Thanks to WSJ, among others, for having the intestinal fortitude to print what censorship-conspirators won't.
Posted on 01/13/2015 6:05:15 PM PST by Second Amendment First
After the killings at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo last week by Islamist extremists, other news media, including web-based outlets, chose to republish some of its cartoons that many Muslims found so offensive.
Some American newspapers, including The New York Times, did not. They drew criticism from some free-speech advocates who called the decision cowardly in the face of a terrorist attack.
American newspapers are confronting a variation of that choice: whether to republish the cover-page cartoon of the new Charlie Hebdo print edition, due out Wednesday.
It shows a tearful caricature of the Prophet Muhammad holding the by-now iconic “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) placard with the words “Tout est pardonné” (“All is forgiven”) above him. Many viewed the cartoon image as a conciliatory message from the new editors of Charlie Hebdo after the carnage of the Paris attack.
Others said the new cover continues a Charlie Hebdo tradition of intentionally offending Muslims by depicting their prophet, an act that many Muslims consider blasphemous.
The choice to republish the image (The Times, again, is not) goes to the heart of the debate about what constitutes free expression versus gratuitous images that at least some viewers find offensive, newspaper executives and other journalists said.
They also said the choice touches on differences in American and French standards for offensiveness. It is further complicated by a legitimate news reason — Charlie Hebdo’s response to the deadly assault — that would seem to justify showing precisely what the newspaper did in its response.
“Newspapers have to consider their audience, who reads their publication,” said Martha Steffens, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and an executive board member at the International Press Institute, an advocacy group. “Every news outlet is not going to make the same decision.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The American MSM would puzzle over the difference between a cocker spaniel and a border collie .....
I want the original cartoon !! I want to see it and laugh every day!!
No comments allowed at the NYTimes on this article.
While I was growing up, there was much todo about promoting “banned books” and otherwise opposing censorship (broadly defined).
Where the he11 did that go? or did the message get lost that “banned books” often are precisely because they ARE offensive and prone to eliciting violent response?
I think it does not matter a hill of beans whether they print or they do not print. The freedom to choose without being murdered is the point.
We now have ‘word burners’ (PC).
Thanks to WSJ, among others, for having the intestinal fortitude to print what censorship-conspirators won't.
They always refer to the prophet; have you ever seen them refer to "Our Lord and Saviour"?
That french magh should put the NYTimes and other media in a bind by publishing a cartoon of muhammad holding a picture of “piss Christ”.
I wonder what they would pixelate?
US media = cowarsds and useful idiots
In the sixties and seventies the free speech movement loved protecting “offensive speech”. Now, not so much.
Idunno, the media sure act like they're owned by jihadis.Or by some other entities that have a stake in the jihad.
Nope.
Love it and will help spread it around. Thanks.
total cowards. sickening.
And I gave Mo some cloven hooves to boot.
Just Down Thread....
2 MAGNIFICENT cartoons by Mr and Mrs Crumb.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3246544/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
