Should Caricatures of Mohammod be allowed?

[Strike For The South]

Should they be? I say yes they should. IMO its a true test of free speech. I also belive the west has a horrible double standard. Crosses have been put in urine Jesus been diflied and barley a tear was shed. Then the cartoons come out (of the prophet) and all of sudden its OH NOES! We seem to allow our princples to be bended and broken when they are truly tested. We cant allow this to happen. As a westener I dont have to accept anything. Merly tolerate it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The caricatures in Jyllandsposten were offensive to muslim people, not muslim religion, by indirectly repeating the immensely offensive and unfortunately all too common form of harassment where it's indicated that all muslims would be terrorists. However jokes about the actual religion that joke about the religion itself is comparable to joking about Jesus. As long as you don't indicate by the joke that you think all followers of the religion are criminals (and therefore indirectly saying they should be killed, because it's some people's policy that all terrorists should be killed), or by directly saying they should get killed. It's hate speech according to law, but then again - when did law matter for how individual cases are treated?

[Scurvy]

no, and im not a muslim

as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble

free speech should be used responsibly....

[Quid]

In general I'd say 'yes'. Simply because most of us live in a free country with freedom of expression.

Clearly, the recently released cartoons were in poor taste and meant to offend (in one way or the other). They were not funny (or at least one or two weren't). One has to be careful and often put 'sense' before 'freedom' when publishing something controversial. In light of recent developments it would be well advised not to pour additional oil into the fire.

Quid

[Ja'chyra]

Of course they should, you only thing you shouldn't make jokes about is my mum.

Oh, STFS, I know you're foreign and all that but damn your spelling is terrible. Now that I've said that you know I'm bound to have made a mistake in this post.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh, STFS, I know you're foreign and all that but damn your spelling is terrible. Now that I've said that you know I'm bound to have made a mistake in this post.

Indeed, when I read the title I thought it was about a new mod for MTW

[Avicenna]

no, and im not a muslim

as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble

free speech should be used responsibly....

I'd have to agree. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you should insult other countries about it. Especially when they have a lot of oil that they could just not sell to you.

[Sjakihata]

It is only blasmephy to depict Mohammed if you are a muslim

[Cronos Impera]

Oh damn, depicting caricatures of Mohamed is irresponsible. Mohamed wasn't the mentor of Al Quaeda bombings, it was Ossama Bin Laden. Linking Ossama to Mohamed is as offensive to the muslims as the carricature of Mihai Viteazul' decapitated head would be to the Romanian people. It is blashemious and the carricaturists are indirectly attacking more than a billion people who love Mohamed as much as they love their mother.

[Scurvy]

It is only blasmephy to depict Mohammed if you are a muslim

but its still inconsiderate to do it if your not muslim....

[Watchman]

"No and not a Muslim" here. Especially after the whole J-posten mess the whole issue is an open wound. Any more of the same will be rubbing salt into it, and bound to produce a backlash.

"Freedom of speech" is a funny principle that should be kept in company of principles like "prudence" and "restraint". If you know a large segment of the whole world is going to go completely nuts over it, don't do it. Simple as that.
Christians long ago settled down enough to not take these things too seriously and go ballistic, at least most of the time. Muslims are still working on it, and are running on rather worn and tense nerves due to other issues already (a painful cultural-shift-in-progress never did much good for anyone's patience), so what's the point in provoking them ? It's not going to make them any more open-minded or progressive or suchlike, just ornery.

And a pox on those opportunistic troublemaking Imams and Saudi authorities for "sexing up" their case and fanning the flames too. I dislike that sort of enterpreneurship to a considerable degree.

[Kanamori]

Nobody should be forced to cater to the sensibilities of others when it comes to exchanging ideas, especially ones that have political meaning. People are polite at their own whim, and they should certainly not be forced by the government to quiet themselves.

Europe has a nasty double standard with a certain other group though.

[Watchman]

Laws step in where people's own judgement fails. That's what they're for.

[lancelot]

no, and im not a muslim

as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble

free speech should be used responsibly....

If there has been no pictures of mohammod, are not all these supposed pictures of said person the interpretation of people thinking that the picture is of mohammod?

So in theory, all these pictures could be of any old bloke?

And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.

[Watchman]

If there has been no pictures of mohammod, are not all these supposed pictures of said person the interpretation of people thinking that the picture is of mohammod?

So in theory, all these pictures could be of any old bloke?

Semantics. The issue here is emotions. Such sophistry is entirely useless in the context.

And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.

Well, obviously. Doesn't make it any less of a bad idea to go publicizing stuff that gets those merry folks onto the street in the first place without good reasons, though.

If you have a nasty infected wound, poking at it with a stick isn't going to help it get better.

And striking sparks just for fun in a gunpowder magazine isn't a really great idea either.

[Scurvy]

And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.

the banners were wrong --> the product of radical muslim groups and mass media hype inflaming the situation out of proportion

EDIT: Watchman, what does sophistry mean pls?

[Watchman]

I'm not quite sure I actually spelled the word right, but the concept would basically mean something (overly) sophisticated and cultivated. In this case, what amounts to so much supposedly clever rhetorics and strikes even me - who have no direct stake in the issue, being firmly irreligious - as transparent and fake.

Were I a devout Muslim, particularly of the brand to take offense of some gwailo (yes, I know that's a Chinese term) doodling caricatures of the Prophet, odds are I'd be mightily pissed. Not in the least at the sheer contemptuous arrogance of it, since it's really the verbal equivalent of haughtily waving off a crude peasant from one's esteemed presence.

[Kraxis]

Yes, you should be able to do so within the law. That doesn't mean that you should do it.

I'm allowed to run naked in a blizzard, but should I do it? I'm allowed to have a really bad taste, but should I have it?
In democracies nothing is beyond satire, or at least it shouldn't be. It is up to the individual to determine if it should be personally supported or not.

So while I'm against the two that are truly offensive I will never vote for anything that removes the right to make them.

And if it is all of the 12 caricatures that are offensive so that the reults are what we have seen, then I think we just have to accept that our worlds are not compatible. 'We' have depicted Muhammed many times before, even nude in an old movie. No outrage. Damn, even the US SC building has him depicted.

[Watchman]

That would be an indication of rising tensions, methinks. In which case the whole caricature thing is meaningless by itself and merely a sign of the real troubles.

Which aren't really that hard to think of.

[Kraxis]

That would be an indication of rising tensions, methinks. In which case the whole caricature thing is meaningless by itself and merely a sign of the real troubles.

Which aren't really that hard to think of.

Of course it is... The images just made for a great incitement for trouble. In fact it hardly gets any better. But the reasons were not the images themselves. And those who believe an apology from our PM would have helped... Well look at Norway.

[Sjakihata]

but its still inconsiderate to do it if your not muslim....

yes, but it is inconsiderate to do many things, that are still allowed. For example, it is inconsiderate to boycot danish goods, but it is still allowed.

Law is (and rightly so) based on logos, not feelings (in most of the cases)

[yesdachi]

Picking on a volatile cultures spiritual leader is going to elicit a violent reaction from the extremists and probably a mild reaction from the mainstream but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done and tolerated by others. A depiction of Mohammad in a derogatory way should be seen as an offence to Muslims but a reasonable reaction would be to explain that you are upset about it, explain why your upset about it and ask that it not me done again, especially for a first time offence in many years. It was certainly not known to me that it was not permitted by the religion to depict him in a… well anywhere.

The culture of other societies should be respected. That’s a double edged sword, if you want your culture respected you must respect others culture as well. In most western societies free speech and satire are commonly accepted parts of our culture. A caricature of Mohammad is clearly an accepted piece of satire in western culture and if found offensive should be protested. But not by creating hundreds of pieces of “art” that are paraded thru the streets with thousands or protesters that depicts westerners getting decapitated accompanied by words of damnation to the entire culture.

If you want respect, give it. The knee-jerk reaction to kill everyone that offends you is the reason for the caricatures in the first place. Freedom, especially freedom of speech is practically the foundation of our society and anyone that cow-tows down to hypocrites demanding censorship of our freedoms should consider having their clitoris chopped off and start wearing a vial.

[Watchman]

"We provoke them because they react excessively, therefore they react excessively." What a brilliant circular pissing contest, if I may be so blunt.

[Reenk Roink]

No...

Words and press, are of upmost importance, and therefore, must be used responsibly.

I give, as an example, the band Soundgarden's song, "Jesus Christ Pose." Even though the song was written before the whole Seattle thing boiled over, and Soundgarden got huge, simply the song's title caused an uproar. Despite the fact that it contained nothing blasphemous in the lyrics, and the intent behind the song was to criticize the use of the image of Jesus for fame, advertising, and other wrong uses (the band made many statements trying to clarify this, and Chris Cornell himself wrote the lyrics to chastise Perry Farrell's "act" on stage) the band received numerous death threats, there were protests outside concerts, and MTV banned the video.

This kind of reaction is to be expected, as such a sensitive topic is touched (I myself, though loving Soundgarden, say that they should have picked a better title). And this case is one without malice intent. When you have initial printings of the cartoons, followed by reprintings, and strong manipulation of some extremists (fake cartoons, starting riots, turning the anger at Denmark to America), all hell breaks loose...

[Csargo]

no, and im not a muslim

as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble

free speech should be used responsibly....

I agree with Scury

[Kagemusha]

Yes.I think it should be allowed,but like Kraxis sayed its up to the people that will they actually do those or not.

[Brenus]

Allowed ? By Who? Who will decide what to publish, draw, and write? No, victory against censure was a great victory. If we start to bother about all sensibilities, opinions and superstitions, life will be difficult for freedom of speech.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Allowed ? By Who? Who will decide what to publish, draw, and write? If we start to bother about all sensibilities, opinions and superstitions, life will be difficult for freedom of speech.

Exactly! I'm not going to keep track of each and every superstition somebody somewhere on this planet has.

I supposedly will burn in hell for working on fridays, and on saturdays, and on sundays. On all other days of the week too, I guess. I deeply offend millions by eating cows, by wearing white clothes, by shaving my facial hair. By covering my head or by not covering it, by worshipping pink rabbits by full moons on wednesdays or by not worshipping them.

I may or may not live my life in accordance to the superstitious believes of others, and I may know about them or not. What I will certainly not do, is let myself be terrorized into submission to one particular set of beliefs over another based on the amout of violence people are prepared to use:

"Freedom of speech" is a funny principle that should be kept in company of principles like "prudence" and "restraint". If you know a large segment of the whole world is going to go completely nuts over it, don't do it. Simple as that.

Prudent is, to assert freedom and tolerance in the face of intolerance.

[Moros]

You kno I can understand if they don't like cartoons of Mohammed. But they don't hvae the right from to keep other from making cartoons fromt things they don't believe in. I mean if I'm a fan or of politician (I know you should be crazy to do that but it's just an example) I can't demand that from now on they shouldn't make any cartoons of him. Don't like the cartoons, okay. But feeling offended? Jeez it's a cartoon! A joke!

[BigTex]

Hell yes you should be able to draw a cartoon of a religous figure. Plain and simple freedom of speech/press, we can't make some exceptions all must be free to draw what they like, even if that be Barney with overly sized genitals. Seriously earth to the middle east, its a cartoon, i'm sure israel has to piss you off more just existing then a cartoon. I personally will not be forced into compliance by some terrorist who was offended by something penciled onto a piece of paper.

If anything that fact that they would react violently is a good enough reason to make the cartoon. Exposing a threat to our safety should be a priority to newspapers and if it takes a cartoon and a major over reaction to show it then so be it. Considering it is only wrong to draw mohammed if you are islamic I see nothing wrong with sketching something that could be mohammed on a piece of paper. I don't see that anyone has mentioned it here, but most of those sketches were done by muslim shakes (or whatever their called) to purposely elicit a violent reaction in their countries. So yes we should allow pictures of Mohammed to be drawn because it is 100% alright for the religious leaders of Islam to draw them. Oh and look

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I just drew a picture of Mohammed.