Full Version: Washinton Post and others pull Cartoon
Ted- I don't disagree that it was kinda stupid to pull- but it was not censorship
What EXACTLY are you trying to say with this debate ted? Are you implying that WA post was
1) told by the goverment to not print this story
2) that they were intimidated by Muslims into pulling the cartoon?
It appears to me that WA post pulled it themselves, for fear of loss of readership- that would be a capitalist thing to do- but really, I don't think it would effect readership- but that is not mine nor yours to decide I suppose- it is the stockholders and owners of the paper's to decide.
Your entire argument seems to be, somewhat akin to my 7 year old complaining that my 4 year old gets away with too much and stomping her foot and saying "no fair".
If the goverment or no unseen forces FORCED WA post to pull the cartoons- then no censorship existed.
Was it simply an editorial call- like, oh, NOT printing one of the many thousand of "letters to the editor" they recieve daily?
Well, that doesn't equal censorship either.
Obviously, no goverment censorship was involved- because other papers ran the cartoon.
As far as your question #3 goes- Christians are the biggest group of whiners and crybabies in this country- they comment on it all the time- it just isn't effective.
Are you upset because the Muslims are more effective at getting something pulled from a newspaper, or upset that they get to whine and be crybabies in our country too?
No freedoms are being "given up" - the Washington post was free to make a bad decision.
What EXACTLY are you trying to say with this debate ted? Are you implying that WA post was
1) told by the goverment to not print this story
2) that they were intimidated by Muslims into pulling the cartoon?
It appears to me that WA post pulled it themselves, for fear of loss of readership- that would be a capitalist thing to do- but really, I don't think it would effect readership- but that is not mine nor yours to decide I suppose- it is the stockholders and owners of the paper's to decide.
Your entire argument seems to be, somewhat akin to my 7 year old complaining that my 4 year old gets away with too much and stomping her foot and saying "no fair".
If the goverment or no unseen forces FORCED WA post to pull the cartoons- then no censorship existed.
Was it simply an editorial call- like, oh, NOT printing one of the many thousand of "letters to the editor" they recieve daily?
Well, that doesn't equal censorship either.
Obviously, no goverment censorship was involved- because other papers ran the cartoon.
As far as your question #3 goes- Christians are the biggest group of whiners and crybabies in this country- they comment on it all the time- it just isn't effective.
Are you upset because the Muslims are more effective at getting something pulled from a newspaper, or upset that they get to whine and be crybabies in our country too?
No freedoms are being "given up" - the Washington post was free to make a bad decision.
QUOTE
What EXACTLY are you trying to say with this debate ted? Are you implying that WA post was
1) told by the goverment to not print this story
2) that they were intimidated by Muslims into pulling the cartoon?
1) told by the goverment to not print this story
2) that they were intimidated by Muslims into pulling the cartoon?
I doubt it is for fear of losing readers unless you can show me that there is a large Muslim reader base there.
I think they did this out of 1. fear of reprisals or 2. to be PC. Either of witch I don’t favor. Call it self censorship if you like.
We have a free press and they can do what they want and should but to make fun of other religions – except Islam seems a little over the edge to me.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Sep 9 2007, 10:34 AM) 
Who said anything about being mum? From YOUR article...
QUOTE
Shearer told E&P that WPWG checked with a couple of Islamic experts to see if the "Opus" strips might be offensive, and they said the comics were OK. But he understands why some papers might still be wary.
I guess it might be hairsplitting to say whether they're being mum or merely cryptic. Basically he's saying that he's unable to identify a problem with the strip, but "understands" (I guess that's supposed to be a wink-wink nudge-nudge type of thing) why papers still wouldn't want to print it. In any case, it doesn't come close to the paper saying, "We refused to print this strip because we felt it would offend Muslims deeply", which is what you claimed the motivation was. They had no reason to believe it would offend them deeply.
QUOTE
There's no clearing house for Muslim sensibility-judgement.
This is getting into the absurd. Yes, there's no "clearing house" to guarantee that not a single Muslim reading the strip will get offended by it. Likewise, there's no way to guarantee that no person of any background would be offended by something he read in the paper, but since when does that inchoate outside possibility raise fears of a mass boycott? If they check with their own Islamic experts who clear it, what are the chances that it would offend so many Muslims that the (presumably) resultant boycott would significantly influence their sales? Why the bizarre obsequiousness towards just one religious group? Gee, you think it might possibly have anything at all to do with its tendency to throw violent tantrums when it doesn't get its way?
The latest here is that they have now concluded it was a mistake to pull the cartoon. It was carried by 25 papers two of those papers got a total of TWO complaints – 1 each!
This was PC at its worst.
This was PC at its worst.
1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.
Considering that it is a business, I'd say not unless for business reasons. If they have a predominently liberal readership, then maybe they anticipated lost revenue.
2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
That depends on who "we" are. Is the Washington Post, we? No, not really. Nevertheless it does serve the terrorist cause of scaring media outlets into omitting things the terrorists want them to.
3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?
This question is a bit out of place and context. Nothing stops anyone from making comments about anything. I think the Post is managed by a bunch of yellow-bellied weinies that are scared of their own shadow. Anyway, what would you expect from a left-wing rag like the Washington Post?
Considering that it is a business, I'd say not unless for business reasons. If they have a predominently liberal readership, then maybe they anticipated lost revenue.
2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
That depends on who "we" are. Is the Washington Post, we? No, not really. Nevertheless it does serve the terrorist cause of scaring media outlets into omitting things the terrorists want them to.
3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?
This question is a bit out of place and context. Nothing stops anyone from making comments about anything. I think the Post is managed by a bunch of yellow-bellied weinies that are scared of their own shadow. Anyway, what would you expect from a left-wing rag like the Washington Post?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.