Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Again the question you have to ask and have answered”; So before to express an opinion or to draw whatever, you have first to ask yourself if you want to be killed by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheism, Pagans, Communist, Socialist, capitalists, etc, all groups which could be offended.

---

Not what was stated. Freedom of Speech requires one to act responsible in thier speech along with the exercise of that speech.

Quote:

---

Well, that means because religions offended me deeply, can you start burning and destroyed all holly books and buildings. If the USA could remove from the Bank Notes the “In God We Trust”, I should appreciate. And if you don’t, well, I will kill you, or at least, I will try.:dizzy2:

---

You can state that it should be removed - in fact that happens in the United States every now and then. Haven't seen any violence associated with that yet.

Quote:

---

The responsible of this violence are not the authors of the drawings, but the people who torch Embassies, use violence and make appeal to kill.

---

And they are being irresponsable in their behavior. Exercising irresponsible speech does not give others an excuse for violence. The author's responsibility only rests in the concept were the drawings done with malicous intent to create violence?

The papers publication of the drawings and thier assigned responsiblity rests in the intent behind the publication. Was it done to inform or was it done in malicous intent.

Now this is not governmental prosecution of wrong doing - but responsibility of the individual.

Quote:

---

The newspaper used a pencil; they use guns, bombs and flames. So, yes, it is Religious Intolerance. The mob is an offence, the intolerance, the violence are, not few drawings published 4 months ago:wall:

---

Explain the recent publication of the drawings in other papers? Both sides of the issue are acting irresponsible in my opinion.

THe only action that is questionable is the orginal intent of the first paper - which I believe was only done to inform. I can call that pictures unacceptable in my opinion (free speech you know) and be within the confines of acceptable free speech criticism. Again Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity.

I actually find both groups are now acting irresponsible. Stroking the flames is an act of irresponsiblity when you see the house is alreadly burning.

Quote:

---

“Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence.” The Pope was right. Galilee was wrong to offend the Christians. Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun is turning around it.
:help:

---

A strawman arguement to counter - hm, someone doesn't understand Free Speech.

If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.

Quote:

---

“If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.” I agree with that. The Muslim Countries (not all of them) and their populations have to make their revolution and gain their freedom.:duel:

---

yes indeed they need to understand what Free Speech is all about. Unfortunately for the world their governments do not want people to actually think and speak.

Quote:

---

“Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountability” : Right, in front of a court, not a mob, we agree on that.:2thumbsup:

---

[/quote]

Actually I was not speaking of in front of a court or a mob. But in front of the mirror looking at yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.

---

I don't quite agree with you Red. I don't think a person printing a picture, writing an article, or making a speach can ever be held responsible for any ensuing violence, unless it can be proved in a court of law that inciting violence was their intent. The way you have describe it, if I call somebody a mean name that I know they hate, I could be held partly responsible for them running my family over with their car in retaliation, and that is simply not right.

The author of an article that is currently the subject of another Backroom thread said is best:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonia Mikich

It should go without saying that individuals in a secular democracy have every right to caricature and mock authorities, even religious ones. They should be prepared to meet criticism but not punishment.

---

It sounds to me like you are saying they should be prepared to meet criticism and punishment, and that they bear responsibility for that punishment, no matter how over the top or out of proportion it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I don't quite agree with you Red. I don't think a person printing a picture, writing an article, or making a speach can ever be held responsible for any ensuing violence, unless it can be proved in a court of law that inciting violence was their intent. The way you have describe it, if I call somebody a mean name that I know they hate, I could be held partly responsible for them running my family over with their car in retaliation, and that is simply not right.

---

Hmm I wonder what I have stated, something along the lines that intent applies to responsiblity.

Quote:

---

The author of an article that is currently the subject of another Backroom thread said is best:

---

Goes along with exactly what I have been stating. Unfortunately I am not as clear as the author there.

However it seems that some don't understand what the esteemed Sonia Mikich is saying. Criticism of the speech implies that one can call it unacceptable.

Quote:

---

It sounds to me like you are saying they should be prepared to meet criticism and punishment, and that they bear responsibility for that punishment, no matter how over the top or out of proportion it is.

---

You only have part of it right - I bolded the part you have correct. Now the part you don't have right, is that they bear the responsiblity of the actions their words their words create if they had malicius (SP) intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Criticism of the speech implies that one can call it unacceptable.

---

Very true, but this reminds me of Catch 22. You can say that the author is responsible for the consequences, but he can't actually be responsible.... unless he's responsible?

“Free Speech”: Easy to understand. Free, from freedom, liberty (syn.), Speech, to Speak, to talk (syn).:book:
So it is the freedom to exercise the capacity to give an opinion, a comment, a word without fear.
See, it is not difficult concept to understand.

In a normal way, that means when I had a discussion with my religious friends, we exchange ideas, concepts and other words. We never agree, of course, but we all think we will finish convincing the other.
None of us think that the Jihad, Crusaders or Gulags are admissible way to convert or to spread a faith, or a lack of faith.
The only consequence I got when I said to people I don’t believe in a creator, whatever is his/her/theirs name(s) is a verbal counter-strike (and eternal flames if I will prove wrong).:oops:

“But in front of the mirror looking at yourself”: Well, it is true I often speak to myself, and sometimes disagree with me. But that is called dialectic.
And here, we don’t speak about image but real threats.

Freedom of Speech is the key for Freedom. The Islamic Fascists know it (like their predecessors, Christians and Jews, for the monotheist one), and what they want is to stop it.
Amazingly, and perhaps I am mistaken, it seems you agree with them. There are subjects which can’t be mocked, or you accept you could be killed. Is it what you are saying?:help:

“If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.” I am French. Two years ago a heinous campaign against the French was launched in the USA. Some of the things said offended me deeply. Was I untitled to kill US citizens? Give me your opinion. The US media, according of what I understand in your comments, were responsible because they incite me to violence. Is it correct?:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You only have part of it right - I bolded the part you have correct. Now the part you don't have right, is that they bear the responsiblity of the actions their words their words create if they had malicius (SP) intent.

---

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech.

---

Right. I try to be as charitable to your views as I can, but this is plain nonsense. What you are saying is that the cartoonists asked for the fanatic reactions. That is like saying women who wear short skirts ask for rape. Or that the U.S. should not complain about 9/11 because they 'asked' for it.

If that is not what you meant, then what are you trying to communicate to planet Earth, Redleg?

We are not getting your message. :vulcan:

AdrianII what is your view on libel, slander and lies?

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.

---

'Truths', 'misinform' -- as you know, one man's truth is another man's misinformation, Papewaio. You only have to think of your debates with creationists on this forum. And can paintings lie? Can a novel tell the truth? Can a smile really launch a thousand ships, or is it the ship-owner who does the launching?

And how do you think such categories apply to this topic, where truth and misinformation are open to debate (as they are so often)? I think I have made my views on it very clear in three different threads. Views on religion are legit, incitement to violence is not.

There's something rather dodgy about that answer, methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Very true, but this reminds me of Catch 22. You can say that the author is responsible for the consequences, but he can't actually be responsible.... unless he's responsible?

---

If the intent was to incite violence ......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Free Speech”: Easy to understand. Free, from freedom, liberty (syn.), Speech, to Speak, to talk (syn).:book:
So it is the freedom to exercise the capacity to give an opinion, a comment, a word without fear.
See, it is not difficult concept to understand.

---

No it isn't. However what you are not stating is that Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from responsiblity.

Quote:

---

In a normal way, that means when I had a discussion with my religious friends, we exchange ideas, concepts and other words. We never agree, of course, but we all think we will finish convincing the other.
None of us think that the Jihad, Crusaders or Gulags are admissible way to convert or to spread a faith, or a lack of faith.
The only consequence I got when I said to people I don’t believe in a creator, whatever is his/her/theirs name(s) is a verbal counter-strike (and eternal flames if I will prove wrong).:oops:

---

Interesting but not relative to the discussion of Freedom of Speech and the responsibility that goes along with it.

Quote:

---

“But in front of the mirror looking at yourself”: Well, it is true I often speak to myself, and sometimes disagree with me. But that is called dialectic.
And here, we don’t speak about image but real threats.

---

You misunderstood the anology.

Quote:

---

Freedom of Speech is the key for Freedom. The Islamic Fascists know it (like their predecessors, Christians and Jews, for the monotheist one), and what they want is to stop it.
Amazingly, and perhaps I am mistaken, it seems you agree with them. There are subjects which can’t be mocked, or you accept you could be killed. Is it what you are saying?:help:

---

Your setting yourself up for a strawman arguement. That is not what I have stated. So yes you are mistaken.

For Freedom of Speech one must accept the responsibility that comes along with it. Criticism is part of Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept that criticism, then why should you have Freedom of Speech. Violence and the threat of violence is an unacceptable alternative (which has been stated.) But that does not mean I can not criticize your speech as unacceptable. What I can not do is bring violence upon your person because I disagree with your speech. Notice that I have pointed out that both extremes of the issue are over-reacting to the issue. The Muslims for threatening violence, the second publication of the drawing by papers.

Quote:

---

“If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.” I am French. Two years ago a heinous campaign against the French was launched in the USA. Some of the things said offended me deeply. Was I untitled to kill US citizens? Give me your opinion. The US media, according of what I understand in your comments, were responsible because they incite me to violence. Is it correct?:sweatdrop:

---

Not at all - you are incorrect. The only responsiblity for the media is to report the events accurately. If they reported it accurately then there is no malicous intent to incite violence. There intent was to publish the news. That you are upset with the reports and voice your opinion about being upset is a responsible expression of that speech. Burning of Flags, protests against governments, boycots and demanding of an apology are all in line with responsible criticism of a speech issue. Violence on the other hand is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?

---

Your actions then as an owner of a news network is one of irresponsiblity. The individuals responsible for the death are those who committed the act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Right. I try to be as charitable to your views as I can, but this is plain nonsense. What you are saying is that the cartoonists asked for the fanatic reactions. That is like saying women who wear short skirts ask for rape. Or that the U.S. should not complain about 9/11 because they 'asked' for it.

---

Try again - that is not what was stated. Here I will help you understand by repeating myself.

"Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech."

Quote:

---

If that is not what you meant, then what are you trying to communicate to planet Earth, Redleg?

---

Its rather simple really Adrian with Freedom comes responsiblity.

Quote:

---

We are not getting your message. :vulcan:

---

Then you are not listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

AdrianII what is your view on libel, slander and lies?

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.

---

Yes indeed at least one individual gets my point in a rather concise way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?

---

Your actions then as an owner of a news network is one of irresponsiblity. The individuals responsible for the death are those who committed the act.

---

Just so we are absolutely clear then: Though my remarks as the owner of the Goofball News Network (which, BTW, I like the sound of more and more every time I hear it:eyebrows: ) may have been mean-spirited, or irresponsible, or whatever you want to call them, they still do not make me in any way responsible for the innocent guy's death.

Correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Just so we are absolutely clear then: Though my remarks as the owner of the Goofball News Network (which, BTW, I like the sound of more and more every time I hear it:eyebrows: ) may have been mean-spirited, or irresponsible, or whatever you want to call them, they still do not make me in any way responsible for the innocent guy's death.

Correct?

---

Did you deliberately set out to have the individuals kill someone else?

If you did not you acted in an irresponsible manner, but you are not responsible for the death of the innocent.

Your responsiblity for the death would fall if you advocated for an individual to be pulled from a car and beaten to death in your broadcast.


Now to take you anology one step farther and compare it to the current situation. After this event happen and I as the owner of the Redleg News Agency and report the events as they unfold. Which is acceptable and responsible journalism. And in doing so repeated the broadcast of the GNN to give the audience the complete story, I would be acting in a responsible manner.

However my brother at the Redneck News Network decides not only to report the news, but add an editorial talking about how backward and idiotic the community in question was, making slurs and libel statements toward that community to futher inflame that community and stir up others - then my brother network is acting in an irresponsible manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

"Free Speech does not give one leave to state any old thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech."

---

You are confused.

• Facing consequences is something entirely different from being responsible for consequences
• In this particular case we are not talking about 'stating any old thing' -- we are talking about legitimate criticism of a religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You are confused.

• Facing consequences is something entirely different from being responsible for consequences
• In this particular case we are not talking about 'stating any old thing' -- we are talking about legitimate criticism of a religion

---

Actually I think the individual confused is yourself. You made a comment about someone not being able to criticize a method of free speech as being unacceptable. That is where I entered into the discussion. Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity is something I have stated several times.

Futhermore we are talking about several things to include the legitimate criticism of the method used to legitimately criticize a religion, that with Free Speech comes responsibility, and the irresponsible actions of both sides of the issue in this matter of Free Speech. To include that Religion can be legitimately criticized. [sarcasm on]However are you now still attempting to argue that drawing Muhammound (SP) as a bomb throwing terrorists is a legimate drawing of a man that did not have access to a bomb with a lite fuze back when he was alive? [/sarcasm off]



That is were I entered into the discussion - if one goes back and review what has been stated.

If it helps you understand the concept better by all means define it as being responsible for consequences. Facing means accepting responsiblility in the way that I used the term here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No I disagree with the drawing - the method was to print the drawings in a newspaper. The drawings are an unacceptable message becasue they are a distortion, and the voicing of my opinion is that the newspaper did not exercise proper responsiblity in the the publication of the cartoons. Not so much the initial paper printing of them - but the subsequent printins.

---

Oh now I see then. I was speaking on the method of protest. But then in this case I disagree with you. You might find it unacceptable, that doesn't make it unacceptable, because I already stated that it's absolute, the only exception might come when the exercise offends other people in their honor or enters their private life. This two exceptions are not of the type that the drawings express, is not an attack to an existing, living person, but to an idol's image. Responsability has nothing to do with journalism as far as I'm concerned, is just that responsability will obstaculize with their work.

Quote:

---

You are incorrect. Freedom of Speech is not a concept that necessarily leads to revolution. People are always free to speak their minds in a responsible manner in most free societies. No need for a revolution to increase that freedom.

---

This kind of riots look only for one thing, create a change in society. In this case they probably search that this kind of expressions are banned, so they want a revolution and they express in revolutionary ways. So this might be reduced to, is this a revolution or not? In the case that it's, is it worth it?

*Notice that the journalist in this case don't have to respond to anybody, they could continue to publish the pictures over and over, make them even more "unacceptable" and the ones that still would have to respond will be the rioters. The journalists are free from all guilt, I'm free for all guilt for insulting your religion and everyone's religion, as the other is free from guilt for returning the insult. If someone has to face consequences only because they explicity disagree with other's belief, then we might be living in an "unacceptable society".

Acceptance of their intolerance - it's all part of radical Islam's plan

Quote:

---

But while we accommodate the intolerant, we seem ever more determined to ferret out any whiff of intolerance in ourselves. Witness the calls this week by a Victorian teachers union for cultural re-education of children after a survey of 551 high school students found a majority had negative attitudes towards Muslims.

An editorial in The Age even attempted to excuse the inexcusable, saying of the survey results: "Little wonder many Muslims see the 'war on terror' as a war on them. Their community is besieged by hostility and suspicion, which helps explain why they want to make their hurt felt …"

Civilised people don't usually make their "hurt felt" by torching other people's embassies, stoning churches and waving the sort of banners reported at a protest over the cartoons in London last week: "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe, your 9/11 will come".

...

But antagonism to Western culture appears in more subtle forms. In Melbourne recently the first training course for home-grown Islamic religious leaders was launched at the Minaret College in Springvale, funded by a reported $1.8 million of taxpayer money.

While it says it embraces a moderate 21st-century form of Islam, the college features on its website a fatwa, or official ruling, from Sheik Yusof Al-Qaradawi, professor at the University of Qutar, who is banned from entering the US and Germany because of his support for terrorist groups. The letter calls for donations because educational institutions for Muslims outside the Muslim world are "castles for jihad and shields of protection from surrounding evils".

Teaching young Muslims that Australian society is evil is not a recipe for cultural harmony.

devinemiranda@hotmail.com

---

Miranda Devine is a bit right wing for my liking... she tends to skip a lot of contrary evidence to fit her preconcepted ideas on the whole... but from what she does select she makes a more compelling case then her cohorts... a type of writing that is more suitable to a lawyer then a journo IMDHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Oh now I see then. I was speaking on the method of protest. But then in this case I disagree with you.

---

That is the nature of Freedom of Speech. I don't have to agree with you and I can state so. My responsiblity is to insure that I do not call for violence in the discourse between my belief and yours.

Quote:

---

You might find it unacceptable, that doesn't make it unacceptable, because I already stated that it's absolute,

---

There is no absolute in Freedom of Speech. Each individual can speak their mind as long as they accept responsibility for there statements.

Quote:

---

the only exception might come when the exercise offends other people in their honor or enters their private life. This two exceptions are not of the type that the drawings express, is not an attack to an existing, living person, but to an idol's image.

---

Granted. But that wasn't the issue that drew me to this discussion. Its the statements that claim that we can not find something unacceptable - which is just another attempt at censoring people's opinions that you do not agree with. I can state something is unacceptable - that is a criticism of the other individuals free speech. What I can not do is go perform violence against the individual. This is where being responsible comes into play. To exercise Freedom of Speech one must accept responsibility for thier speech. Without responsibility there is no freedom.

Quote:

---

Responsability has nothing to do with journalism as far as I'm concerned, is just that responsability will obstaculize with their work.

---

Responsibility is the cornerstone of accurate journalism. If the journalist does not report the truth then they are just editorials and they should claim only that they are editorializing, not reporting.

Quote:

---

This kind of riots look only for one thing, create a change in society. In this case they probably search that this kind of expressions are banned, so they want a revolution and they express in revolutionary ways. So this might be reduced to, is this a revolution or not? In the case that it's, is it worth it?

---

And they should be squashed for rioting. Responsible Free Speech requires the individual to be civil in their discourse. Passion in the discussion is acceptable - violence is not.

Quote:

---

*Notice that the journalist in this case don't have to respond to anybody, they could continue to publish the pictures over and over, make them even more "unacceptable" and the ones that still would have to respond will be the rioters. The journalists are free from all guilt, I'm free for all guilt for insulting your religion and everyone's religion, as the other is free from guilt for returning the insult. If someone has to face consequences only because they explicity disagree with other's belief, then we might be living in an "unacceptable society".

---

Difference of opinion. Irresponsible journalism has started wars before. Read up on Yellow Journalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I don't have to agree with you and I can state so. My responsiblity is to insure that I do not call for violence in the discourse between my belief and yours.

---

OK, we are getting there. Do you accept the paper's right to print the cartoons? Do you accept that cartoonists should not have to fear for their lives for expressing their opinion? And you accept that people who burn embassies and call for mass murder should be held responsible for their crimes? If you answer yes to all three, welcome to the club.

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

---

Well, if that is the case, it is acceptable to me. :laugh4:

As long as 'good manners' doesnt equal not to critisize Islam at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

OK, we are getting there. Do you accept the paper's right to print the cartoons? Do you accept that cartoonists should not have to fear for their lives for expressing their opinion? And you accept that people who burn embassies and call for mass murder should be held responsible for their crimes? If you answer yes to all three, welcome to the club.

---

I have been there all along Adrian, the problem is that in your statements you do not want people to criticize other's freedom of speech. As noted with the comment you directed at Soly which brought me into this discussion.


The point has always been that within the concept of Free Speech the person who makes the speech needs to be responsible for their speech. In accepting that responsibility - they must also accept that some people will find their message unacceptable and will voice their criticism of that speech. Stating that several could not state that the cartoons were unacceptable - The statement of finding something unacceptable does not deny you the right to print or say what you like, it only states that the reciever finds it unacceptable. The only time your right would be denied is if someone did by action to remove your ability to free speech. Ie the government censors your message, or someone causes harm to your person.

As stated several times Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

---

Yes indeed - Freedom of Speech requires responsibility.

At all levels.

Personal
Community
Society
National
Legal Code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

As long as 'good manners' doesnt equal not to critisize Islam at all.

---

I didn't say you had to be nice in your criticism - just that you must take responsibility for your speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

---

The only time you could find fault with that would be if journalists were to let "good manners" get in the way of printing the truth.

For example, a man getting hummer from a chubby intern outside of marriage is not typically a topic that is discussed politely over tea and scones with your local vicar, but I don't think anybody would say that the press has no business printing stories about it when the man in question is the President of the United States.