I'm compelled to your earlier arguments, but I think using the freedom of speech as an excuse for other motivations (as you seem to imply to me by the above post) is nonsense. Then this issue would come down to, "We posted these cartoons not for a reason, but because we could". Sounds exactly like the wrong reason why the US is in the Iraq: "Because we can". There was a dispute on a threatened cartoonist for a book, the JP responded to that with their cartoons, which weren't commendable, and it backfired on them.
Freedom of speech is a right we've won in the western world; it is not a defense that can be used when we get into troubles. By suggesting freedom of speech is a tool (a weapon?) or an excuse you're actually lowering it's genuine value. That ticks me the wrong way.
Of course freedom of speech can be abused for evil purposes such as systematic vilification, but if you argue that freedom of speech was used as a weapon in the case of the JP newspaper, I refer back to my rubbish statement.
I refer back to my "Then it is still rubbish" post. I don't see how your reply answers my question. But this is getting me too silly. Perhaps it better to agree to disagree.
It's not like I have not stated "my possible implications" openly in the case of JP, so I don't know what you're surprised about.
I prefer the sillyness of referring to our own post 4 steps up ad infinitum. I think some silliness might be in order just to lighten everyone up, including myself. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
This is what has been bugging me with this whole story. Jyllandsposten was forced to back down by a boycott against danish dairy-products. But economic weapons are something that is considered an acceptable weapon in western debate. When adds are pulled or subsriptions cancelled other papers rarely rally to the defense of free speech by re-publishing the offensive material. Sure they had to attack an indirect target (Arla) to get to their real target (Jyllandsposten). But that is also nothing new. Companies are boycotted for placing adds in (and thus supporting) different papers or events. What is new is that it was the muslem world ralling their consumer power in defense of their danish brethren of the faith and they are not supposed to do that!
Then you get re-publishings, high-and-mighty cries about free speach, demonstrations and bomb-threaths from the bloody Al-Quaeda juvenile squad punk division in charge of cartoons in northern europe. All in a reinforcing circle of events.
So what happened there in the space between the paragraphs? Somehow this was turned from a question of economic power where a western paper was loosing to a question of free speach, were a western paper can hardly loose if fighting muslems (there is always going to be the Al-Quaeda juvenile squad punk division in charge of cartoons in northern europe to issue some threaths if you need to prove you are right). 'Why' is easy. 'How' is little bit harder, depending on the level of details you want. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
