and, although rightwing extremists have some splendid times these days, not very fruitful to ponder over given the fact that we have no conclusive evidence pointing towards certain motivations. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Decide what? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You are not the one to decide that.
Yes I am and others too. That is my prerogative as a free and independent citizen. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
No, he was saying I did not notice anti-Muslim bias with as much alacrity as anti-French or anti-Jewish one. Fair enough, but the site is open for others to do so, and indeed it is being done.
You are not the one to decide that
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world. I am telling you that I am seriously offended by your presumption. Will you apologize to me now?
(I am asking you in jest, but the question is the logical outcome of your contention that the muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That's essentially the same. And what relation does that have with what you then wrote?
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world.
I never told you not to.
muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them
Offense is not a matter of decision. It is emotional. The form one expresses offense can de debated, but I have never challenged your objections to forms of showing offense by Muslims. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Some issues are simply not complex. Fundamental rights are (usually) among those issues. The Muslim world has no right to force its values on us. Mid-East governments are free to ask that we punish these cartoonists. And we're free to say, "It's their right to publish these, and we have no right to punish them. Deal with it."
I'm still stunned by the burning of those embassies. Countries go to war over that sort of thing. Attacking (say) the British embassy in Syria would be no different from attacking the London Underground. And this, more than anything, shows an ignorance of the West. The Danish government was not involved in publishing the cartoons. The embassy doesn't represent the cartoonists and the newspaper. It is, as I said in my diary, akin to burning your neighbor's house because your other neighbor drove over your mailbox with his car.
I say, again, this is what religion leads people to do. This is what strict adherence to some book -- some. fucking. book. -- that was written two thousand years ago leads people to do. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And they can boycot all they want, since they are free to do, they have that option. But not burning embassies or leveling death threats to the innocent. We need firmness in this case; the Arabic world turns to that wheel. Anyone read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom?
But freedom of speech comes down to one issue: Do we, or do we not, have the right to say and do what we want, provided we don't violate the rights of others?
Section 18 (1) The right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to the own image is guaranteed.
Section 20 (1) The following rights are recognized and protected: a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction; ... (2) The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship. ... (4) These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Part, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to the own image and to the protection of youth and childhood.
If I say that communism and anarcho-capitalism are the foolish ideas of vicious ideologues with the brain capacity of a AAA battery (e.g., Lenin, Rothbard, etc.), have I violated the honor of communists and anarcho-capitalists sufficiently to warrant arrest and trial?
Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away. If we punish everyone who says something that some other person finds offensive, we're all going to spend time in jail. It's too subjective and, as laws go, quite ridiculous. When something offends me, I walk away, or change the channel, or pick up a different newspaper or magazine. It's not very difficult. I don't demand that the government come to rescue me.
The right to "honor"? If people allow their honor to be damaged by some stupid cartoon in a newspaper, they're overly-emotional and need to seriously evaluate their beliefs, because, frankly, if your faith is so correct, in your mind, the words of a cartoonist shouldn't matter.
Offensive language, or cartoons, is not a violation of anyone's privacy, unless that person forces his way into your home to do so, at which point the crime goes well-beyond offensive language. This is the kind of law that leads to morons like Hillary Clinton and Lynn Cheney being allowed to wage a war on silly crap like video games, instead of doing the right thing by telling parents to stop buying them. "Oh, no! My kids are playing Super Mario Brothers, and Mario just jumped on a Bad Guy to kill it! Save me, Dubya! We must smite the evil Nintendo!"
Considering the potential secondary effects -- always the killer in public policy -- I would argue that, yes, this is an illiberal law. How has the law been applied? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away.
The first freedom is the freedom to say No.
I don't know whence comes this idyllic vision of a vast level playing field peopled exclusively by rational actors with infinite freedom of choice, but it doesn't much resemble the planet that I grew up on... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
A lot of people in the pan-Arab world would like to walk away, just walk away, from Anglo/US occupation, from repressive regimes, from poverty, etc. Or they would very much like the occupiers to walk away, just walk away, from the occupied countries.
Last I looked, only one country in the region was under what can by any stretch of the term be called Anglo/US occupation. The world's northernmost desert wind.
As is increasingly becoming the case with you, DeAnander, you didn't address my point (just as you routinely failed to address my point in the Wal-Mart thread, instead relying on emotion and attack, in that case), which was addressed specifically to the controversy over the cartoons. I suspect you would find that you and I are in at least near-full agreement about US involvement in the Middle East (and South America, and Central America, and so on). I'll leave the issue of Anglo involvement to the Britons here.
I also appreciate the generalization about "the nation" -- not the Republicans, or the neocons, or the Bushies -- having no intention of walking away or "even bothering to count their victims". Nevermind the 48% of Americans who voted for John Kerry. Nevermind those of us who opposed this war from the beginning, and who spent endless hours doing everything we could to stop Bush from winning a second term. It's the whole damned nation. We're all a bunch of blood-spilling sociopaths, aren't we?
Unbelievable.
Nothing would make me happier than to see America rid itself of involvement with the current governments in the Middle East, whether Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Israel, or whatever. Not one of those governments is worth a dime to me. Don't drag me down because of the actions of people I've worked to stop. You're more than welcome to call things as you see them, but don't throw out broad statements about Americans' views and attitudes and expect me to not respond by saying that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
more seriously...
afaik Kerry has not once repudiated the invasion of Iraq, but has only claimed that he would have done it better. ditto that beacon of Democratic hopes, H R Clinton. when the Dems identify themselves as the anti-war party, then the world at large will perceive America as a divided country; but the narrative of American media and the political spin of the major players is that the anti-war contingent is a tiny fringe of marginalised malcontent lefties who show up at ANSWER events. (this is of course not accurate, as I've been to those events and seen the broad spectrum of ages and political plumage there -- and it ignores critics from the Right like PC Roberts and J Raimondo -- but it's how things are spun by the media machinery.)
I live and work in the US and have for many years. I did everything within my small power to stop the invasion of Iraq -- I also decried and protested the US' earlier buddy-buddy-ness with Saddam 20 years ago, as it happens. nevertheless I do personally benefit from the policies of Empire, as well as personally paying for them and experiencing some disbenefits. I pay taxes to this government, instead of taking the path of conscience and becoming a tax resister. in my view, I share the responsibility -- even though I am not a US citizen -- much as a moderate Muslim who donates money to a group whose radical cadres carry out violent or extremist actions shares some responsibility for their actions. at least that is mho.
and though metacomment is seldom productive... gingerly I venture to wonder when or where I ever said that I expected anyone not to respond? when I assert a strong opinion I expect a certain number of people to disagree with me. that's just life.
you do seem to be getting a bit riled here, which concerns me as the tone of debate at ET is generally civil even when strained. if you're allergic to my style as an essayist, or you're angry because I don't conform to some "rules of debate" that you would like to enforce, well... to quote an earlier meme, why not just walk away :-) in any public bar or cafe, there are going to be people you like and people you don't, people you enjoy and people you find boring or irritating. that's also just life. why waste it getting personally angry with ascii characters on a screen? just my $.02 ... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
As for not hearing a single Muslim voice saying the newspapers have a right to publish the cartoons, I guess you have not been reading my comments, because I have linked to several of them.
I do have more to say on this issue but am pressed for time right now and need to get some work done.
* "The bastards murdered half my family.." (1967) When asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union * "You must be out of your minds.." (1982) To Solomon Islanders, on being told that their population growth was 5% a year. * "You are a woman, aren't you?" (1984) Said in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift. * "If you stay here much longer you'll all get slitty eyed." (1986) Said to British students in China. * "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine the Cantonese will eat it." (1986) [I have heard a different version of this with table instead of chair and I believe he is quoting that badly] Said at a World Wildlife Fund meeting. * "Your country is one of the most notorious centres of trading in endangered species in the world." (1991) Said in Thailand, after accepting a conservation award. * "You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (1993) Said to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary. * "Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (1994) Said to an islander in the Cayman Islands. * "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?" (1995) Said to a driving instructor in Scotland. * "You managed not to get eaten, then?" (1998) Said to a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea. * "It looks like it was put in by Indians." (1999) Said after he saw a poorly constructed fusebox.[Presumably a wierd reference to "cowboy builders] * "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (1999) Said to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band. * "Do you still throw spears at each other?" (2002) To an Aboriginal man on Australia's Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park. * "You were playing your instruments, weren't you? Or do you have tape recorders under your seats?" (2002) Said to a children's band in Australia. * "Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?" (2002) Said to a blind woman with a guide dog. * "The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism we could stop the congestion.." (2002) Commenting on the London traffic debate, after mayor Ken Livingstone forced through his plan to charge motorists £5 to enter the city. * "French cooking's all very well, but they can't do a decent English breakfast.." (2002) Aboard the floating restaurant 'Il Punto' on the river Orwell in Ipswich, after thoroughly enjoying an excellent full English breakfast (Il Punto is owned by Frenchman Regis Crepy). * "You look like you're ready for bed!" Said to the President of Nigeria, who was dressed in traditional robes
* "The bastards murdered half my family.." (1967)
When asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union
* "You must be out of your minds.." (1982)
To Solomon Islanders, on being told that their population growth was 5% a year.
* "You are a woman, aren't you?" (1984)
Said in Kenya, to a native woman who had presented him with a small gift.
* "If you stay here much longer you'll all get slitty eyed." (1986)
Said to British students in China.
* "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine the Cantonese will eat it." (1986) [I have heard a different version of this with table instead of chair and I believe he is quoting that badly]
Said at a World Wildlife Fund meeting.
* "Your country is one of the most notorious centres of trading in endangered species in the world." (1991)
Said in Thailand, after accepting a conservation award.
* "You can't have been here that long - you haven't got a pot belly." (1993)
Said to a Briton in Budapest, Hungary.
* "Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (1994)
Said to an islander in the Cayman Islands.
* "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?" (1995)
Said to a driving instructor in Scotland.
* "You managed not to get eaten, then?" (1998)
Said to a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea.
* "It looks like it was put in by Indians." (1999)
Said after he saw a poorly constructed fusebox.[Presumably a wierd reference to "cowboy builders]
* "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." (1999)
Said to young deaf people in Cardiff, referring to a school's steel band.
* "Do you still throw spears at each other?" (2002)
To an Aboriginal man on Australia's Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park.
* "You were playing your instruments, weren't you? Or do you have tape recorders under your seats?" (2002)
Said to a children's band in Australia.
* "Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?" (2002)
Said to a blind woman with a guide dog.
* "The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism we could stop the congestion.." (2002)
Commenting on the London traffic debate, after mayor Ken Livingstone forced through his plan to charge motorists £5 to enter the city.
* "French cooking's all very well, but they can't do a decent English breakfast.." (2002)
Aboard the floating restaurant 'Il Punto' on the river Orwell in Ipswich, after thoroughly enjoying an excellent full English breakfast (Il Punto is owned by Frenchman Regis Crepy).
* "You look like you're ready for bed!"
Said to the President of Nigeria, who was dressed in traditional robes
Now these were either cases of engaging mouth before putting brain in gear or him not quite getting the very dry English sense of humour quite right. You may remember that when someone asked Noel Coward who the small man (the Tongan Prime Minister) was sitting next to the rather portly Queen of Tonga in the carriage procession at the last Coronation, he replied "Lunch". I must admit remarking to a work colleague when I first heard of the Challenger crash that it was a bloody expensive way of making a teacher redundant. You may remember that the 7/7 bombins in London occured the day after the city was awarded the 2012 Olympics and apparently a common remark among those evacuated from the stations was "I did not think the French were such bad losers". Mostly these are attempts to defuse tension through humour are certainly not intended to offend. Unfortunately Princes Philip and Harry get reported when they say or do things that are just a bit too far. After all, why did Harry have to go and hire the uniform when he could have borrowed a far more accurate one from his Great Aunt Michael (of Kent)?
If there are actions and words that we accept cause great offense to others, albeit unwittingly, we should apologise for that hurt. Most of the cartoons originally published were fairly innocuous but the one "Turban bomb" one was particularly offensive not only for the depiction of Mohammed but also because it had the central pillar of the religion on it in Arabic (There is no god by Allah and Mohammed is his messenger") which directly ties the religion to violence. I would agree with others that even disregarding the blasphemy many Muslims consider any depiction of any prophet is, this libel is the main reason for the depth of the upset. After all
Really, what I see is a weak, poor, and disorganized region that we in the US (because of 9/11 and oil) and Europe (because of immigration) wouldn't give a fuck about if not for the reasons I just list. Without the above, the Middle East would be Africa.
I don't feel especially threatened as such, even though I know there are a lot of folks who think fundamentally differently than me in the ME and small minority that want to kill "me." Sure, actions must be taken to present these negative consequences from occurring. But I'm not expecting an Islamic conqueror in the US or Europe anytime soon, either.
Now if these kind of cultural clashes were occurring with China, that'd be a different story. That does represent a potentially significant threat.
In your first reply, you accuse him of not understanding what freedom of speech is, but the actual detail you think he got wrong is your own perception that no Muslim at all argued that the cartoons were not commendable but permissible! While his very writing is a counter-example! This is ridiculous. In fact, from there are two sentences, from which it is very clear that he doesn't think the publication should be prohibited, that is if you read more carefully:
People have to be very careful when they publish something like this. They have to make sure they know what they are getting into.
The argument is not to not publish, and certainly not to make any laws on the issue. The argument is to take care. It's about commending, not about permitting.
The display of solidarity on the part of the European newspapers was an overreaction - to republish these pictures without context, just to take a stand, was wrong.
Without context, wrong. (Essentially my argument BTW.) Not to republish at all, not to be made illegal.
It's you who pretends this is all about freedom of speech, and that it was just an issue of a matter of taste before.
Your misreading of the second quote is even more infuriating, just because you keep on calling offense 'tasteless'. Please read his words again! What does the first sentence say? It speaks about lack of understanding of how offensive it is. The second sentence is an emphatisation. It is not about rules. It is about why people feel so offended. It is about the difference between the level of offense someone takes who has been witnessing blasphemy in various forms from childhood every day, and someone who hasn't. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Well their being offended offends me too, and I DEMAND apologies from them for being such fussy whiners. It's up to me to define what offends me, right? Then they are fucking offensive to me.
I believe in freedom of speech, but it should be used responsibly.
That's typical wingnut code to say : it should be used only as fit MY requirements.
And back to the underlying issue: a muslim was represented with a bomb on his head. Well, what's the religion of that last 500 suicide bombers in the world? It's a caricature that has more than a little bit of link to contemporary reality. They should deal with it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Are you saying that all that jews that complain about pictures of them in the muslim world (showing them as animal, beast, killers and worst) and nazis groups denying the holocaust ( also depicting them as an infra-human) should just shut up because all those jews offend you for being such a fussy whiners?
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
Like I said, some offenses are obvious to all and, as a matter of fact, as you have pointed out, a number of them are illegal in many countries of Europe. These cases are best dealt with by the legal system if the authors insist on publishing.
Then we enter the realm of the subjective - precisely things like these cartoons, which I find unremarkable, and that many Muslims obviously find insulting. There is no legal recourse, but there is a first the recours of asking politely. It's not clear if that was done or not, but if it was, it was not successful, leading to more activist protests. At various stages, it might have been defused (whether by the paper publishing a muslim view point, or by Rasmussen talking to the ambassadors) - or it might not. We were still in that grey area.
But now we are outside that area, with muslims (at least those we hear) saying that these cartoons are a scandal, should not be published tolerated, and retaliating with violence. These people are out of line, do not understand how our system works, and I don't see why we should move in any way to accomodate their extremist and invasive demands. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
My question comes from your view on the two first paragrahs. I find these cartoons clearly offensive.. and I would say that they are clearly offensive to anybody who is muslim and even those that dislike racism. If some people do not find it racist.. well they are entitled to their opinion.....It is very difficult for me to understand why you see some as clearly offensive ( iguess you were referring to the ones banned in Spain) and not this one... I am sorry I must agree with Migeru on that.. if you really think that, I personally think you are clearly biased...but again this is my personal opinion. Do not take it personal..it is a personal perception that I know you just do not care.
In any cae, the most important point is the question about laws. You can always go to court and see if they break the law...and here it is what I do not understand.. why some pictures about jews are illegal and the same one applied to muslims is not considered illegal by our justice system? Isn't there a double standard? what is a muslim supposed to do if he/she sees this double standard.. demonstrate, ask for boycots (for sure they have all the right).. but then they do not get anything...well I guess we can say.. sorry mate.. the system is against you.. live with it..
I just hope that Europe would be better than that. I just hope that either we have complete freedom of speech (even for KKK, nazis , muslim attacks, christian attacks...) or some common restriction to blatant racist comments in public speech is introduced. One or the other.
Yes. You want to define them when and to what grade they can feel offended. Not very liberal if you ask me.
Sorry but that's pure paranoia. In your defense of permissible, you managed to eliminate commendable completely.
And back to the underlying issue: a muslim was represented with a bomb on his head. Well, what's the religion of that last 500 suicide bombers in the world?
Well, what's the religion of the last 500 aircraft pilots who threw bombs at civilians? Jérôme, you crossed a certain line here, I wonder if you noticed. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If Jerome thinks that all the anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East are fair and square because "what is the religion of those israeli pilots and army forcing the occupation of palestinian land" or "what is the religion of the racial jew settlers after all" then I see that he is not discriminating according to his racial references, just advocating a point about free speech (which I would deeply disagree).
It would be consistent to think that those cartoons have some kind of "relation" with reality and all the jews should live with the fact that they can be put in the same basket. So Jerome wil be advocating for free speech for any attack on any race or religion just becasue one or some of its members behave wrongly. He will defend the right to attack any evangelist or christian just because of the KKK. And of course any atheist for the multiple crimes comitted in the name of atheism.
I am not sure if in this last case he would be crossing the line. He will merely advocate a "religious fervor" for free speech. It is a controversial statement in any case but not a racist one.
And again, the point I will disagree with you to no end is the first. Who is to decide what is in the grey area and which things not? For me , we are clearly NOT in a grey area here. This is pure racism as fas as I can see (two clearly .. I must admit that a third one could be in the grey depending on how you see it).
I bet that most of the cartoon in the Middle East are not considered at all racist by a great majority.. more or less at the same rate that people in Europe do not consider these cartoons racist. So who is to decide what is blatant? A judge , you will answer.. a judge that in Europe is comletely biased against muslims and pro-catholic and pro-jews and in the Middle East is just the other way around.
Either you stablish complete free of speech or you just wirite down clear laws about restriction of racist comments and how to identify it. Sorry jerome you can not get it both ways: when it is blatant (as I see it) it is fine to be banned , when it is not (as I see it) we should defend it to no end.
And with this I think I have made clear my argument..No point in keep banging on it. I have made up my mind about you and I guess you have made your mind about me...
Talk to you again...
For instance, I am not offended by this (which is the cover of that album on the Holocaust which was banned by the Spanish supreme court):
(The title itself is great - an ironical comment on Godwin's law) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
