NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to do a political cartoon analisys thing for my teacher.. cant find any. Gimme a few, please? *puppy eyes* :fluffle:

easy. do the one with mohammed with a bomb on his head.

I have to do a political cartoon analisys thing for my teacher
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467174

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467174
1. Im not trying to get you to do my homework. Im asking if you could suggest a cartoon.
2. You know, you dont need to post if you arent interested in the thread.

Found one.

*humps Good lifes*

2. You know, you dont need to post if you arent interested in the thread.
I'm not saying I'm not interested, I was drawing your attention to the following notice:
Any more of these threads will be treated as spam and the appropriate warnings issued.

For a perspective shunned by most major Papers...

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.13.Overboard-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.12.SittingDuck-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.09.MustSeeTV-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.09.MustSeeTV-X.gif

You know, there was a protest in London by moderate Muslims against the extremists...

You know, there was a protest in London by moderate Muslims against the extremists...

O rly?

You know, there was a protest in London by moderate Muslims against the extremists...
Though I heard about it, there certainly wasn't much coverage, was there?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm

Those posters certainly aren't talking about freedom of speech, are they?
Not really comperable with the C&F cartoon.

According to the MAC, there were supposed to be 100,000 in attendence. The Police were expecting 10,000. The got around 3,000. Good numbers, but were they really advocating tolerance or Dhimmitude?

But then, some other things about that rally went mostly unmentioned too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=376861&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source

Hmmm.

I have to do a political cartoon analisys thing for my teacher.. cant find any. Gimme a few, please? *puppy eyes* :fluffle:
Have you tried submitting an old Far Side cartoon?

http://sthig.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/thefarside.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/dont_ask_questions/Jew20cartoon.jpg

http://www.depresident.com/gallery/overflow/Bush_Invasion_List.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/archive/0,,1284265,00.html


steve bell is a genius.

Do a jack chick cartoon.

I think this is considered as a homework thread.

You know, there was a protest in London by moderate Muslims against the extremists...

It's not a protest against the extremists, it's simply a moderate condemnation of the Danish cartoons.

Shujaat from Al-Jazeera. I like him, he's funny and a little bit tragic. And this (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398792,00.html) is what he had to say about the Danish cartoons, by the way.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm?

Shujaat from Al-Jazeera. I like him, he's funny and a little bit tragic. And this (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398792,00.html) is what he had to say about the Danish cartoons, by the way.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm?
It's taking too long to load, but I'll take my cue from the Islamofacists and burn down an aljazeera station anyway. OK?

It's taking too long to load, but I'll take my cue from the Islamofacists and burn down an aljazeera station anyway. OK?
I'll help you. Not because the cartoons are offensive, just because the guy who writes them is such a twat (religion is sacred, but everything is open to satire? I know a lot of Atheists who hold their political beliefs closer than their religious ones, so shouldn't the Green Party, then, be beyond satire?) and the animation on them is far too slow. An example:
A man and a kid stand on a beach, with no words or thought. 20 seconds pass while canned, bland music plays in the background.
Kid says something, awkwardly long pause so all those at a 1st grade reading level can sound out the words and look up any hard ones on Dictionary.com
Old man says something, another awkwardly long pause. At this point the canned music has looped about 17 times, and you know you'll here it loop another 17 before we reach the rather weak punchline about how the US is going to "Z0MG!!!W7F!!11!1NV4D3 73H W0RLD!!11!"

-snip-
In other words, perfect for a school assignment.

And I didn't like the beach one. I preferred the Musharraf, Hamas and now the Iranian nuke one. The Iranian one is even funny.

For a perspective shunned by most major Papers...

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.13.Overboard-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.12.SittingDuck-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.02.09.MustSeeTV-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/

Yes. It's called the Republican "we have the simple solution to every problem because we were born yesterday" attitude.

Yes. It's called the Republican "we have the simple solution to every problem because we were born yesterday" attitude.

It contrasts well with the moral and intellectual paralysis displayed by many on the so called left.

It contrasts well with the moral and intellectual paralysis displayed by many on the so called left.
Oh, it's about morality. Not getting into Iraq and whatnot, but I would like to point out the sheer hypocrisy of a freedom-of-speech against religious bias from a movement whose leader talks to God, and whose voters want the Bible to regulate lives.

Oh, it's about morality. Not getting into Iraq and whatnot, but I would like to point out the sheer hypocrisy of a freedom-of-speech against religious bias from a movement whose leader talks to God, and whose voters want the Bible to regulate lives.
That isn't hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if they were deamnding that no one else claim to talk to their god.
Instead, they want the right to talk about religion (including conversations with Jeigh-SUS!) in any way they choose, whether positive or negative. Part of that attitude is opposing crack heads who are so afraid of offending people that they would crush the free press.

It's a sad day when an issue is so retarded, Fiddlebottoms starts to make sense.

That isn't hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if they were deamnding that no one else claim to talk to their god.

Oh yeah? Where are individual rights when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage? What are the arguments brought against them, in short? Because:
1. a higher social purpose (society vs. individual) is way more grotesque in this case than the cited and "un-understandable" fear of hurting Muslim sensibilities.
2. if it is the Bible (and we both know it is), then... need I say more?

Instead, they want the right to talk about religion (including conversations with Jeigh-SUS!) in any way they choose, whether positive or negative. Part of that attitude is opposing crack heads who are so afraid of offending people that they would crush the free press.

Did you actually see the Muhammad cartoons? Did you read their captions? Because I was shocked to see that most of them were not about Muhammad, but about the scandal a publication of a Muhammad cartoon would cause! They started from "backing" this Danish guy who had tried to get a children's book he had written about Muhammad illustrated, but could not find an illustrator - because he was constantly refused (the book is in print, with illustrations, and it has not caused a scandal). The editors of Jyllands Whatever presumed that this was because illustrators were fearing reprisals, so (and without being asked), they started a campaign of "solidarity". One of the cartoons shows the writer with a turban and an orange in it, which is apparently a Danish saying for "lucky as lucky can get". The orange has "free publicity" written on it.

And: it had to be in Denmark, the most parochial country in the EU, one that has voted itself a populist far right gvt. because of its stance on immigration and what it has called "the clash of civilisations".

This is the context. If the press wanted to test the limits of its freedoms (which it just did with the attack on religion, according to most European laws and recommendations), if indeed it wants to test what it can publish, then why not start with crude pornography?

This is the context. If the press wanted to test the limits of its freedoms (which it just did with the attack on religion, according to most European laws and recommendations), if indeed it wants to test what it can publish, then why not start with crude pornography?

You can already publish that in denmark. It wasn't that long ago they outlawed child porn. So that's obviously not what they were getting at.

You can already publish that in denmark. It wasn't that long ago they outlawed child porn. So that's obviously not what they were getting at.

Yes, but you cannot publish it in a major newspaper for all people to read. Just as well, you want to make fun of Islam in a closed-circuit (which does not mean "at home"), you can anywhere. You are free to be in bad taste. But this was about inciting a reaction on the outside, and selling your paper on the inside by profiting on common prejudice in Denmark. Not to mention the "courageous press" in Europe that actually jumped at the chance to sell papers, especially when it knew that the risks were placed on the respective country as a whole! Now, that's luxury.

Yes, but you cannot publish it in a major newspaper for all people to read. Just as well, you want to make fun of Islam in a closed-circuit (which does not mean "at home"), you can anywhere. You are free to be in bad taste. But this was about inciting a reaction on the outside, and selling your paper on the inside by promoting common prejudice in Denmark. Not to mention the "courageous press" in Europe that actually jumped at the chance to sell papers, especially when it knew that the risks were placed on the respective country as a whole! Now, that's luxury.

Yes you can. You can by porn in any bookstore or newsagents in denmark, you don't have to go to a porn store.

If JP wanted, it could fill its pages with hot gay porn.

It's denmark, not saudi arabia. :rolleyes:

Yes you can. You can by porn in any bookstore or newsagents in denmark, you don't have to go to a porn store.

If JP wanted, it could fill its pages with hot gay porn.

It's denmark, not saudi arabia. :rolleyes:
I've been there, man. It's the same over where I live: you must be from the USA or something, cause that's where you have to go to a porn store (I guess).
My point was: do you see it in the morning paper? No, it's a sealed paper with an advisory on it. There are laws making very clear what would happen to somebody showing pudenda in a central daily (especially since porn publishers pay special and extra tax). There are also specifications against incitement to racial and religious hatred etc. You can even do that, if you do it to a select and notified audience.
Nobody could ever issue clear and harsh guidelines, but the point was about seeing democratically-elected authorities trying to advise against it, and seeing newspapermen not going outta their way to test it just because it pays (it's this issue and no other).

Note: too see their actual conformism to public trends, note that one in three newscasts on every Danish channel when I was there in 2002 was about the problems posed by immigrants. With musings and whatnot on the fate of Denmark...

Oh yeah? Where are individual rights when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage? What are the arguments brought against them, in short? Because:
1. a higher social purpose (society vs. individual) is way more grotesque in this case than the cited and "un-understandable" fear of hurting Muslim sensibilities.
2. if it is the Bible (and we both know it is), then... need I say more?
1. All socialist, marxist, proponents of large governments, internationalists, populists, monarchists, leftists, and fascists ascribe to a highers social purpose that overrides certain individual rights. Why should Republicans play by a different rulebook then Democrats?
2. No one seriously argues from the Bible (and you keep those Pat Robertson quotes to yourself. Megafundie preachers have never been taken seriously by Republicans) in the Christian faith anymore. The sole exception is the dust up over Evolution and that business is argued based on demands for balance (and that out of the need for balance, Bible arguments are allowed)
Did you actually see the Muhammad cartoons? Did you read their captions? Because I was shocked to see that most of them were not about Muhammad, but about the scandal a publication of a Muhammad cartoon would cause! They started from "backing" this Danish guy who had tried to get a children's book he had written about Muhammad illustrated, but could not find an illustrator - because he was constantly refused (the book is in print, with illustrations, and it has not caused a scandal). The editors of Jyllands Whatever presumed that this was because illustrators were fearing reprisals, so (and without being asked), they started a campaign of "solidarity". One of the cartoons shows the writer with a turban and an orange in it, which is apparently a Danish saying for "lucky as lucky can get". The orange has "free publicity" written on it.
Yes, I saw them, yes I read the captions. No, I am not an expert on interpreting the roles of fruits and turbans in Danish symbolism.
However, the motives behind the man's publishing aren't what is important. Most people simply publish to make their names well-known and make $$, does that mean that they don't have the right to publish?
Leno is just one long, cynical advertisement for the band and two celebrities that appear on his show, and their latest album/novel/TV show/play/movie, does that mean that we should shut him down for offending people? I know he has to have mocked the prophet at least once in his career.
And: it had to be in Denmark, the most parochial country in the EU, one that has voted itself a populist far right gvt. because of its stance on immigration and what it has called "the clash of civilisations".
Megh, the US plays similar political games. However, since this wasn't a government action, funded by the govnerment, or encouraged by the government, I fail to see the connection.
The xenophobic Danish government has even apologized for the cartoons which they had nothing to do with (well, accept for protecting the man who made them from being butchered by extremist reactionaries).
This is the context. If the press wanted to test the limits of its freedoms (which it just did with the attack on religion, according to most European laws and recommendations), if indeed it wants to test what it can publish, then why not start with crude pornography?
I seem to remember "pornography" being protected by most countries as an extension of free speech. And the most outrageous displays need to be protected the most: as long as you can piss off 1/10th of the world, assault the second most popular religion in the world, and still get away with it, then you have the right to do everything else between silence and there.
That is the importance of protecting "treasonous speech", as long as I can say KILL GEORGE BUSH without being taken out by the government, I can say "I respectfully disagree with our policy regarding X"

I've been there, man. It's the same over where I live: you must be from the USA or something, cause that's where you have to go to a porn store (I guess).
My point was: do you see it in the morning paper? No, it's a sealed paper with an advisory on it. There are laws making very clear what would happen to somebody showing pudenda in a central daily (especially since porn publishers pay special and extra tax). There are also specifications against incitement to racial and religious hatred etc. You can even do that, if you do it to a select and notified audience.
Nobody could ever issue clear and harsh guidelines, but the point was about seeing democratically-elected authorities trying to advise against it, and seeing newspapermen not going outta their way to test it just because it pays (it's this issue and no other).

Note: too see their actual conformism to public trends, note that one in three newscasts on every Danish channel when I was there in 2002 was about the problems posed by immigrants. With musings and whatnot on the fate of Denmark...

What are you talking about? There is no special tax for putting pudenda in your newspaper in denmark. Further, the whole debate about lowering the age at which porn could be purchased in the UK cited denmark's free availabilty of porn to minors as a militating factor for lowering the age. :rolleyes:

Porn store is something I made up. Because you seemed to be under the mis-apprehension that you couldn't just sell it anywhere.

And I've been to denmark loads of times. I used to live just across the sea from it.

1. All socialist, marxist, proponents of large governments, internationalists, populists, monarchists, leftists, and fascists ascribe to a highers social purpose that overrides certain individual rights. Why should Republicans play by a different rulebook then Democrats?

What is this sophistry? It's clear: because they have claimed not to accept the "over the individual" - unless it's the "closest legislature".

2. No one seriously argues from the Bible (and you keep those Pat Robertson quotes to yourself. Megafundie preachers have never been taken seriously by Republicans) in the Christian faith anymore. The sole exception is the dust up over Evolution and that business is argued based on demands for balance (and that out of the need for balance, Bible arguments are allowed)

Bush has claimed he's been having chats with G.O.D. The people acting against abortion are doing it on the basis of the Bible. So are the anti-gay marriage people.

Yes, I saw them, yes I read the captions. No, I am not an expert on interpreting the roles of fruits and turbans in Danish symbolism.
However, the motives behind the man's publishing aren't what is important. Most people simply publish to make their names well-known and make $$, does that mean that they don't have the right to publish?

Sure they can. But this was my assesment of how responsible they were doing it... Isn't it in America that journalists jump at others for publishing flawed (not false!) info. Why should they? It's freedom of the press!
Let me be very clear: I never say these should be banned. I just say that you turn your back to publishers for being idiots, that you move them in the same intellectual category for freedom of the press as Larry Flint, the Neo-Nazis, and the publishers of the Holocaust cartoons.
Otherwise, wtf is the problem? That some people have decided not to buy Danish products? That's their freedom, ain't it? That gvts have encouraged them not to? Gvts in other countries may act as they please in a domain not regulated by interntl law.

Leno is just one long, cynical advertisement for the band and two celebrities that appear on his show, and their latest album/novel/TV show/play/movie, does that mean that we should shut him down for offending people? I know he has to have mocked the prophet at least once in his career.

Who is talking about shuting down anything?

Megh, the US plays similar political games. However, since this wasn't a government action, funded by the govnerment, or encouraged by the government, I fail to see the connection.
The xenophobic Danish government has even apologized for the cartoons which they had nothing to do with (well, accept for protecting the man who made them from being butchered by extremist reactionaries).

What I was saying was that their main interest was to profit of known tendancies in their public. Less publishable? Surely not. Just less "crusaderish".
Extrimist islamists will act like idiots regardless. But let me point out that this is an insult on Muslims: even those who have condemned the reaction have regarded the paper's attitude as indignified. And the paper knew it was being insulting. Also, I'm sure that if I look hard enough I can find a couple of little towns in the US that will send me to jail for a couple of weeks for drawing things on Jesus' face or whatever.

I seem to remember "pornography" being protected by most countries as an extension of free speech. And the most outrageous displays need to be protected the most: as long as you can piss off 1/10th of the world, assault the second most popular religion in the world, and still get away with it, then you have the right to do everything else between silence and there.
That is the importance of protecting "treasonous speech", as long as I can say KILL GEORGE BUSH without being taken out by the government, I can say "I respectfully disagree with our policy regarding X"

I have explained in a previous post what I meant by my porn comment. You tell me when you have it in USA Today, and I'll move to the US.

What are you talking about? There is no special tax for putting pudenda in your newspaper in denmark. Further, the whole debate about lowering the age at which porn could be purchased in the UK cited denmark's free availabilty of porn to minors as a militating factor for lowering the age. :rolleyes:

Porn store is something I made up. Because you seemed to be under the mis-apprehension that you couldn't just sell it anywhere.

And I've been to denmark loads of times. I used to live just across the sea from it.

You don't seem to read all my messages. I didn't say you weren't to Denmark whereas I was. I've said I as well went there.
Again, the pure definition of it as "porn", even in Denmark: special magazines. Alright, I did not know that it was freely available to minors (although that may be more of a flaw in the legislation than a regulation or a ruling), but I do know that is not the newspaper! Plus, my point was about Europe at large - since newspapers across Europe have jumped in, profiting on a wave that mirrors Denmark's everyday.
And for the third time, it's not selling it anywhere, it's about selling it as anything. Why do they have porn magazines, and not porn all over the written press? Even if the regime is more liberal, it does not allow for things to seep into each other. At most: a minor could buy a porn magazine, but will not be able to see it in a newspaper. Or perhaps I have not read all the good ones while there. See my point?

What is this sophistry? It's clear: because they have claimed not to accept the "over the individual" - unless it's the "closest legislature".
And isn't the "closest legislature" banning Gay Marriage? Abortion is a done deal, it isn't going away, and no one really thinks it will come under fire.
Bush has claimed he's been having chats with G.O.D. The people acting against abortion are doing it on the basis of the Bible. So are the anti-gay marriage people.
We've already established that talking to God doesn't count. I talk to my roommate, yet I have never tried to subjugate anyone for him, even when I've had the opportunity.
The people acting against abortion aren't doing it because of religion. They feel that life begins at conception for whatever reason (no such reason is mentioned in the Bible) and they don't like the idea of whacking people just 'cuz. It has nothing to do with being Christian.
Gay-Marriage is opposed because everyone is to busy "thinking of the children" who would be endangered by a bunch of fags. Further, Marriage is a religious institution primarily, with government benefits. This issue is a government/private matter, with religious involvement.
Sure they can. But this was my assesment of how responsible they were doing it... Isn't it in America that journalists jump at others for publishing flawed (not false!) info. Why should they? It's freedom of the press!
Flawed information and satire aren't the same thing. Flawed information can be viewed as libel, satire is a joke.
Let me be very clear: I never say these should be banned. I just say that you turn your back to publishers for being idiots, that you move them in the same intellectual category for freedom of the press as Larry Flint, the Neo-Nazis, and the publishers of the Holocaust cartoons.
I view Larry Flint and Neo-Nazis as important figures who need to be kept strong. They're the canaries in the mineshaft, and when the fall to the waves of politics, people will move in further.
Otherwise, wtf is the problem? That some people have decided not to buy Danish products? That's their freedom, ain't it? That gvts have encouraged them not to? Gvts in other countries may act as they please in a domain not regulated by interntl law.
My problem is that people are demanding apologies and burning embassies. A vocal minority are trying to inflict "t3h 0ppr3510n", and whether Christian or Muslim, that doesn't sit well with me.
Who is talking about shuting down anything?
The muslims who don't want the prophet mocked, people who are demanding apologies (which implies that something was done wrong), etc. Banning may be a bit severe, but regulating something out of the mainstream because it might offend is far too PC.
Extrimist islamists will act like idiots regardless. But let me point out that this is an insult on Muslims: even those who have condemned the reaction have regarded the paper's attitude as indignified. And the paper knew it was being insulting.
So? A lot of things are insulting to a lot of people. Sacred cows were made for slaugher, and as long as one can get this sort of reaction the attacks will keep flowing. Look at Christianity, they're still a little nuts, but they've toned down their repsonse to assaults against the Christ, as a result, attacks against Christianity have become old hat and not very fun anymore.
If their hadn't been an Islamic reaction, the whole issue would have been dropped last year.
Also, I'm sure that if I look hard enough I can find a couple of little towns in the US that will send me to jail for a couple of weeks for drawing things on Jesus' face or whatever.
Also, I'm sure that if I look hard enough I can find one of a couple of your relatives fucking a goat - Now that we've provided two examples of unjustifiable supposition, we can abandon this useless tactic?
I have explained in a previous post what I meant by my porn comment. You tell me when you have it in USA Today, and I'll move to the US.
The UK has the Sun Girl, does it not? Hot woman, displaying her tats, seems sort of . . . "porn"-ish to me.

And isn't the "closest legislature" banning Gay Marriage?

Yes, that was my point. Closest legislature=Republicans. Big Government=Democrats to Socialists. My critique goes to the former, but that's another debate. The point was that somebody building on such a thing should be questioned (should. by me) when he goes to "society" etc. Plus: you were avoiding my initial point. I was looking at hypocritical cartoons from the right (and they were not even funny), suggesting the same idiotic perspective that Bush has accustomed us with. Basically, that the effite congregation that is the World need America for every little thing, and that only no nonsense America understands the real deal - in precisely the same way it has shown that it does not have a single clue.

Abortion is a done deal, it isn't going away, and no one really thinks it will come under fire.

Frankly, I don't care wether it does or not. It has come under fire, however. What you mean is that it will survive, and you may be right. But you know that is beside the point.

We've already established that talking to God doesn't count. I talk to my roommate, yet I have never tried to subjugate anyone for him, even when I've had the opportunity.
The people acting against abortion aren't doing it because of religion. They feel that life begins at conception for whatever reason (no such reason is mentioned in the Bible) and they don't like the idea of whacking people just 'cuz. It has nothing to do with being Christian.

Yeah, right. I really doubt that Social Darwinists other than a few Nazis have joined in the movement. Social concern? Whyever? If anything, the US has an over-population problem. The whole nuclera (nucular?) family is connectyed with Christian values.

Gay-Marriage is opposed because everyone is to busy "thinking of the children" who would be endangered by a bunch of fags. Further, Marriage is a religious institution primarily, with government benefits. This issue is a government/private matter, with religious involvement.

Is this your point? That religion is not imposed if it is imposed by the gvt? You are telling me that the gvt should allow a religious interpretation into law? In my part of Europe, we usually have two marriage ceremonies - the Napoleonic Code demands civic marriage, and the state does not recognize religious vows. You have fused the two on a regular basis, but that means that the person who marries the two is a representative of the administrative and political (at that particular level). Marriage BY the State is the issue everywhere: and the state institutions are against gay marriage, because of their religiously-minded constituents.

Flawed information and satire aren't the same thing. Flawed information can be viewed as libel, satire is a joke.

Anything could be viewed as satire. How do you draw the distinction? BECAUSE the state reserves itself the right to limit press freedom. My view: if it had acted with regard to these cartoons (or if the paper had applied self-censorship), press freedoms would not have suffered the least bit. But that does not mean I would encourage anyone to forbid it: in my country, the papers were pointed to a conduct rule that was in place, stating that papers are to avoid publishing intentionally insulting material (insulting to the tenets, the Quran - and it was - and not to whims of Osama).

I view Larry Flint and Neo-Nazis as important figures who need to be kept strong. They're the canaries in the mineshaft, and when the fall to the waves of politics, people will move in further.

I may view them as important as well. But I do not think that their press is respectable or reliable in comments on religion.

My problem is that people are demanding apologies and burning embassies. A vocal minority are trying to inflict "t3h 0ppr3510n", and whether Christian or Muslim, that doesn't sit well with me.

We agree. But most Protestant, many Catholic, and virtually all Orthodox believers could be tickled until they jump to similar measures for similar matters. Don't mix people who have a minimalist requirement not to have to see the Prophet insulted on purpose (including in what we call satire) without being violent, and without having other demands that would set them apart. Simply because they believe the world is thus. Allow me to consider the publisher of the cartoons to be an idiot.

The muslims who don't want the prophet mocked, people who are demanding apologies (which implies that something was done wrong), etc. Banning may be a bit severe, but regulating something out of the mainstream because it might offend is far too PC.

No, not because "it might". Because, as I have said:
-it was specified and agreed upon as an insult
-the publishers knew about it
-the publishers built their prestige on disregarding the convention
This is not an everyday, precedent-becoming case for PC.

So? A lot of things are insulting to a lot of people. Sacred cows were made for slaugher, and as long as one can get this sort of reaction the attacks will keep flowing. Look at Christianity, they're still a little nuts, but they've toned down their repsonse to assaults against the Christ, as a result, attacks against Christianity have become old hat and not very fun anymore.
If their hadn't been an Islamic reaction, the whole issue would have been dropped last year.

Yeah, why don't you tell other religions what they should believe in as well? This is not "by example", simply because the counter-example can never apply. A major reason for that is that Christianity is where it never wanted to be. All Western laicism is either accident or the result of violence (no, not the Inquisition: something much more recent). And it is followed by a humongous ambiguity: Toqueville was admiring Christianity, saying that it was ever-superior to Islam because it was vague, and thus left a lot to the individual. The point has been made to death, but it is flawed: not even Buddhist would go around saying "I'm better because I believe in something ellusive". And furthermore, all of this works because we have gagged our religious institutions, preventing them from saying "No, it's not that vague". A long process, one that started with the Reformation.

Also, I'm sure that if I look hard enough I can find one of a couple of your relatives fucking a goat - Now that we've provided two examples of unjustifiable supposition, we can abandon this useless tactic?

I was being that vague because I really do not have the exact information, but we both know for a fact that religion has been the basis for law-making in places throughout the US. I cannot possibly know how much of that survives, but the religious vantege point has got to still be there (I wonder about the Constitution of Alabama...). I was not aiming at insulting you or your country.

The UK has the Sun Girl, does it not? Hot woman, displaying her tats, seems sort of . . . "porn"-ish to me.

Fine. We have a lot of that in my country. Risque at best. Whe'll talk when we get pudenda and rimming pictures by news from Iraq.