Danish Cartoonists, Political Correctness and Freedom of the Press

After reading The Economist and About's Keith Porter, I felt better about my initial reaction to the furor over the Danish illustrations depicting Mohammad. After all, they were initially developed because a Danish children's author couldn't find an illustrator who would publicly illustrate his book. That led to a story about self-censorship, and the publishing of the infamous 12. But I'm still looking for elusive in-depth coverage -- in mainstream English media -- of the orchestrated violence that took place almost five months after initial publication. I've prepared an event timeline and backgrounder for those who've tuned in late.

Now, from the Economist, with its challenge to America:

In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better... the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation...

The editors note that the UK and America have demonstrated a "feeble" response, due in no small part from "[h]aving sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland."

The editors also remind readers that freedom of expression -- speech, press, attire -- is a freedom for more cultures than western democracies. "It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict."

Contrast that pointed editorial with this from the Arab American Institute: "The cartoons were meant to 'teach a lesson,' and arrogantly assert authority. Not quite the same as 'freedom of the press.'" The writer asserts that America "prohibit[s] most racist and anti-Semitic displays." Tell that to www.stormfront.org.

Some (too few) American editorial boards concur with the Economist, at least in theory. One is the Philadelphia Inquirer, owned by embattled Knight Ridder.

Another, the Rocky Mountain News:

Freedom must imply the right to offend religious believers - as well as the members of every other organization or group. Otherwise, we will have ceded our freedoms to the veto of the most intolerant among us. The intolerant in Europe and throughout the Muslim world are now trying to exercise such a veto. They must not be allowed to succeed.

The standard explanation by editors who took the opposite course, from The Associated Press, which declined to distribute the cartoons on its wire, to National Public Radio, which wouldn't even link to them from its Web site, and most newspapers is that the drawings are offensive and that the story can be told just fine by describing them.

"I believe that our audience can, through our reports - on radio and the Web - get a very detailed sense of what's depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the Web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs," Bill Marimow of NPR said.

There are reports of widespread hacking of websites by The Muslim Web Hack Attack. See Cartoons from the Arab World, CounterTerrorism Blog, FindLaw, The Face of Muhammad

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: First Amendment, Politics
gada.be tags: First Amendent, Politics