[oolatec]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

[netmilsmom]

>>Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.<<

And we have a right under the Constitution to not give them any money to continue publishing this crap.

THAT my friend is the American Way.

The market drives the product.

[houeto]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons...

Horsehockey! I didn't see anyone today or on yesterday's posts call for the assassination of the cartoonist.

come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

Of course he does. And folks have a right to cancel subscriptions to rags that publish "tasteless" crap!

[atomicpossum]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

No, the Muslims are rioting and threatening violence, and I don't see any of that mentioned or threatened here.

And a cartoonist's right to speak is countered by everyone else's right to speak in return. And that includes patronizing (or not) the publication that printed it.

[McGruff]

sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

and subscribers have the right to cancel that f*ng paper.

[Antoninus]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

Sure he does. But at the same time, I have every right not to read or subscribe to a newspaper which publishes his cr@p.

[TheCrusader]

"Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons"

How do you draw this comparison? Some FReepers have stated they'll cancel their subscriptions of the Post because of its offensive, treasonous (and dangerous) content. On the other hand Muslims are in the streets rioting, they are condemning and threatening Western nations with reprisals. There is no comparison to the two responses, one is healthy, the other is insane.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Therein lies one problem. We are "just the same as muslims"....except we're not killing anyone over this. We write letters to the editor, they try to kill people and sometimes they succeed.

Yep.....EXACTLY the same.

[GOPJ]

No one's talking about "rights". Of course this jerk has "rights".

He also has the right to make fun of gay people dying of AIDS and of blacks being lynched. But I suspect a cartoon about those protected liberal victim groups would have never been published. And if a cartoon making fun of them had been, the cartoonist would have been fired.

The Post has the right to publish whatever they want. We have the right not to buy or support newspapers. It's that easy.

[albee]

"... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it."

You are absolutely right!

But I have the right under the constitution to cancel my subscription to any rag that posts unpatriotic, tasteless cartoons.

After 8 years, I just canceled out my subscription the Washington Post!

[ozoneliar]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

Of course he does,but People have the right to cancel their subscription in protest. Thats what we do in America.

[piytar]

"Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it."

What a bunch of steaming horseshit. Guys and gals, witness what moral relativism does to the thinking process -- wipes it out completely.

Are there any calls for assasination of Mr. Tole? Threats of violence? Calls to boycott everything from Washington, DC? Calls for the government to censor the WaPo? No, on all counts.

Yes, the WaPo has a Constitutional right to publish whatever dripe they want to publish. However, their subscribers have a right to cancel their subscription in response. Apparently, though, you seem to think otherwise. Please educate us, then: Where does the Constitution mandate that people subscribe to a particular newspaper?

[gogeo]

Wow, you get my nomination for "Dumb$hit of the Day" award. As a start, let me point out that no one said they didn't have the right to print it; the fact they could didn't mean they should.

Surely you understand the difference between what is proposed here and what would eventually happen in Denmark?

[bpjam]

And we have a right to cancel our subscriptions because of their disrespect. Its not like its an isolated issue - just look at the hemmoraging of subscribers they have already.

Upset veterans are in no way related to Islamofascists who want to burn down Denmark. Did you see anybody calling for violence against the cartoonists? Did you see anybody calling for a boycott even? No, just people who are offended to express their displeasure by discontinuing their financial support of this heinous rag. That is hardly the same as calling for a jihad.

And you might want to check a little more into the Constitution if you think that the cartoonist has a 'right' to be unopposed when he does something which demeans wounded veterans who are protecting this 'right' to demean them.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Nothing like a good dose of moral equivalency to focus an argument.

As soon as you can show me a freeper demanding the head of the artist who created this piece of garbage, I'll give you your due. To even begin to compare the reasonable response of canceling a subscription to a newspaper(which is intentionally being offensive) to a fatawa calling for the murder of a cartoonist(who was trying to make a point about freedom of speech) points to deep seated emotional problems.

Until then, I'll consider you to be of limited intelligence and unable to make rational judgments.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"...that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it"

Of course he does and subscribers have the equal right to cancel their subscriptions along with asking others to do the same. This freedom thing does work both ways, you know. It's not as if anyone is advocating violence.

[usurper]

Hey, if we are going to go apeshit over this cartoon, we are no better than the Muslims flipping out about the Mohammed cartoons... come on... sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it.

There is no moral equivalence.

We are recommending that people cut off their subscriptions; they are recommending that someone cut off their heads.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

"...........sure, that cartoon is tasteless, but the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it."

---

.......and I have equal rights to disagree, complain and, in this case, cancel a subscription to a ***** propaganda rag.

[avital2]

yes, the artist has the right to draw it, but where was the WaPo's editor's "judgment" when he let it run, i ask. editors are paid to decide what to run, what not to run every day. the editor should have pulled it because at the very least it is in incredibly bad taste, and there were other ways the cartoonist could have made the same point.

[jess35]

Boy, I could have predicted you'd get your @ss flamed for that comment. FWIW, I agree with you. We look just as asinine as the shrieking moonbats when we play "do as I say, not as I do".

Now I'll sit back and wait while some of y'all try to convince me and yourselves that ...but, but...THIS is different....

[Jo Nuvark]

[...the artist has a right under the Constitution to draw it...]

Yes. And we have the right under the Constitution to hate it and to boycott the paper for printing it. Isn't America great?