NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: So which is it? What's more important, publishing to exercise freedom of speech, or restraining your feedom of expression to avoid offending someone?


Illinois Student Paper Prints Muslim Cartoons, and Reaction Is Swift (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/national/17cartoons.html?th&emc=th)


By MONICA DAVEY
Published: February 17, 2006
CHAMPAIGN, Ill., Feb. 16 — Since the morning the cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad were republished in the student newspaper at the University of Illinois here, response has been swift and split.

Muslim students and others held a protest on the main quadrangle on Tuesday, saying they were stunned and hurt by The Daily Illini's publication on Feb. 9 of the images that had stirred so much violence and caused so much pain in other parts of the world. Some members of The Daily Illini staff said they were furious, too, and in Wednesday's editions, the publisher announced that the editor in chief and opinions page editor had been suspended, pending an investigation into how the cartoons had ended up in the paper.

"This has gotten crazy," said Acton H. Gorton, 25, the suspended editor in chief who decided to run 6 of the 12 cartoons even though he said he found them "bigoted and insensitive." Mr. Gorton received calls for his resignation but also a deluge of praise, including comments of support from students as he walked on campus. "We did this to raise a healthy dialogue about an important issue that is in the news and so that people would learn more about Islam. Now, I'm basically fired."

Most major American newspapers, including The New York Times, have not published the cartoons, which were first published in a Danish newspaper last September.

But on college campuses, student journalists are still grappling with the decision, saying the choice of most of the nation's newspapers makes theirs even more crucial. Editors at some student publications at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University have published some of the cartoons.

The decisions have set off a painful clash, seemingly pitting two of the values so often embraced in university environments — freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures — directly against each other.

Other student newspapers, including those at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, have published their own cartoons that comment on or refer to the controversial cartoons.

The issue has prompted letters to the editor, community meetings and public forums. Officials at the University of Wisconsin were organizing a forum in Madison for next week after The Badger Herald on Monday ran one of the cartoons, one that portrayed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb.

"Universally, we found the cartoon to be repugnant," said Mac VerStandig, the editor in chief of The Badger Herald. "But we believe that there was a certain endangerment of free speech here, especially given the general prudishness of the American press. We believe our readers are mature enough to look at these images."

In Champaign on the morning of Feb. 9, angry phone calls began within hours of The Daily Illini's hitting the stands. The cartoons were printed on the opinions page beside a column by Mr. Gorton explaining why he was publishing them. Shaz Kaiseruddin, a third-year law student and president of the Muslim Student Association, said she awoke to a phone call from an angry colleague.

"I was in disbelief that they would do this," Ms. Kaiseruddin, 24, said. "That our own student-based newspaper would be so ignorant and disrespectful."

Producing any image of Muhammad is considered blasphemous by many Muslims, and reproducing such anti-Muslim images, she said, revealed no understanding of the pain that would carry. Students met to plan a response.

Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently. In part, it said, "I believe that the D.I. could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them. It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures."

At the paper, meanwhile, some staff members said they were furious — and surprised. They said Mr. Gorton and Chuck Prochaska, 20, the opinions editor, had made the decision to publish the images without properly consulting the newspaper's other top editors. The pair denied this, saying they had followed the normal decision-marking procedures and that anyone who was working at the newspaper could have seen the planned pages before they ran.

In the days that followed, the newspaper ran an apology, held conversations with Muslim students and promised more complete, nuanced coverage on the issue. "We need to start fixing our image," said Shira Weissman, one of two interim editors in chief of the paper in Mr. Gorton's absence. "We're being viewed as being hateful."

But among students interviewed on Thursday, many said they were angry not because the newspaper had published the images but because it was now doubting that choice.

"I was absolutely crushed to see that the editors were removed," said Cody Kay, 18. "What happened to freedom of speech? If we start saying we can't look at things, what's next? Our books?"

Ms. Weissman said the suspensions stemmed from the fact that the two journalists had not properly consulted the staff about the decision.

Ms. Weissman said she would not have printed the cartoons. Others said they might choose to run them, but only with plenty of context, explanation of the controversy and perhaps a guest column from a member of the Muslim student group.

Mr. Gorton said on Thursday that he wished he had discussed the issue more with his staff. And he would have printed more context, more explanation, something The Northern Star, Northern Illinois's student newspaper, did when it published the cartoons on Monday.

Derek Wright, the editor in chief of The Northern Star, said his newspaper included a front-page editorial explaining the choice to run the 12 images, as well as an article about them, student reaction and a column from a Muslim student leader.

"There really hasn't been as much outcry as we might have expected," Mr. Wright said.

Either way, Mr. Gorton said he still would have printed the images. "My first obligation is to the readers," he said. "This is news."

Oh, hell no. As an editor on my student paper this straw has broke the camel's back

I don't think they should have publsihed the cartoons but sacking them was just plain wrong, they had a right to do it.

While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense

I'm still wondering what happened to good ol' common courtesy.

Anyone reprinting the cartoons now are not "champions of free speech", rather they're deliberately trying to offend people. Much like a passive aggressive 12 year old.

Some people's mamas just didn't raise them right.

I'm still wondering what happened to good ol' common courtesy.

Anyone reprinting the cartoons now are not "champions of free speech", rather they're deliberately trying to offend people. Much like a passive aggressive 12 year old.

Some people's mamas just didn't raise them right.

Exactly.

If people want to see the cartoons, they can find them pretty much anywhere online.

The first time, it might (very very loose might) have been ok. Now it's like a group of people picking on someone because it was SO COOL when the first guy did it.

At this point, what reason is there for publishing these cartoons besides offending people? Everyone and their mother have seen these cartoons by now, so there's no need to publish them to show people, and it's been patently obvious that they are severly insulting to Muslims. Anyone publishing these cartoons now comes across as petty and deliberately attempting to offend people, and not champions of free speech. It's just childish now.

While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense

I can't see it as an offense. It's utilizing the 1st amendment--freedom of speech AND religion. I don't believe as Muslims do--nor do I believe as Christians do. And it is anyone's right to publish something like those cartoons. It's called satire.

Being fired for bowing to every religion's every rule will override freedom of speech every single time.

The freedom to express one's ideas is far more important than allowing ANY religion to run rough-shod over another human's rights. No one is has a right to be free of ridicule or another's opinion, for that matter. There are unpleasant sides to any freedom, but those are the prices one pays to be free.

If we really want to take this to an extreme, why is Santa Claus worshiped on the supposed day of Jesus' birth? Is that not an offense to Christians?

When a religion gets to dictate what may or may not be said or expressed, freedom dies.

I can't see it as an offense. It's utilizing the 1st amendment--freedom of speech AND religion. I don't believe as Muslims do--nor do I believe as Christians do. And it is anyone's right to publish something like those cartoons. It's called satire.

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

That is what the guy gets for being a stupid asshat.

"Hmm, I think these comics of the prophet are insensitive, and have caused controversy all over the world, twice. I know what I will do: put them in the school newspaper."

I hope he is fucking fired instead of just suspended.

I don't think they should have publsihed the cartoons but sacking them was just plain wrong, they had a right to do it.[
It is a school paper, they have the right to do exactly to things: Jack and squat, and Jack just left.

Oh, hell no. As an editor on my student paper this straw has broke the camel's back
Say more. Have you considered publishing the cartoons? Why or why not?

While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense
No, it's independent: "Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently."

I can't see it as an offense. It's utilizing the 1st amendment--freedom of speech AND religion. I don't believe as Muslims do--nor do I believe as Christians do. And it is anyone's right to publish something like those cartoons. It's called satire.
The first time, it is satire. The second time, after many protests, it can be construed as satire. The third time, after many protests and a knowledge that the comics are offensive and insensititve, you're just a stupid fucking asshole and you deserve whatever you get, to a point.

It is a school paper, they have the right to do exactly to things: Jack and squat, and Jack just left.

I still say that they should have been given a warning and a chance to apologise rather than simply firing them.

That is what the guy gets for being a stupid asshat.

"Hmm, I think these comics of the prophet are insensitive, and have caused controversy all over the world, twice. I know what I will do: put them in the school newspaper."

I hope he is fucking fired instead of just suspended.

[
It is a school paper, they have the right to do exactly to things: Jack and squat, and Jack just left.
People, please actually read the frakking article: "Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently."

That is what the guy gets for being a stupid asshat.

"Hmm, I think these comics of the prophet are insensitive, and have caused controversy all over the world, twice. I know what I will do: put them in the school newspaper."

I hope he is fucking fired instead of just suspended.

So "sensitivity" pwns free speech?

People, please actually read the frakking article: "Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently."

Ms. Weissman said the suspensions stemmed from the fact that the two journalists had not properly consulted the staff about the decision.
Personally if I was going to be an asshat I would check to make sure I was at least doing it by the book

Oh the irony.
Publishing a cartoon that's extremely offensive to Muslims is 'freedom of speech', but this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
is 'beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
So which is it, America?

I must agree with teh pantless and heroic one. To me, it appears that he was suspended for making a stupid decision. This is not necessarily about the freedom of the press. No one is questioning the freedom of the press here. People are questioning the editor's lack of intelligence.

So "sensitivity" pwns free speech?
That depends. Would you defend my right to go up to a woman who's just lost her new-born child and tell her a bunch of 'dead baby' jokes?

This editor just sounds like a jerk trying to cause trouble. People have made their point that free speech trumps the sensitivities of others but at this point there is no reason BUT to try and offend people. You want to do that, work for a tabloid or some other rag not a student newspaper.

Oh the irony.
Publishing a cartoon that's extremely offensive to Muslims is 'freedom of speech', but this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
is 'beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
So which is it, America?
I find this cartoon offensive in the extreme. However, I have not "protested" it, I have not rioted because of it, I have not threated the life of the cartoonist, I have not even written the newspaper which published it. Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.

So "sensitivity" pwns free speech?
Free speech is not complete and unquestionable.

He knew that by posting those pictures he would incite protests, complaints, and possible violence - he knew they were insensitive, and unless he was living under a rock, h knew what was going on in Europe. It could be said he did it solely to rile up the Muslim community. Inciting to riot is not free speech.

Free speech is not complete and unquestionable.

He knew that by posting those pictures he would incite protests, complaints, and possible violence - he knew they were insensitive, and unless he was living under a rock, h knew what was going on in Europe. It could be said he did it solely to rile up the Muslim community. Inciting to riot is not free speech.
Free speech is either an absolute or it doesn't exist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
is 'beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
So which is it, America?

HOW DARE YOU REPRINT THAT!

You goddamn commie. Printing pictures making fun of them durn sand niggers is fine, but you're offending real human beings with that!

I find this cartoon offensive in the extreme. However, I have not "protested" it, I have not rioted because of it, I have not threated the life of the cartoonist, I have not even written the newspaper which published it. Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.
So you are choosing to limit your free speech (in not writing to the newspaper ....) to allow theirs to reign free

I don't see how protesting and using your right to free speech would limit theirs.

Free speech is either an absolute or it doesn't exist.
So I can yell "fire" in a crowded mivie theater?

I find this cartoon offensive in the extreme. However, I have not "protested" it, I have not rioted because of it, I have not threated the life of the cartoonist, I have not even written the newspaper which published it. Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.
You're missing my point. Why is one that offends Muslims 'Freedom of speech' and so should be published while one that offends Americans 'Beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published?
Can't have it both ways, America.


Why do you find it 'offensive in the extreme' anyway? It's just making a salient point about what Rumsfield said in relation to a question posed to him about the state of the US military. What's offensive about that?

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

No, it doesn't. I'm in my mid-30s, and yes, I already know that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. But that's not the point. They weren't trying to convince Muslims of anything. They had satirical representation of a person.

You can't legislate expression. You can offer up your opinion on what you think is wrong with it, though.

Otherwise, you can legislate all of it away.

So I can yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater?
I just knew someone would bring up that ridiculous example.

There is a clear line between freedom of speech and comitting an act which can be the proximate cause of bodily harm. To limit my freedom of expression because someone objects does not cross that line. If we refrained from publishing something just because the objectors might riot or threaten lives, then every demented twit in the Country would claim they were going to kill people because a newspaper was going to print something they didn't like.

Even Nazis have the right to publish idiotic things like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

No, it doesn't. I'm in my mid-30s, and yes, I already know that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. But that's not the point. They weren't trying to convince Muslims of anything. They had satirical representation of a person.

You can't legislate expression. You can offer up your opinion on what you think is wrong with it, though.

Otherwise, you can legislate all of it away.
Perzactly!

You're missing my point. Why is one that offends Muslims 'Freedom of speech' and so should be published while one that offends Americans 'Beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published?
Can't have it both ways, America.


You're right. It should all be allowed.

And anyone can boycot or protest over both. There's that whole freedom thing again.

I just knew someone would bring up that ridiculous example.
Snip

Is it any more ridiculous then your previous quip about the non limitation of free speech when very clearly there are some in any sane country

I find this cartoon offensive in the extreme. However, I have not "protested" it, I have not rioted because of it, I have not threated the life of the cartoonist, I have not even written the newspaper which published it. Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.

You did not. However, other people did.

I think people are conflating two separate things here. No one is disputing the fact that the editor has a right to publish the cartoons. He was fired because he did something stupid.

Ms. Weissman said the suspensions stemmed from the fact that the two journalists had not properly consulted the staff about the decision.

Ms. Weissman said she would not have printed the cartoons. Others said they might choose to run them, but only with plenty of context, explanation of the controversy and perhaps a guest column from a member of the Muslim student group.

Mr. Gorton said on Thursday that he wished he had discussed the issue more with his staff. And he would have printed more context, more explanation, something The Northern Star, Northern Illinois's student newspaper, did when it published the cartoons on Monday.

The first time, it is satire. The second time, after many protests, it can be construed as satire. The third time, after many protests and a knowledge that the comics are offensive and insensititve, you're just a stupid fucking asshole and you deserve whatever you get, to a point.

I would agree, to a point. Yes, you want to be nice to people. However, I haven't seen the pictures anywhere except the Internet. There ARE some that actually don't get their news that way....

How are people going to know what was out there that was so offensive, to make an informed decision of their own, if the offensive item in question is censored from view?

And really, was the editor trying to stir up controversy (I could believe that the case, given the fact that it's the media), or was he trying to do what he said--bring the issue to light, so folks would discuss the issue?

If we have some group stating, "Hey, I don't like that," we really aren't supposed to just make it illegal or punish a person for doing that. If that's the way it's to be, the religious right has a case to ban all porn because it seriously offends their beliefs (also something I don't agree with).

So what's it going to be folks? Gonna fire people and ban porn along with blasphemy? Can't have it both ways.

While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense
That's not necessarily true. Some university newspapers are independent of the university. The University of Maryland is one such place.

The part of the story that seems to be lost on everyone is that the newspaper in Denmark ran those cartoons MONTHS ago and it's only now getting attention in the media because it seems like extremists want to do anything they can to get at the U.S. so they go after an ally.

Frankly, if I were a student newspaper editor, I'd print the cartoons. After I got done blasting the University of Illinois for firing the editor who did.

You're missing my point. Why is one that offends Muslims 'Freedom of speech' and so should be published while one that offends Americans 'Beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published?
Can't have it both ways, America.

Why do you find it 'offensive in the extreme' anyway? It's just making a salient point about what Rumsfield said in relation to a question posed to him about the state of the US military. What's offensive about that?
Depicting a soldier who is a multiple amputee and showing his "doctor" saying that he's going to list him as "battle hardened" isn't offensive??? If I have to explain it to you, then there's little hope you will understand. :(

As I said in my post, even though I find the cartoon offensive in the extreme, I haven't even written to the editor of the newspaper that published it. How on earth does that translate into "shouldn't be published?" :headbang:

You did not. However, other people did.
Well, I will have to jump right on that. How dare they disobey my direct orders to not do so! Tsk!

That depends. Would you defend my right to go up to a woman who's just lost her new-born child and tell her a bunch of 'dead baby' jokes?

Yup. I'd think you were an ass for doing it, but a right's a right. Would I have anything else to do with you beyond that? No way in hell.

You're right. It should all be allowed.

And anyone can boycot or protest over both. There's that whole freedom thing again.
But ... but ... but it's just not being all mushy and "sensitive" and stuff! The horror! The HORROR! :eek:

I would agree, to a point. Yes, you want to be nice to people. However, I haven't seen the pictures anywhere except the Internet. There ARE some that actually don't get their news that way....

How are people going to know what was out there that was so offensive, to make an informed decision of their own, if the offensive item in question is censored from view?

And really, was the editor trying to stir up controversy (I could believe that the case, given the fact that it's the media), or was he trying to do what he said--bring the issue to light, so folks would discuss the issue?

If we have some group stating, "Hey, I don't like that," we really aren't supposed to just make it illegal or punish a person for doing that. If that's the way it's to be, the religious right has a case to ban all porn because it seriously offends their beliefs (also something I don't agree with).

So what's it going to be folks? Gonna fire people and ban porn along with blasphemy? Can't have it both ways.
You have a very good grip on this issue. Why have I not seen many posts by you before this. Or am I just missing them somehow?

I just knew someone would bring up that ridiculous example.

There is a clear line between freedom of speech and comitting an act which can be the proximate cause of bodily harm.
Like "inciting to riot"? Like I said in my post that you apparently didn't read.

And really, was the editor trying to stir up controversy (I could believe that the case, given the fact that it's the media), or was he trying to do what he said--bring the issue to light, so folks would discuss the issue?
You can discuss the issue without reposting something known to cause a problem. Everyone was aware of the issue and the problems surrounding it, the republication of the comics doesn't even show that these people are insensitive, it shows that they are stupid dumbfucks and I hope they are fired instead of suspended (read your own article Eutrusca).

Well, I will have to jump right on that. How dare they disobey my direct orders to not do so! Tsk!

Well my point is that there are people out there who would actually try to prevent people from publishing that picture because it offends them.

Depicting a soldier who is a multiple amputee and showing his "doctor" saying that he's going to list him as "battle hardened" isn't offensive??? If I have to explain it to you, then there's little hope you will understand. :(


To be fair, it's not really AS offensive in my eyes. A cartoon which suggests Islam is a religion full of suicide bombers isn't quite as bad as saying that soilders are suffering and the war is going badly but the administration tries to put spin on it, although it was done in a tasteless way.

If someone drew a cartoon to suggest the whole US military loved to abuse innocent civilians it would be a better comparison - just as a tiny minority of US soilders commit attrocities, a tiny minority of Muslims are suicide bombers.

You can't legislate expression.

Really? Then explain anti-pornography laws.

I'm still wondering what happened to good ol' common courtesy.

Anyone reprinting the cartoons now are not "champions of free speech", rather they're deliberately trying to offend people. Much like a passive aggressive 12 year old.

Some people's mamas just didn't raise them right.
I absolutely agree. This is no longer about freedom of speech, it is about reckless abandon.

These cartoons??? are so socially benefical. :rolleyes:

Is it any more ridiculous then your previous quip about the non limitation of free speech when very clearly there are some in any sane country
Publishing "offensive" catroons ( or news articles, or editorials, or opinion pieces, or virtually anything else ) is not among them.

I absolutely agree. This is no longer about freedom of speech, it is about reckless abandon.

These cartoons??? are so socially benefical. :rolleyes:
More "politically correct" BS. I don't find "socially beneficial" anywhere except here or in far left publications which find it absolutely ok to call American soldiers "baby-killers" and other extremely offensive things, but balk at a frakking CARTOON! Jeeze!

And really, was the editor trying to stir up controversy (I could believe that the case, given the fact that it's the media), or was he trying to do what he said--bring the issue to light, so folks would discuss the issue?

Considering the issue is already extremely in the light and is already being discussed all over the world, I'm gonna have to go with the "deliberately trying to offend" part.

Publishing "offensive" catroons ( or news articles, or editorials, or opinion pieces, or virtually anything else ) is not among them.
If those pieces are meant to or will knowingly have a large chance to incite violence, then there is no right to publish them.

More "politically correct" BS. I don't find "socially beneficial" anywhere except here or in far left publications which find it absolutely ok to call American soldiers "baby-killers" and other extremely offensive things, but balk at a frakking CARTOON! Jeeze!

Yes ... it's "politically correct BS" and just a "frakking cartoon" when it's not you being offended.

More "politically correct" BS. I don't find "socially beneficial" anywhere except here or in far left publications which find it absolutely ok to call American soldiers "baby-killers" and other extremely offensive things, but balk at a frakking CARTOON! Jeeze!
Ooh, can we name a Godwin-like law after me? It can be used every time some one tries to blame the left wing for something in order to distract people from an issue. You will invoke the Spirit of teh Pantless Hero!

Really? Then explain anti-pornography laws.
Ha! Can't find pr0n, eh? You do have an internet connection, yes? There are some "pr0n stores" near where you live, yes? :p

Ooh, can we name a Godwin-like law after me? It can be used every time some one tries to blame the left wing for something in order to distract people from an issue. You will invoke the Spirit of teh Pantless Hero!
How about "Teh Pantless Hero Annual Insensitivity Award?" :D

Ha! Can't find pr0n, eh? You do have an internet connection, yes? There are some "pr0n stores" near where you live, yes? :p

Heh ... yes, I can find it easily, but it's still regulated to video store back rooms and specialty shops. It was stated that one can't legislate expression, but I'd get arrested if I went to the grocery store naked.

We legislate expression all the time.

Yes ... it's "politically correct BS" and just a "frakking cartoon" when it's not you being offended.
Apparently you didn't read my post about the quadraplegic soldier cartoon. Scroll back. :p

Apparently you didn't read my post about the quadraplegic soldier cartoon. Scroll back. :p

Oh I read it. I read them all. Personally I'm wondering why this is even an issue anymore. The people who originally published the cartoons apologized and, well, that's good enough for 99.9% of the world's Muslims.

Not sure why it's still such a big deal to the remaining 0.1% or such a big deal to Americans.

Eutrusca,

As I am what you would call a liberal, and therefore ignorant, could you please tell me where anyone said that the editor shouldnot be allowed to exercise their right to free speech?

Thanks,

GoG

If those pieces are meant to or will knowingly have a large chance to incite violence, then there is no right to publish them.
Oh bullshit. As I indicated before, just because someone threatens to riot is no reason to not publish. As a matter of fact, it's even more of a reason TO publish. To take another example, what if al the Nazis and skinheads threatened to riot or kill people if a newspaper continued to rail against racism? Should the newspapger knuckle under?

Somehow I rather think not.

Remeber Stan Berg, the radio talk host who poured vitriol on skinheads and American nazis and racists? Should the radio station have censored him because there were threats on his life? He was killed because he exercised his freedom of speech.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there's no freedom of speech violation here--the cartoons ran. A freedom of speech violation would have meant that the cartoons were restrained prior to their running.

Now, I'm not real happy that the editor lost his job over this, but it illustrates an important point--you may have the right to say whatever you damn well please, but sometimes you have to face the consequences of your exercising of that right. He's hardly the first editor to lose his job over something like this and he won't be the last. People have lost their jobs over far less--like refusing to sugarcoat a story about an advertiser, for instance.

More "politically correct" BS. I don't find "socially beneficial" anywhere except here or in far left publications which find it absolutely ok to call American soldiers "baby-killers" and other extremely offensive things, but balk at a frakking CARTOON! Jeeze!
Ahh, another radical comment from the self admitted politically "centrist" Eutrusca. This topic was about cartoons???

Eutrusca,

As I am what you would call a liberal, and therefore ignorant, could you please tell me where anyone said that the editor shouldnot be allowed to exercise their right to free speech?

Thanks,

GoG
Just for you, two examples:

If those pieces are meant to or will knowingly have a large chance to incite violence, then there is no right to publish them.
Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment.

You're welcome.

We have always held and kept our presses within the realm of acceptable expectations of 'sensitivity standards,' especially for our public domain presses (to include school newspapers). If they don't follow it, they lose their jobs.

Why are some of the people in this thread trying to pretend that we haven't had them all along?

Freedom of speech does not mean that one will be free of repercussions for their careless and offensive tripe.

If I am wrong, why are racial slurs not used in student newspapers? They are words, people now what they mean and they aren't 'obscene' in as much as they could be called ‘illegal.’ The answer is that they are offensive, we don't like them, we don't want to see them, if you print them in your student newspaper, freedom of speech or not, you'll soon find yourself out looking for a new job.

Imagine the public outcry if the student newspapers started calling minority students by the racial slur names just to prove a point?

Ooh, can we name a Godwin-like law after me? It can be used every time some one tries to blame the left wing for something in order to distract people from an issue. You will invoke the Spirit of teh Pantless Hero!
Excellent call there!! :D

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there's no freedom of speech violation here--the cartoons ran. A freedom of speech violation would have meant that the cartoons were restrained prior to their running.

Now, I'm not real happy that the editor lost his job over this, but it illustrates an important point--you may have the right to say whatever you damn well please, but sometimes you have to face the consequences of your exercising of that right. He's hardly the first editor to lose his job over something like this and he won't be the last. People have lost their jobs over far less--like refusing to sugarcoat a story about an advertiser, for instance.
Excellent! You surprise me. :D

Oh the irony.
Publishing a cartoon that's extremely offensive to Muslims is 'freedom of speech', but this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
is 'beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
So which is it, America?
thats not offensive, its bitter political commentary that cuts to the bone.

but if once the editors of various newspapers found out that many military veterans found it offensive, they ran it over and over again, THAT would be offensive. they would not be doing it for political comment, but in full knowlege of pissing people off needlessly.

Excellent! You surprise me. :D
I shouldn't. I'm pretty consistent on this kind of stuff. You ought to know that by now.

Just for you, two examples:

If those pieces are meant to or will knowingly have a large chance to incite violence, then there is no right to publish them.

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment.
You're welcome.

The first one seems to be more of a philosphical or legal objection based on certain conditions, rather than a blanket statement about the cartoons. Sort of like: 'if you are criminally insane, you can't own a gun' does not abridge the right to own a gun.

The second one is a stretch. Courtesy may outweigh the First Amendment, but it does not mean people should not exercise it.

The first one seems to be more of a philosphical or legal objection based on certain conditions, rather than a blanket statement about the cartoons. Sort of like: 'if you are criminally insane, you can't own a gun' does not abridge the right to own a gun.

The second one is a stretch. Courtesy may outweigh the First Amendment, but it does not mean people should not exercise it.
Can you say "apologist," boys and girls? :rolleyes:

I shouldn't. I'm pretty consistent on this kind of stuff. You ought to know that by now.
Perhaps the way you say things speaks so loudly sometimes that I have trouble hearing the actual words?

Just to go off on a tangent here but is it just me or does the response to these cartoons seem like something that is attempting to stifle a discussion between a clash of middle eastern culture and western? I mean I understand how freedom of speech plays a part in the whole controversy but it seems to me like its being used as a distraction to sort of sweep the cultural aspect of this under the rug?

Just to go off on a tangent here but is it just me or does the response to these cartoons seem like something that is attempting to stifle a discussion between a clash of middle eastern culture and western? I mean I understand how freedom of speech plays a part in the whole controversy but it seems to me like its being used as a blanket to sort of sweep the cultural aspect of this under the rug?
I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I see the freedom of speech issue as almost exemplifying the "clash of cultures."

Just to go off on a tangent here but is it just me or does the response to these cartoons seem like something that is attempting to stifle a discussion between a clash of middle eastern culture and western? I mean I understand how freedom of speech plays a part in the whole controversy but it seems to me like its being used as a distraction to sort of sweep the cultural aspect of this under the rug?
Yeah a lot of people feel the need to be asshats and are screaming “Censorship” anytime they have to pay the consequences for being asshats

For example this story ... big smoke screen of “Censorship” but in the end was just an example of someone doing something controversial but forgetting to do it by the book.

Just to go off on a tangent here but is it just me or does the response to these cartoons seem like something that is attempting to stifle a discussion between a clash of middle eastern culture and western? I mean I understand how freedom of speech plays a part in the whole controversy but it seems to me like its being used as a distraction to sort of sweep the cultural aspect of this under the rug?

When the protestors are carrying signs saying "Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" and "Behead anyone who insults Islam" That combines the two very clearly.

I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I see the freedom of speech issue as almost exemplifying the "clash of cultures."

Well here is the thing. Instead of in all of these threads talking about the cultures, why they seem to be having friction, and how we can possibly solve this we seem to be just focusing on the issue of freedom of speech. In all of the threads we've had here how many focused on freedom of speech instead of whats the cultural problems and solutions? It seems to me that most if not all focused on free speech.

When the protestors are carrying signs saying "Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" and "Behead anyone who insults Islam" That combines the two very clearly.

I'm not saying that freedom of speech isn't an issue, I just don't think its the main one we should be focusing on with this whole controversy.

Can you say "apologist," boys and girls? :rolleyes:

I guess I should explain in more detail.

The first quote:
tph is saying IF A, THEN B. IF the editor is trying to incite hatred, THEN he should not be allowed to exercise his right of free speech.

tph is right in this case, as this would be a hate crime. That is very different tthan saying he should not have been allowed to print them at all.

The second quote:
K may be saying several different things here. One possible inference is that he believes that politeness is legally more binding than free speech. Other people might infer that he means people morally should censor themselves if what they have to say will only offend people. Or he might be expressing a personal opinion.

Therefore, it is a stretch to assume that he could only have meant the first possible option.

p.s. I can say 'apologist' just fine, thank you. What does that have to do with the debate on hand?

Yeah a lot of people feel the need to be asshats and are screaming “Censorship” anytime they have to pay the consequences for being asshats

For example this story ... big smoke screen of “Censorship” but in the end was just an example of someone doing something controversial but forgetting to do it by the book.


It's the level of "consequences" that are important. Should the editor have been fired? Borderline. I'm mixed between his expression and stupidity.

There are those calling for prosecution and mandatory censorship based on "Hate speech" in other cases. How far will it go?

I'm not saying that freedom of speech isn't an issue, I just don't think its the main one we should be focusing on with this whole controversy.

OK, difference of opinion. I see it as a primary issue as even if these editors are trying to stir up trouble, the actuall low level of offensiveness in these cartoons shouldn't justify the reactions it has nor should censorship be encouraged because of it due to "sensitivities".

Free speech is either an absolute or it doesn't exist.
Guess it doesn't exist then, because it's not an absolute.
But maybe, just maybe, there is a third alternative? I would like to believe so...

The first one seems to be more of a philosphical or legal objection based on certain conditions, rather than a blanket statement about the cartoons. Sort of like: 'if you are criminally insane, you can't own a gun' does not abridge the right to own a gun.

The second one is a stretch. Courtesy may outweigh the First Amendment, but it does not mean people should not exercise it.If you read my previous statement in this thread, you'll see that my view of being a journalist is that the First Amendment outweighs "courtesy." As a human being, there are other factors involved, one of them being what constitutes "fighting words." So-called fighting words by legal precedent are not protected by the Constitution, though I doubt seriously that they would allow for a case-by-case interpretation of "fighting words," so that someone calling me a faggot would be using what I consider "fighting words."

Like I added into my previous post, if I were a student newspaper editor, I would have printed the cartoons. After I got done blasting the University of Illinois for firing the editor who did. If I were executive editor of The Washington Post, I'd probably print the cartoons so that even people who haven't seen the cartoons can make the judgement for themselves whether said cartoons were as offensive as they were being made out to be. To me, it's the same sort of thinking that led to The Diamondback printing verbatim threatening letters sent to the SGA president and its leaders because they were black. Under normal circumstances, I oppose printing profanity in a newspaper and I've told my writers "there are better ways to express yourself." However, in a case like that, for people to get the full impact of what was said and why it's such a big deal, I supported The Diamondback's decision to print the letters, unfiltered and unedited and I would support printing the cartoons under the same principles.

im with keruvalia on this one. there is no reason to publish these cartoons besides "because i can" and that makes you rude to do so.

they had little to no political commentary value to begin with. they are poorly drawn and poorly thought out. they were published for whatever reason the danish newspaper had for doing so

no one else has any reason to publish them. all they are doing is saying "you are not the boss of us" to the islamic world. its a childish sentiment that is not worthy of all the attention its getting.

so this editor got fired for being a jerk. in a university community everyone has internet access, anyone who wanted to see the cartoons has already seen them. the only reason to publish them NOW is attention whoring.

"ME TOO ME TOO!!"

he deserves the smack he got

If you read my previous statement in this thread, you'll see that my view of being a journalist is that the First Amendment outweighs "courtesy."

I totally agree that freedom of speech outweighs courtesy.

What I am saying is that this is not about free speech, but about a person who did something stupid.

Oh I read it. I read them all. Personally I'm wondering why this is even an issue anymore. The people who originally published the cartoons apologized and, well, that's good enough for 99.9% of the world's Muslims.

Not sure why it's still such a big deal to the remaining 0.1% or such a big deal to Americans.
Did you actually read a translation of the 'apology'? It really just said something along the lines of "we are sorry that many muslims were offended by what we printed, but to be perfectly honest we couldn't give a flying fuck and would do it again if the situation called for it" albeit much more diplomatically.


Oh, and as for the actual issue at hand. The reason to publish the cartoons is quite simple. Because CNN won't. More specifically because CNN ran it's stories about the controversy with a footnote that went along the lines of: "Out of respect for islam, CNN has chosen not to run these images". Given the fact that they have no problem showing exhibits like Piss Christ, this can be considered unadulterated bullshit. The footnote should read : "Out of fear of radical islamists, losing our news sources in the middle east, and losing veiwing shares, CNN has chosen not to show these images." Now, if they actually said that I wouldn't have a problem with them. I'd think they're greedy hypocritical cowards, but I wouldn't really care about them. Instead they have chosen to hide behind the other phrase. As such, I am all for the continued publication of the cartoons.

In some ways I agree with both sides of this issue, the freedom of speech has been called into question by the media not being allowed or being too afraid of the repercussions to print these cartoons. The editor had every right to print the cartoons and in doing so he knew full well the things that may happen as a result. It is his right to be allowed to print them yet in this day and age most people try and show some amount of consideration to others beliefs.

At the same time the entire "Muhammad may not be seen in picture" argument is bull. Muhammad has appeared in pictures for years. Some done by Arabs, some done by other religions. The fact that none of these pictures caused an outcry shows that it was not the printing of the picture that was the problem, but the satirical content of the picture itself. Satire however is commonplace in today's media and is something that people of every race/religion/class need to get used to. It’s not always something that we want to see but...

If you don’t want to see something that you think is wrong... just don’t look at it. It’s pretty simple. If you know that it has something that’s offensive to you... don’t look. Just like going to a movie, iff you don’t want to see gay cowboys, don’t go see brokeback. If you don’t want to see violence, don’t go to pulp fiction.

Or, you can look at it. See something new and perhaps expand your own mind to new possiblities. I'm not religious yet i've read the Bible. I'm not gay yet went to see Brokeback. Look, Listen, Learn. Its acually quite simple.

Freedom of Speech is a powerful thing. and the press generally gets a pretty good bit of latitiude to push those bounds.


That being said, this was a UNIVERSITY paper, and as such the editor was also operating under the school rules, and most universities have far more restrictive policies on acceptable speech than the general legal requirement.

In the case of U of Illinois, I found the following (http://www.admin.uiuc.edu/policy/code/article_1/a1_1-108.html)


The commitment of the University to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from invidious discrimination in all its forms.


and (http://www.admin.uiuc.edu/policy/code/article_1/a1_1-302.html)


Students enrolling in the University assume an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the University’s function as an educational institution and suitable to members of the academic community. Conduct for which students are subject to discipline includes, but is not limited to, the following:

...

(f) Any conduct that substantially threatens or interferes with the maintenance of appropriate order and discipline in the operation of the University. Without excluding other situations, examples include shouting, noise making, obstruction, and other disruptive actions designed or intended to interfere with or prevent meetings, assemblies, classes, or other scheduled or routine University operations or activities.

(g) Inciting, aiding, or encouraging others to engage in a disruptive or coercive action.


Given the well-publicized reaction to these cartoons from the Muslim community, publishing these pictures could certainly be construed as being in violation of the spirit of : (g)


Freedom of speech is, after all, relative when it comes to differentiating between what you can say at home, and what you can say at work that won't get you fired.

At the same time the entire "Muhammad may not be seen in picture" argument is bull. Muhammad has appeared in pictures for years. Some done by Arabs, some done by other religions. The fact that none of these pictures caused an outcry shows that it was not the printing of the picture that was the problem, but the satirical content of the picture itself. Satire however is commonplace in today's media and is something that people of every race/religion/class need to get used to. It’s not always something that we want to see but...
Actually, the reason there is an outcry is because three danish imams created this entire setup. The toured the middle east with the original twelve pictures and three others. The three others were much much more offensive than the original twelve, and were done by muslims themselves. But of course the imams portrayed them as having been done by the original cartoonists. Then you have the fact that both Iran and Syria are encouraging the protests in order to take heat off of their backs over the nuke issue and the Hariri assasination.

I acually didnt know about the other 3 pictures, just the first 12.
So in other words... most of the muslum nations are.. well ... pissed. and now their own leaders are fanning the flames of hate by making their own pictures and passing them of as from the western world just to make them madder?

wow.

I'm not to surprised about the attempt to draw attention away. Considering the drawings came out first in september and now suddenly they are going around again.

"Hey.. your building a gun!.."
"No i'm not!.. this is not a gun.. its.. um.. for personal protection.. Yea. thats it.. Wait.. look at the shiny beads"
"ooo... beads.."

In some ways I agree with both sides of this issue, the freedom of speech has been called into question by the media not being allowed or being too afraid of the repercussions to print these cartoons. The editor had every right to print the cartoons and in doing so he knew full well the things that may happen as a result. It is his right to be allowed to print them yet in this day and age most people try and show some amount of consideration to others beliefs.

At the same time the entire "Muhammad may not be seen in picture" argument is bull. Muhammad has appeared in pictures for years. Some done by Arabs, some done by other religions. The fact that none of these pictures caused an outcry shows that it was not the printing of the picture that was the problem, but the satirical content of the picture itself. Satire however is commonplace in today's media and is something that people of every race/religion/class need to get used to. It’s not always something that we want to see but...

If you don’t want to see something that you think is wrong... just don’t look at it. It’s pretty simple. If you know that it has something that’s offensive to you... don’t look. Just like going to a movie, iff you don’t want to see gay cowboys, don’t go see brokeback. If you don’t want to see violence, don’t go to pulp fiction.

Or, you can look at it. See something new and perhaps expand your own mind to new possiblities. I'm not religious yet i've read the Bible. I'm not gay yet went to see Brokeback. Look, Listen, Learn. Its acually quite simple.

Agreed!

I take it you live in a free country, given your attitude; that is the kind of attitude one must have in a free country, because everyone has the same freedoms.

As for the paper, they certainly do have the right to print culturally insensitive stuff, if we are to take the principle of freedom of speech seriously. It allows them to say anything, even flat-out report lies (though libel suits and loss of readers would shut them down before too long). This isn't the first time something like this has happened here, and it won't be the last.

Do we have an obligation to look out for the feelings of others? No. Absolutely not. However, if we want others to tolerate us, it is a good idea to consider these sensitivities.

Should the paper issue an apology? They have no obligation to do so, but if they want to keep those affected readers, it might be in their interests. Since the DI is given freely, they do not stand to lose revenue (though, because they are financially tied to the university, they may be forced to).

Parenthetically, isn't it amazing how little I am in touch with my local surroundings? Shows how much I go onto the main quad here at UIUC...

There are those calling for prosecution and mandatory censorship based on "Hate speech" in other cases. How far will it go?
As far as the Supreme Court, where the Justices will do the legal smackdown on any attempts at censorship.

As far as the Supreme Court, where the Justices will do the legal smackdown on any attempts at censorship.

In the US, most likely. However, there have already been calls in the EU for self-censorship laws and CH posted in another thread a Canadian Law that can be used to prosecute.

Will these laws or "policies" continue so that it's only OK to lampoon certain groups?

Oh the irony.
Publishing a cartoon that's extremely offensive to Muslims is 'freedom of speech', but this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
is 'beyond tasteless' and shouldn't have been published.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
So which is it, America?

Both. In both cases, the cartoon is tasteless and probably shouldn't have been published in the first place. In both cases, the cartoon is free speech, and no legislation should be made to block it. In both cases, the cartoonist and publishers were probably jerks.

That depends. Would you defend my right to go up to a woman who's just lost her new-born child and tell her a bunch of 'dead baby' jokes?

If she is in public and you don't physically prevent her from getting away, I certainly would. I would think you were a complete asshole and basically inhuman for doing it, and I would tell you so to your face - my expression of free speech, but you would have every right to do it.

The editor seems to have reprinted the cartoon for childish reasons and perhaps he deserved a suspension - because I agree there seems to have been no other logical reason except to offend.

As was said earlier, university students have readily available access to the internet so it's not like they haven't seen the cartoons and if they haven't they could easily find them if they heard the story about the cartoons and wanted to see them. This seems like a thumbing of the nose at the Muslim community and a pretty stupid move to me personally.

Now I have questions about freedom of speech. Should anybody be able to say or show anything at all about anybody at all at any time and anywhere? Is lying freedom of speech that should be protected? If a person says in an article that all Muslims are violent jihadists that want every westerner to die painfully, would that be less acceptable to you than if it is insinuated in a cartoon?

Those of you who are for absolute freedom of speech - do you rally against laws against freedom of speech so vehemently when it comes to laws against libel, or slander or pornography? Have you spoken out with such anger against the most recent laws against annoying other people online?

I think people are conflating two separate things here. No one is disputing the fact that the editor has a right to publish the cartoons. He was fired because he did something stupid.

And based on the way these things run, he most likely did everything he would normally do for any article - because it is highly unlikely that he was generally held to such strict guidelines. Very rarely in these sorts of things do people actually follow the printed guidelines. They are most likley only being pulled out because people were offended by the cartoons - because people think they shouldn't be printed.


Those of you who are for absolute freedom of speech - do you rally against laws against freedom of speech so vehemently when it comes to laws against libel, or slander or pornography? Have you spoken out with such anger against the most recent laws against annoying other people online?

Libel and slander both harm another person - there's that whole, "Your right to X ends when it hits me," thing going on there.

Porn - if no person is being physically harmed (that doesn't want to), porn is whatever porn is. I don't pay much attention.

As for the law about annoying other people online, yes, that's idiotic. Of course, it's also completely unworkable. My fiance has been known by his online moniker for so long that there are those IRL who call him by it. If they tried to pull a "you insulted this person and didn't identify yourself" line, he could easily say, "OF course I did. This is a valid alias. I have used it for years."

In the US, most likely. However, there have already been calls in the EU for self-censorship laws and CH posted in another thread a Canadian Law that can be used to prosecute.

Will these laws or "policies" continue so that it's only OK to lampoon certain groups?
Most likely. Sad. Very sad.

Those of you who are for absolute freedom of speech - do you rally against laws against freedom of speech so vehemently when it comes to laws against libel, or slander or pornography? Have you spoken out with such anger against the most recent laws against annoying other people online?
"Libel" and "slander" are clearly defined legal concepts, and the complainant must almost always show some personal loss or harm in order to win a case. Laws against pornography are largely directed at limiting exposure to children. The law about annoying people online is aimed largely at "stalkers," and will be difficult in the extreme to enforce.

All of these are a far, far cry from telling a cartoonist that he can't publish his cartoon because it might offend someone.

Considering the issue is already extremely in the light and is already being discussed all over the world, I'm gonna have to go with the "deliberately trying to offend" part.

It is "extremely in the light" to people who pay attention to these things. You wouldn't believe how many people I've spoken to who don't even know it is going on - and that is on a college campus. Not everyone pays the type of attention to the news that most of us on this forum do. And even then, the only reason I've seen the cartoons in question is that links to them have been posted multiple times on this thread - usually to websites that say, "No one will be able to find these and know what it's all about if I don't put them up..."

Would it have been ok if he had published the article with a website address for viewing the cartoons in question?

"Libel" and "slander" are clearly defined legal concepts, and the complainant must almost always show some personal loss or harm in order to win a case. Laws against pornography are largely directed at limiting exposure to children. The law about annoying people online is aimed largely at "stalkers," and will be difficult in the extreme to enforce.

All of these are a far, far cry from telling a cartoonist that he can't publish his cartoon because it might offend someone.

So then people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want anytime they want because it might cause harm or loss to others? Hasn't the cartoons been shown to do just that?

You have a very good grip on this issue. Why have I not seen many posts by you before this. Or am I just missing them somehow?

I generally just stick my nose in the gun control debate and not much else these days. :)

Really? Then explain anti-pornography laws.

Yeah, I don't agree with those either. And neither does the constitution.

Considering the issue is already extremely in the light and is already being discussed all over the world, I'm gonna have to go with the "deliberately trying to offend" part.

And yet you don't know for certain.

Also, if someone hadn't seen the pictures (like me--took me three weeks before I saw any of them), you get them out there for the discussion. Like I said before--not everyone gets their news from the Internet.

Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.
So you "value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity.", huh?

How about"Deeply insulting posts."?

This poster has, IMHO, gone beyond the pale in tossing about the words "slut" and "bastard:"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10327204&postcount=1

How about:

Where are all the mods? Shouldn't this be addressed???

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10330615&postcount=2

Nope, no "specious sensitivity" going on here....cancel that alert. As you were Pilgrim. :rolleyes:

I'm still wondering what happened to good ol' common courtesy.

Anyone reprinting the cartoons now are not "champions of free speech", rather they're deliberately trying to offend people. Much like a passive aggressive 12 year old.

Some people's mamas just didn't raise them right.

God help me, I think I just agreed with you.

As far as the Supreme Court, where the Justices will do the legal smackdown on any attempts at censorship.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm

Your welcome.

I somehow fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

An editor is an EMPLOYEE of a newspaper. The OWNERS of the newspaper did not like how he was doing his job. Unless there was an employment contract that was violated when the OWNER of the newspaper dismissed the EMPLOYEE, it is a non-issue.

I somehow fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

An editor is an EMPLOYEE of a newspaper. The OWNERS of the newspaper did not like how he was doing his job. Unless there was an employment contract that was violated when the OWNER of the newspaper dismissed the EMPLOYEE, it is a non-issue.

You have a point.

People, please actually read the frakking article: "Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently."

By the Daily Illini, a general newspaper in my town. The parent newspaper, The Daily Illini, are the one's who suspended the editor and they have every right to do so. My employees have freedom of speech but I caught one of them calling someone a ****** in the breakroom he would fired on the spot. No warnings. No suspension. I see these cartoons as the equivalent. They weren't funny or satire, they were just offensive. They didn't get attention for being funny or satire, they got attention for being offensive.

The paper has every right to decide what they are and are not willing to say with their paper. The editor's vision does not line up with the owners of the paper then "bye bye, Mr. Editor".

It is "extremely in the light" to people who pay attention to these things. You wouldn't believe how many people I've spoken to who don't even know it is going on - and that is on a college campus. Not everyone pays the type of attention to the news that most of us on this forum do. And even then, the only reason I've seen the cartoons in question is that links to them have been posted multiple times on this thread - usually to websites that say, "No one will be able to find these and know what it's all about if I don't put them up..."

Would it have been ok if he had published the article with a website address for viewing the cartoons in question?

Actually, this is in my town and I promise you people are very well aware of the situation. I do think publishing a link to a website with the original article or the cartoons would be far more appropriate.

Okay, I just talked to a friend of mine that is part of the newspaper community in my town. She said that she knows him and that what he is being suspended for is likely the fact that he avoided normal protocols in the publication (likely intentionally). She also said that he appears to have meant to create controversy and the publishers would have backed him had he handled it more even-handedly, such as publishing the cartoons with copy that spoke about how the cartoons are designed to do little more than offend but that the reaction is more than a little unacceptable. Instead, he basically just reprinted them without following protocol seemingly specifically for the purpose of insulting Muslims.

I find this cartoon offensive in the extreme. However, I have not "protested" it, I have not rioted because of it, I have not threated the life of the cartoonist, I have not even written the newspaper which published it. Why? Because I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity." Sensitivity is a politically correct buzzword not found in the US Constitution, in any laws of which I am aware, or in the various "holy books" of any religion.

You are not talking about freedom of speech. As an employee your employers get to decide what you can and cannot do in their name. Self-censorship is not a violation of freedom of the press or freedom of speech. You might as well be arguing that it's a violation of free speech when I decide not to call the nearest fat person fat if I happen to think it. The paper practiced self-censorship which is as much their right as freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

And based on the way these things run, he most likely did everything he would normally do for any article - because it is highly unlikely that he was generally held to such strict guidelines. Very rarely in these sorts of things do people actually follow the printed guidelines. They are most likley only being pulled out because people were offended by the cartoons - because people think they shouldn't be printed.

Again, I have to disagree. Apparently, the guidelines are basically enforced whenever it amounts to a statement on the part of the paper. Editorials and various similar types of articles and cartoons are always required to go through the staff.

I'm tempted to just call him. Apparently, I've met him several times. I don't remember him at all, however. By the way, my friend said that she believes that a link would have been much more appropriate. I'm not sure if you arguing that a link would have been better, but she thought is was a good idea.

Again, I have to disagree. Apparently, the guidelines are basically enforced whenever it amounts to a statement on the part of the paper. Editorials and various similar types of articles and cartoons are always required to go through the staff.

That's interesting, although it seems a bit odd. Most papers specifically state within them that editorials and cartoons are absolutely not statements on the part of the paper. It seems that this paper is a bit backwards from every other newspaper I've ever seen.

Meanwhile, who decides what is "just an article" and what is "a statement on the part of the paper"? If every single article doesn't go through every step of the process (as I would guess they do not), how can that accurately be decided? And if you are talking to the person who is enforcing the regulations, couldn't they be quick to say that this is a clear regulation, even if they generally let it slide?

When it comes down to it, the guy in question might have just been a big jerk trying to slip it under the radar, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm tempted to just call him. Apparently, I've met him several times. I don't remember him at all, however. By the way, my friend said that she believes that a link would have been much more appropriate. I'm not sure if you arguing that a link would have been better, but she thought is was a good idea.

I think that a link probably would have been better - safer, certainly, while still just as informative (if the person was curious enough to go check it out). I wasn't really arguing that though - I was just wondering what others would think of that idea. It would still be putting the cartoons on display, as it were, just in a less glaring way.

So "sensitivity" pwns free speech?Eut can you exercice your "Free Speech" here.. and Post Sierra's (nikked) Wife Pics? (or any other Hot XXX pics)

Can you?
Would you?
Why?

or If I had the Pics of your Naked Daughters/Grand-Daughter .. How would you like me to exercise my "Free Speech" on a college paper?
See? "sensitivity" does override free speech sometimes

Eut can you exercice your Free Speech here.. and Post Sierra's (nikked) Wife Pics ?

Can you?
Would you?
Why?

or If I had the Pics of your Naked Daughters/Grand-Daughter .. How would you like me to exercise my "Free Speech" on a college paper?
LOL! The issue is moot because this forum is owned by someone else who has rules you must follow in order to post here. NS General doesn't allow pictures of naked people whether you know them or not.

There's no way you would be able to get photographs of my daughters or grandaughters naked. If you did somehow obtain some and post them to any public venue, I would shoot your azz. :D

...this forum is owned by someone else who has rules you must follow ...Exactamente.

that Student Paper is owned by someone else who has rules they(editors) must follow..

There's no way you would be able to get photographs of my daughters or grandaughters naked. If you did somehow obtain some and post them to any public venue, I would shoot your azz. :DEut..

I would never Publish those hot Pics.. AND I would not publish the Pics of Mahommed(sp?).. knowing(now) that it is so sacred for them

Exactamente.

that Student Paper is owned by someone else who has rules they(editors) must follow..
Duh. And your point???

Duh. And your point???Someone did not follow the rules.. and got his ass deated.. or sacked.

as simple as that.

Eut..

I would never Publish those hot Pics.. AND I would not post the Pics of Mahommed(sp?).. knowing(now) that it is so sacred for them
YOU were not the editor. He had the same options you would: publish the cartoons and let the chips fall where they may, or practice a form of self-censorship. Simply because he chose to follow the former rather than the latter does not violate anything other than ( as was pointed out earlier in this thread ) "sensitivity." Sensitivity, while sometimes a good thing, has no standing in law. Free speech does.

My points:

I somehow fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

An editor is an EMPLOYEE of a newspaper. The OWNERS of the newspaper did not like how he was doing his job. Unless there was an employment contract that was violated when the OWNER of the newspaper dismissed the EMPLOYEE, it is a non-issue.

Agreed totally.

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment

Glad to know the KKK can't hold rallies anymore.

.. Sensitivity, while sometimes a good thing, has no standing in law. Free speech does.YOu think that you need to break the Law to get fired/Deated? Who told you That?

All you need to do is Break company/Forum rules. (the rules that the Owner says are important enough)
Like I said.. You try to post some porn in here.. and you will get my point fast enough.

I somehow fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

An editor is an EMPLOYEE of a newspaper. The OWNERS of the newspaper did not like how he was doing his job. Unless there was an employment contract that was violated when the OWNER of the newspaper dismissed the EMPLOYEE, it is a non-issue.

I think the question is whether or not the owners should have done so. An employer can fire someone for any number of things. For instance, an employer can fire someone for stealing company equipment - something I'm pretty sure we would all agree would be justified. An employer could also fire someone for taking off work to go to their daughter's wedding - something I'm pretty sure we would all agree would be a dick thing to do.

Sensitivity, while sometimes a good thing, has no standing in law. Free speech does.
I am surprised that you are still trying to hold on to that "free speech" crown and that no one picked up on my earlier post. Alas:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10442702&postcount=103

Definitely worth an encore. :D

YOu think that you need to break the Law to get fired/Deated? Who told you That?

All you need to do is Break company/Forum rules. (the rules that the Owner says are important enough)
Like I said.. You try to post some porn in here.. and you will get my point fant enough.
The discussion wasn't about his having been suspeded, at least not at first. The discussion was about the right to free speech and how threats by those irritated by such should affect that right. Whether or not he was suspended by the newspaper is irrelevant.

I am surprised that you are still trying to hold on to that "free speech" crown and that no one picked up on my earlier post. Alas:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10442702&postcount=103

Definitely worth an encore. :D
I missed that one. You're essentially comparing apples and oranges here. I was trying to insure the rules of NS General were enforced fairly. In the instant case, I am advocating freedom of speech in a public venue. Apples and oranges.

The first time, it is satire. The second time, after many protests, it can be construed as satire. The third time, after many protests and a knowledge that the comics are offensive and insensititve, you're just a stupid fucking asshole and you deserve whatever you get, to a point.

I interpret it as standing in solidarity with other papers that have printed the cartoons. It's about showing that you will not be intimidated and showing your support for a deeply held value, namely the freedom of expression.

The discussion wasn't about his having been suspeded, at least not at first. The discussion was about the right to free speech and how threats by those irritated by such should affect that right. Whether or not he was suspended by the newspaper is irrelevant.Ok lets talk about Free speech and someone publishing Porn pics of a family member. (Sierra exempted.. cos he dont care)

I interpret it as standing in solidarity with other papers that have printed the cartoons. It's about showing that you will not be intimidated and showing your support for a deeply held value, namely the freedom of expression.
Exactly.

Ok lets talk about Free speech and someone publishing Porn pics of a family member. (Sierra exempted.. cos he dont care)
To what purpose? That would be considered by most to be an uwarranted invasion of privacy and probably subject to civil lawsuit.

I interpret it as standing in solidarity with other papers that have printed the cartoons. It's about showing that you will not be intimidated and showing your support for a deeply held value, namely the freedom of expression.
Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such.
ROFLMAO! Riiight! What's the charge? Being "insensitive?" LMAO!

And really, was the editor trying to stir up controversy (I could believe that the case, given the fact that it's the media),

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Part of the role of the 'Editor' is to ruin someone's breakfast while they read the paper.

As long as the Editor is not launching into an incitement to violence, religious or racial hatred then it is acceptable.

That's interesting, although it seems a bit odd. Most papers specifically state within them that editorials and cartoons are absolutely not statements on the part of the paper. It seems that this paper is a bit backwards from every other newspaper I've ever seen.

You're probably right that it's not necessarily the opinion of the paper, but it is still fairly common for the publisher to review the content and allow it to be printed.

Meanwhile, who decides what is "just an article" and what is "a statement on the part of the paper"? If every single article doesn't go through every step of the process (as I would guess they do not), how can that accurately be decided? And if you are talking to the person who is enforcing the regulations, couldn't they be quick to say that this is a clear regulation, even if they generally let it slide?

I think the difference lies in something that is an attempt at unbiased reporting and something like these cartoons. I actually haven't seen it, but my understanding is that they were reproduced with no explanation or copy that explained anything about the sides of this issue.

When it comes down to it, the guy in question might have just been a big jerk trying to slip it under the radar, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Well, take my information as information from a guy on the internet that you've never met and can't really be sure if he actually knows the people involved or even lives in that town, but I am receiving my information from a person I trust and have known for a decade. She's a strong advocate for freedom of the press and she has fought many of her own battles with pubilshers on what is and is not appropriate, but here she thinks he was just being a jerk. Again, you don't know her or me really, but I do and coming from her it's a strong statement.

I think that a link probably would have been better - safer, certainly, while still just as informative (if the person was curious enough to go check it out). I wasn't really arguing that though - I was just wondering what others would think of that idea. It would still be putting the cartoons on display, as it were, just in a less glaring way.

She said had he simply put a link in the context of a story about the controversy, she would be on the battleground trying to protect him. As it is, it's hard to explain this away. She said she might have defended him had he placed the cartoons in the context of an exploratory article.

That's as much as I got from her, by the way, she had to go to an interview.

no one else has any reason to publish them. all they are doing is saying "you are not the boss of us" to the islamic world. its a childish sentiment that is not worthy of all the attention its getting.



Hmmm ... showing that you refuse to be intimidated by violent threats and that you refuse to appease an aggressor is "childish"?


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.


Martin Niemoller

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
No it does not in any way shape or form over ride the first amendment and if you think so then you then wether you're very young or not you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law at all. That notion has been tested time and time again, most famously by Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint, and The Supreme Court has upheld the right to speech every single time. You really need to read a little about the history of free speech, why its important and how it works in law because you are very obviously completely devoid of any understanding of what free speech means either today or in history. That was a jsut a completely ignorant comment. No one has the right to be free from offense in a country taht values free speech and specifically in a country with a constitution who first amendment guarentees you the right to free speech.

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.

I don't want to talk about courts & laws in this post - I know little of US law.

But ... In relation to solidarity when trying to start a riot ... I belive your argument is a strawman for the following reasons:

If I stand next to a guy nodding and occasionally shouting, 'he's right' as the guy stands on his soapbox shouting that the capitalists shopowners are exploiting us all and we should go and trash town, that is incitement to riot.

Likewise, if I stand in a crowd bearing a sign saying 'kill all who insult Islam' I am acting in an incitement to murder.

Both of these messages are giving a message to a second party that they should go out and do untold amounts of damage to someone or something.


If a man bears a sign saying 'Capitalism is wrong' and I bear a sign saying 'socialism is the answer' (incidentally, never gonna happen) then I am expressing my views without encouraging anyone to do anything.


If Capitalists then take offence at this and go and burn a park bench then that is their responsibility - because they are independant moral actors. They have the ability to form a mental state to do an act and then follow it up with that act. They have whole responsibility for that act without any encouragement from me.

No it does not in any way shape or form over ride the first amendment and if you think so then you then wether you're very young or not you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law at all. That notion has been tested time and time again, most famously by Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint, and The Supreme Court has upheld the right to speech every single time. You really need to read a little about the history of free speech, why its important and how it works in law because you are very obviously completely devoid of any understanding of what free speech means either today or in history. That was a jsut a completely ignorant comment. No one has the right to be free from offense in a country taht values free speech and specifically in a country with a constitution who first amendment guarentees you the right to free speech.

Except, he's not talking about law here. Where in this case is the law involved at all? This employee was fired by a paper for being discourteous the the paper's customers. In employment, courtesy does override your right to free speech.

Hmmm ... showing that you refuse to be intimidated by violent threats and that you refuse to appease an aggressor is "childish"?


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.


Martin Niemoller

Ridiculous. Just because an agressor happens to be involved doesn't mean that we have to avoid doing what they want. The 'aggressor' has no standing whatsoever and should have no influence at all on getting people to do what's right. The aggressor here happens to be absolutely wrong, but they do happen to be on the side of being offended by racial insensitivity and prejudice.

The cartoons were racist, insensitive, and hateful.

This paper didn't give in to aggression, they canned someone for offending their customers. There were no threats. They saw that this person published something that upset people with no other purpose than to upset people. The paper decided he could upset people from his apartment. End of story.

This is censorship, this is self-censorship. Are you arguing that I don't get to choose what image my company projects?

I don't want to talk about courts & laws in this post - I know little of US law.

But ... In relation to solidarity when trying to start a riot ... I belive your argument is a strawman for the following reasons:

If I stand next to a guy nodding and occasionally shouting, 'he's right' as the guy stands on his soapbox shouting that the capitalists shopowners are exploiting us all and we should go and trash town, that is incitement to riot.

Likewise, if I stand in a crowd bearing a sign saying 'kill all who insult Islam' I am acting in an incitement to murder.

Both of these messages are giving a message to a second party that they should go out and do untold amounts of damage to someone or something.


If a man bears a sign saying 'Capitalism is wrong' and I bear a sign saying 'socialism is the answer' (incidentally, never gonna happen) then I am expressing my views without encouraging anyone to do anything.


If Capitalists then take offence at this and go and burn a park bench then that is their responsibility - because they are independant moral actors. They have the ability to form a mental state to do an act and then follow it up with that act. They have whole responsibility for that act without any encouragement from me.

What about if I walk into the middle of the million man march and shout ******? Is that incitement to riot?

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
courtesy is like diplomacy. used to make other people feel alright about being wrong. that isn't america. in america if you are wrong you should be told you are messed up. america isn't about being nice to everyones culture. it is about freedom...you have rights...use them...and if someone is offended they can move...even if they were born here.

No it does not in any way shape or form over ride the first amendment and if you think so then you then wether you're very young or not you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law at all. That notion has been tested time and time again, most famously by Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint, and The Supreme Court has upheld the right to speech every single time. You really need to read a little about the history of free speech, why its important and how it works in law because you are very obviously completely devoid of any understanding of what free speech means either today or in history. That was a jsut a completely ignorant comment. No one has the right to be free from offense in a country taht values free speech and specifically in a country with a constitution who first amendment guarentees you the right to free speech.
amen

You're probably right that it's not necessarily the opinion of the paper, but it is still fairly common for the publisher to review the content and allow it to be printed.

True, but many paper pride themselves on publishing editorials or cartoons that are sent in regardless of the editor's personal opinions of them. I've seen, for instance, editorials in my school newspaper get printed that were bashing homosexuals, followed in the next paper by a barrage of responses to those editorials that espoused the opposite, followed by a barrage of people saying that they were being "silenced" or "oppresssed" by the non-bashers, followed by more people supporting homosexual rights, and so on. And each time, the paper explicitly said, "Editorials are not the opinion of the paper."

I think the difference lies in something that is an attempt at unbiased reporting and something like these cartoons. I actually haven't seen it, but my understanding is that they were reproduced with no explanation or copy that explained anything about the sides of this issue.

It would be nice to get an actual copy of it. The article seems to be suggesting that there was an explanation, not just the cartoons alone. I can't see much of any reason for just publishing them alone.

Well, take my information as information from a guy on the internet that you've never met and can't really be sure if he actually knows the people involved or even lives in that town, but I am receiving my information from a person I trust and have known for a decade. She's a strong advocate for freedom of the press and she has fought many of her own battles with pubilshers on what is and is not appropriate, but here she thinks he was just being a jerk. Again, you don't know her or me really, but I do and coming from her it's a strong statement.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason not to. As far as I know you haven't lied to me before, and you don't generally go into threads saying, "I know these people and..." so I figure you're probably telling the truth. Of course, you could also be somewhat biased in regards to your friend (not that I'm saying she's dishonest either - just pointing out the possibilities). I'm not going to pass any judgement here. Truth be told, I think it would be better for all parties involved if all the hoopla over these cartoons ended sooner rather than later.

She said had he simply put a link in the context of a story about the controversy, she would be on the battleground trying to protect him. As it is, it's hard to explain this away. She said she might have defended him had he placed the cartoons in the context of an exploratory article.

Sounds reasonable to me. Without the actual article, none of us know exactly what he did and did not explain - but from her point of view it sounds like she's probably taking the best course of action (he is still "suspended" and not "fired"?)

That's as much as I got from her, by the way, she had to go to an interview.

I bet. When the newspapers are in the news... hehe

Except, he's not talking about law here. Where in this case is the law involved at all? This employee was fired by a paper for being discourteous the the paper's customers. In employment, courtesy does override your right to free speech.
he made a very straight forward statement. He said, "Courtesy overrides the first amendment. It does not. The first amendment is a LAW. By citing it he made it an issue of LAW. The LAW in the US regarding freedom of speech is the first amendment. The first amendment overrides courtesy everytime. I am not aware of a single time in US history that the court ever said, "First amendment be damned. You were discourteous" to abridge a person's right to speech.

I missed that one. You're essentially comparing apples and oranges here. I was trying to insure the rules of NS General were enforced fairly. In the instant case, I am advocating freedom of speech in a public venue. Apples and oranges.

hey now, apples and oranges can in fact be compared.

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

Apples and Oranges -- A Comparison

by Scott A. Sandford, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California
We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared. However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.

First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Granny Smith Apple and Sunkist Orange
Materials and Methods

Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith apple and a Sunkist Navel orange.

Figure. 2
Conclusions

Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar. Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.

NOTE: This article is included in the book The Best of Annals of Improbable Research

© Copyright 1995 Annals of Improbable Research (AIR)

ROFLMAO! Riiight! What's the charge? Being "insensitive?" LMAO!
You arn't even paying attention, go on ahead and keep living in your little fantasy world oblivious of law and court precedence.

Everyone going "he should be able to do whatever he wants; there is free speech!" don't know shit about law and thus this whole topic is a pointless waste of jolt space and bandwidth.

COMMENTARY: So which is it? What's more important, publishing to exercise freedom of speech, or restraining your feedom of expression to avoid offending someone?


Illinois Student Paper Prints Muslim Cartoons, and Reaction Is Swift (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/national/17cartoons.html?th&emc=th)


By MONICA DAVEY
Published: February 17, 2006
CHAMPAIGN, Ill., Feb. 16 — Since the morning the cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad were republished in the student newspaper at the University of Illinois here, response has been swift and split.

Muslim students and others held a protest on the main quadrangle on Tuesday, saying they were stunned and hurt by The Daily Illini's publication on Feb. 9 of the images that had stirred so much violence and caused so much pain in other parts of the world. Some members of The Daily Illini staff said they were furious, too, and in Wednesday's editions, the publisher announced that the editor in chief and opinions page editor had been suspended, pending an investigation into how the cartoons had ended up in the paper.

"This has gotten crazy," said Acton H. Gorton, 25, the suspended editor in chief who decided to run 6 of the 12 cartoons even though he said he found them "bigoted and insensitive." Mr. Gorton received calls for his resignation but also a deluge of praise, including comments of support from students as he walked on campus. "We did this to raise a healthy dialogue about an important issue that is in the news and so that people would learn more about Islam. Now, I'm basically fired."

Most major American newspapers, including The New York Times, have not published the cartoons, which were first published in a Danish newspaper last September.

But on college campuses, student journalists are still grappling with the decision, saying the choice of most of the nation's newspapers makes theirs even more crucial. Editors at some student publications at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University have published some of the cartoons.

The decisions have set off a painful clash, seemingly pitting two of the values so often embraced in university environments — freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures — directly against each other.

Other student newspapers, including those at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, have published their own cartoons that comment on or refer to the controversial cartoons.

The issue has prompted letters to the editor, community meetings and public forums. Officials at the University of Wisconsin were organizing a forum in Madison for next week after The Badger Herald on Monday ran one of the cartoons, one that portrayed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb.

"Universally, we found the cartoon to be repugnant," said Mac VerStandig, the editor in chief of The Badger Herald. "But we believe that there was a certain endangerment of free speech here, especially given the general prudishness of the American press. We believe our readers are mature enough to look at these images."

In Champaign on the morning of Feb. 9, angry phone calls began within hours of The Daily Illini's hitting the stands. The cartoons were printed on the opinions page beside a column by Mr. Gorton explaining why he was publishing them. Shaz Kaiseruddin, a third-year law student and president of the Muslim Student Association, said she awoke to a phone call from an angry colleague.

"I was in disbelief that they would do this," Ms. Kaiseruddin, 24, said. "That our own student-based newspaper would be so ignorant and disrespectful."

Producing any image of Muhammad is considered blasphemous by many Muslims, and reproducing such anti-Muslim images, she said, revealed no understanding of the pain that would carry. Students met to plan a response.

Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticizing the newspaper, which is published independently. In part, it said, "I believe that the D.I. could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them. It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures."

At the paper, meanwhile, some staff members said they were furious — and surprised. They said Mr. Gorton and Chuck Prochaska, 20, the opinions editor, had made the decision to publish the images without properly consulting the newspaper's other top editors. The pair denied this, saying they had followed the normal decision-marking procedures and that anyone who was working at the newspaper could have seen the planned pages before they ran.

In the days that followed, the newspaper ran an apology, held conversations with Muslim students and promised more complete, nuanced coverage on the issue. "We need to start fixing our image," said Shira Weissman, one of two interim editors in chief of the paper in Mr. Gorton's absence. "We're being viewed as being hateful."

But among students interviewed on Thursday, many said they were angry not because the newspaper had published the images but because it was now doubting that choice.

"I was absolutely crushed to see that the editors were removed," said Cody Kay, 18. "What happened to freedom of speech? If we start saying we can't look at things, what's next? Our books?"

Ms. Weissman said the suspensions stemmed from the fact that the two journalists had not properly consulted the staff about the decision.

Ms. Weissman said she would not have printed the cartoons. Others said they might choose to run them, but only with plenty of context, explanation of the controversy and perhaps a guest column from a member of the Muslim student group.

Mr. Gorton said on Thursday that he wished he had discussed the issue more with his staff. And he would have printed more context, more explanation, something The Northern Star, Northern Illinois's student newspaper, did when it published the cartoons on Monday.

Derek Wright, the editor in chief of The Northern Star, said his newspaper included a front-page editorial explaining the choice to run the 12 images, as well as an article about them, student reaction and a column from a Muslim student leader.

"There really hasn't been as much outcry as we might have expected," Mr. Wright said.

Either way, Mr. Gorton said he still would have printed the images. "My first obligation is to the readers," he said. "This is news."It really POs me when Muslims call this blasemphy when these cartoons would be considered "Sesame Street" level compared to what Arab newspapers say about Jews.

Christians and Jews deal with it. Deal with it, Muslims.

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.
Latent causes cannot be used in that particular criminal charge. He is not attempting to start a riot by printing the editorial. As such, he cannot be charged with inciting to riot.

What about if I walk into the middle of the million man march and shout ******? Is that incitement to riot?
No that would be incitement to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.
hahahaha!

I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about try to act all authoritative.

You, sir, are the one who has ABSOLUTELY NO idea what you are talking about. None. You would not only not even get yoru case heard, it would be dismissed with prejudice. The judge would laugh at you for even trying to file against this guy and would wonder how you passed the bar. Then he'd probably censure whatever law school you got your degree from.

www.findlaw.com

Go for it. I dare you. Fine me ONE SINGLE precedent where a court has upheld any kind of criminal prosecution or even civil liability against aperson for publishing something "insensative" wether he knew it or not. This isn't the jerry Falwell world. He tried that in court against larry Flint and got his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court. Insensativity. You should really read a bit more about the law when you try to act like you know something about the law.

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.
How does that jive with this:

''we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.''23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ''have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

Before you say "The cartoons DID incite lawless action," the speech has to call for it. In other words, if I take a picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urin and a bunch of Christians start burning buildings as a result that's not me inciting them to riot. If I publish a paper asking all Christians to kill every doctor that works at an abortion clinic and they do it, that's inciting to violence.

The fact he knew it was insensitive is only part of it, that just goes to show this was done purposefully knowing it would anger the Muslim community.

The fact he knew it was insensitive is only part of it, that just goes to show this was done purposefully knowing it would anger the Muslim community.

But that isn't the question. "Did he know it would anger someone?" isn't the question you should ask.

The question is, "Was his intent in publishing the cartoons to cause violence?" If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his reason for printing the cartoons was to cause violence, then you can use "inciting to riot." Otherwise, it's someone being insensitive and doing something he knew would make people angry, and then the angry people broke the law if they became violent.

A KKK march down the street is certainly meant to make people angry. But unless it is meant to cause violence, then the KKK can't be held responsible for "inciting to riot" if someone starts beating them up.

The fact he knew it was insensitive is only part of it, that just goes to show this was done purposefully knowing it would anger the Muslim community.
People publish shit in this country everyday that they know will piss off other people and the Supreme Court has consistently and unwaveringly upheld their right to do so. Every single time without fail.

Here's the link again: www.findlaw.com

But don't feel limited to that. Again, you said any prosecutor worth his salt could convict this guy for something, I'd like to know what. Find me ANY precedent where this guy could be held liable for anything at all. Just one case that wasn't overturned on appeal, where any person was ever successfully prosecuted for publishing material because it was "insensitive" to one group or another. C'mon. You sounded like it was a slam dunk. One case.

One...

Again in case you missed it...

''we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.''23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ''have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

Again in case you missed it...
Posting something like that twice on the same page just makes you look like an arrogant asshat.

I remember hearing about college as being an exchange and debate of historical and new ideas, free speech, and really just a period of great enlightenment for a young mind. College was supposed to be a place where you could have fun.

The same people that gave college that reputation (college students from the 1960's) are now the administrators of their universities. It seems as though ideas cannot be exchanged, fun is discouraged, free speech must be yielded to political correctness, and college has become a period of very expensive indentured servitude to the college or university.

This incident just highlights that no one learns anything at college anymore. It does not enlighten students with new ideas, it just makes students do work in order to get that degree. Students cannot have fun and learn about life, because fun is pretty much banned. Students cannot debate issues and ideas because their view may offend someone.

It is no wonder why so many students get degrees and then suck at the real world.

What is college in the 21st Century good for, besides a shit load of student loans to have to repay?

Posting something like that twice on the same page just makes you look like an arrogant asshat.

Saying something like this:

Any prosecutor worth his snuff would own this guy if this was brought to court. Hell, I could do it. Especially after he admitted he knew it was insensitive and such. That is a joke argument. Standing in solidarity with the guy trying to start a riot means you are trying to start a riot.
When you are as wrong as you can be makes you sound like an arrogant asshat. You shoot this person's argument down with a bullshit pronouncement like that and you couldn't be more wrong. I think you owe that person an apology for trying to make it seem as though what they were saying was so stupid when what they were saying was absolutely correct and you were as wrong as you can be.

Saying something like this:


When you are as wrong as you can be makes you sound like an arrogant asshat. You shoot this person's argument down with a bullshit pronouncement like that and you couldn't be more wrong. I think you owe that person an apology for trying to make it seem as though what they were saying was so stupid when what they were saying was absolutely correct and you were as wrong as you can be.
The fact stands that all speech is not protected speech, fact. Thus, I owe no one an apology.

The editor-in-chief understood that these cartoons were offensive and had proof that they could and would cause an uproar. He should not have allowed them to go to print and knew that, yet he did. Gross negligence.

All facts considered, I doubt this would go very well for him.

I remember hearing about college as being an exchange and debate of historical and new ideas, free speech, and really just a period of great enlightenment for a young mind. College was supposed to be a place where you could have fun.

The same people that gave college that reputation (college students from the 1960's) are now the administrators of their universities. It seems as though ideas cannot be exchanged, fun is discouraged, free speech must be yielded to political correctness, and college has become a period of very expensive indentured servitude to the college or university.

This incident just highlights that no one learns anything at college anymore. It does not enlighten students with new ideas, it just makes students do work in order to get that degree. Students cannot have fun and learn about life, because fun is pretty much banned. Students cannot debate issues and ideas because their view may offend someone.

It is no wonder why so many students get degrees and then suck at the real world.

What is college in the 21st Century good for, besides a shit load of student loans to have to repay?
At least they are not shooting students on campus anymore for expressing themselves. That is a huge improvement I would say?

The fact stands that all speech is not protected speech, fact. Thus, I owe no one an apology.

The editor-in-chief understood that these cartoons were offensive and had proof that they could and would cause an uproar. He should not have allowed them to go to print and knew that, yet he did. Gross negligence.

All facts considered, I doubt this would go very well for him.
Your argument was that the editor of this newspaper could be prosecuted for what he did. You called what the other poster said a "joke argument." Bullshit. The other poster was absolutely right. The editor was absolutely within his right to publish these cartoons and the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, guarentees him that right. Further, I can tell from what you posted here, you not only have no idea how the First Amendment is applied in the US, you also have no idea why we even have freedom of the press. It's not to protect speech that is not offensive. It is to protect speec that IS offensive. Particularily political speech. It would be an abdication of duty for newspapers in our country to not publish articles that may be offensive to some because the reason we have freedom of speech is to encourage the open exchange of ideals within the public discourse. It is imperative to a healthy democracy that political ideas, no matter how offensive, be discussed openly and freely. The fact is that the best weapon against hatred is free speech. By allowing prejudice to be openly expressed, you invite rebutals against it. It was "offensive" at one time to talk about African Americans being equal to European Americans. It was offensive at one time to talk about women being equal to men. The fact that the KKK is allowed to express themselves freely here doesn't only protect their rights, it protects our as well. It also means that the rest of the population is able to point and say, "What a bunch of morons" freely and openly as well. It means that, no matter how offended a Republican may be, I can write a post here that calls their precious president Bush a complete and utter idiot.

At least they are not shooting students on campus anymore for expressing themselves. That is a huge improvement I would say?
Huh? S'plain, please.

At least they are not shooting students on campus anymore for expressing themselves. That is a huge improvement I would say?
Yeah, now that generation of students who were shot at for expressing their views are the administrators and are frowning on any public expression of non-politically correct beliefs or opinions.

Is that a little bit hypocritical? I think so.

there's no freedom of speech violation here--the cartoons ran. A freedom of speech violation would have meant that the cartoons were restrained prior to their running.
Agreed.

Just to go off on a tangent here but is it just me or does the response to these cartoons seem like something that is attempting to stifle a discussion between a clash of middle eastern culture and western? I mean I understand how freedom of speech plays a part in the whole controversy but it seems to me like its being used as a distraction to sort of sweep the cultural aspect of this under the rug?
THANK YOU! I was seriously wondering why no one was bringing that up. I don't understand how everyone keeps referring to the Muslims' reaction to the cartoons as "sensitivity." It is FAR beyond that. Their culture has taught them and brought them up to react this way. They are brought up believing that there is nothing worse than portraying their religious leader in such a way. How can one expect them to react in any way different than what they did? "Free speech" (again, how is this breeching free speech?) may come before everything in OUR culture, but in THEIR culture, its a completely different story. Cultural differences are clearly the root of the problem here, not freedom of speech.

*snip tedious crap*
You can deny the fact freedom of speech and press isn't absolute all you want.

You can deny the fact freedom of speech and press isn't absolute all you want.
I'm not denying that. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. What I was saying, I think rather clearly, is that you have no idea where that line is crossed. My point was that even though you tried to come off as someone who understands where free speech ends you really are completely clueless about the whole subject. No where in my posts did I say that all speech was protected and I in no way tried to imply that. I'm not allowed to tell someone to kill someone else. I'm not allowed to, at a protest, tell the protestors to storm a building. THAT is incitement to riot. I'm not allowed to encourage a mob to attack police. THAT is incitement to riot. You have no clue at all where the line of protected speech is crossed so you shouldn't call other people's arguments a joke when yours is the joke. I was arguing with you about what you said. Period. This editor publishing these pictures doesn't even come close to crossing the line of protected free speech. It's miles away.

Agreed.


THANK YOU! I was seriously wondering why no one was bringing that up. I don't understand how everyone keeps referring to the Muslims' reaction to the cartoons as "sensitivity." It is FAR beyond that. Their culture has taught them and brought them up to react this way. They are brought up believing that there is nothing worse than portraying their religious leader in such a way. How can one expect them to react in any way different than what they did? "Free speech" (again, how is this breeching free speech?) may come before everything in OUR culture, but in THEIR culture, its a completely different story. Cultural differences are clearly the root of the problem here, not freedom of speech.
I couldn't agree more about the culture clash, but that's exactly why freedom of speech IS important here. It is the cultural value that is being assaulted, sadly, even by our own people. That people in this country would call for the prosecution of someone who published those cartoons as a means of appeasing Mulims that find them offensive is truly frightening. This is where a line must be drawn. Apologize all you want, but do not in any way interfere with freedom of expression. Mohamed is dear to them. The free interchange of ideas is dear to us.

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Fascist bullshit.

I wish my grass was emo...then it would cut itself.

Wow, while you're bleating on about showing sensitivity to the Muslims, and how knowing the problems that publishing the cartoons would cause, he should be held responsible, you are amazingly insensitive to another group of people, who you evidently don't like. I posit that you should be held responsible for every person who may have been triggered to self-injure after viewing your signature.

While you are blathering on about not insulting another person's religion, you are quite happy to make light of a very serious and very real issue, whose sufferers deserve far more sympathy and understanding and sensitivity than whiny, overindulged, spoilt little brats, who can't deal with the fact that the West has freedom.

Wow, while you're bleating on about showing sensitivity to the Muslims, and how knowing the problems that publishing the cartoons would cause, he should be held responsible, you are amazingly insensitive to another group of people, who you evidently don't like. I posit that you should be held responsible for every person who may have been triggered to self-injure after viewing your signature.

While you are blathering on about not insulting another person's religion, you are quite happy to make light of a very serious and very real issue, whose sufferers deserve far more sympathy and understanding and sensitivity than whiny, overindulged, spoilt little brats, who can't deal with the fact that the West has freedom.

People suffer from Emo? This scourge must be stopped! We must burn all punk/hard-core CDs!

People suffer from Emo? This scourge must be stopped! We must burn all punk/hard-core CDs!

was referring to the reference to self-injury.

was referring to the reference to self-injury.

I am a suicide survivor. I was at an actual place in my life where death would have been better. (PM me if you want more info on that. I don't want to go into detail here.) I'm sorry if I can't feel sorry for a bunch of punk-ass whiney brats who think that cutting themselves is cool.

Note: I'm not including persons who are actually depressed in the whiney catagory. Depression is a serious illness and anybody who make light of it is an ignorant a-hole.

I am a suicide survivor. I was at an actual place in my life where death would have been better. (PM me if you want more info on that. I don't want to go into detail here.) I'm sorry if I can't feel sorry for a bunch of punk-ass whiney brats who think that cutting themselves is cool.

Note: I'm not including persons who are actually depressed in the whiney catagory. Depression is a serious illness and anybody who make light of it is an ignorant a-hole.

I'm sorry for your experience. And I understand your view. I however, had several friends who were severe self-injurers (long before emo was cool) and making light of self-injury, regardless of who commits it and why, smacks of ignorance about the serious and devastating nature of this practice.

I got really testy when I saw the signature making light of self-injurers.

Depicting a soldier who is a multiple amputee and showing his "doctor" saying that he's going to list him as "battle hardened" isn't offensive??? If I have to explain it to you, then there's little hope you will understand. :(

As I said in my post, even though I find the cartoon offensive in the extreme, I haven't even written to the editor of the newspaper that published it. How on earth does that translate into "shouldn't be published?" :headbang:
*sigh*.
Here we go again. Whenever says something Eutrusca doesn't agree with, he ignores it and changes it into something completely different then patronises the original poster (myself in this case).
So once more, here we go in attempting to explain the cartoon and my premise toi the less mentally agile.

The cartoon didn't show an american soldier with a doctor.
It showed the US army as a wounded disabled soldier with Rumsfeld (it even says that on his coat) calling him battle-hardened.
This was in response to claims and warnings that the Iraq war risked "breaking" the army. When asked about such warnings, Rumsfield said the military was "battle-hardened" and an "enormously capable force". Which was a pretty appalling and arrogant statement, as it totally ignores what is happening.

As for 'shouldn't be published' I never said Eutrusca said that. I said a helluva lot of people have said it, including General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the vice-chairman and the service chiefs of the army, navy, marines and air force.

And Bill O'Reilly among other right-wing media pundits, who were also rabid in their defence of 'Freedom of speech' about the Mohammad cartoons.

AND this is my point.
You have thge exactly same people jumping up and down demanding cartoons that are extremely offensive to certain people to be published, yet in the next breath demanding that some others that THEY find offensive shouldn't have been.

'Freedom of speech' indeed.



Admiringly, the one people who might be offended (Disabled American Veterans) aren't. Dave Autry from Disabled American Veterans said he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon. "It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point."


There. Do you get it now?

That depends. Would you defend my right to go up to a woman who's just lost her new-born child and tell her a bunch of 'dead baby' jokes?
Yup. I'd think you were an ass for doing it, but a right's a right. Would I have anything else to do with you beyond that? No way in hell.
And what if it was your wife I was telling the jokes to? Would you sit and accept it was my right to do so?

And what if it was your wife I was telling the jokes to? Would you sit and accept it was my right to do so?

Yes. However, I may try to get you to touch one of us, so I could claim assault and do something a bit more violent to you in response.

Look, I'm not saying it's nice, and that there shouldn't be some social ramifications (IE shunning, boycot, etc.), but it IS a right. You won't make friends doing it, and it could actually get you hurt by being that insensitive, but going as far as the Norwegians did, by making it ILLEGAL is way too far--and the discussions that I've been seeing on this topic are leaning in that direction (no, not direct discussion of that, but a whole bunch of sentiment that could easily lead to that).

I stand by this: Any time you can regulate a right, that right can be regulated AWAY. You have to take the bad with the good of an inalienable right--nothing is perfect.

I will always side with freedom over regulation of, and force enacted upon, the citizenry.

If you regulate freedom of expression to that degree, the religious right has the same power to remove from view anything that remotely offends their religious beliefs as well. I don't want that. No one religion should have any power over a right.

was referring to the reference to self-injury.
Which you are taking out of context just to be annoying.

I missed that one. You're essentially comparing apples and oranges here. I was trying to insure the rules of NS General were enforced fairly. In the instant case, I am advocating freedom of speech in a public venue. Apples and oranges.
Your apples and oranges analogy is false. You say you promote "freedom of speech" yet you clearly were "sensitive" to the words "slut" and "bastard" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10330615&postcount=2) being used by a poster here in NS. The poster even explained the usage of his words (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10330451&postcount=397), which BTW can be found in a dictionary, and he was miffed by the "politically correct" crowd that would have him censured, and you were one of them.

In regards to your lame excuse that you were " trying to insure the rules of NS General were enforced fairly":

Number one, you are not a Mod.
Number two, the Mods didn't close the thread.
Number three, the Mods didn't censure the post.
Number four, the poster was not issued a warning.
Number five, far worse "offensive" words are allowed in NS.

No, this isn't about "apples and oranges", it is about you staunchly defending "freedom of speech" unless of course it upsets your "sensitivities"?:

I value freedom of speech above any specious "sensitivity."

Your argument has a kind of hollow ring to it.

HOW DARE YOU REPRINT THAT!

You goddamn commie. Printing pictures making fun of them durn sand niggers is fine, but you're offending real human beings with that!

Remember kids:

It's Freedom of Speech when you're putting those dirty brown-skinned Muslims in their place, but it's Offensive when you suggest that Dear Leader Chairman Bush might be putting our troops' lives in danger for personal gain!

There's no way you would be able to get photographs of my daughters or grandaughters naked. If you did somehow obtain some and post them to any public venue, I would shoot your azz. :D

Yet when some fruitcase Islamists encouraged by state government to react in pretty much the same way, it's just proof that Islam and everyone who worships it needs to be exterminated.

:rolleyes:

Real selective Forrest. "All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others" indeed.

True, but many paper pride themselves on publishing editorials or cartoons that are sent in regardless of the editor's personal opinions of them. I've seen, for instance, editorials in my school newspaper get printed that were bashing homosexuals, followed in the next paper by a barrage of responses to those editorials that espoused the opposite, followed by a barrage of people saying that they were being "silenced" or "oppresssed" by the non-bashers, followed by more people supporting homosexual rights, and so on. And each time, the paper explicitly said, "Editorials are not the opinion of the paper."



It would be nice to get an actual copy of it. The article seems to be suggesting that there was an explanation, not just the cartoons alone. I can't see much of any reason for just publishing them alone.



I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason not to. As far as I know you haven't lied to me before, and you don't generally go into threads saying, "I know these people and..." so I figure you're probably telling the truth. Of course, you could also be somewhat biased in regards to your friend (not that I'm saying she's dishonest either - just pointing out the possibilities). I'm not going to pass any judgement here. Truth be told, I think it would be better for all parties involved if all the hoopla over these cartoons ended sooner rather than later.



Sounds reasonable to me. Without the actual article, none of us know exactly what he did and did not explain - but from her point of view it sounds like she's probably taking the best course of action (he is still "suspended" and not "fired"?)



I bet. When the newspapers are in the news... hehe

I'm kind of out of touch this weekend but I will try to get more info to you guys by Monday evening.

I'm not denying that. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. What I was saying, I think rather clearly, is that you have no idea where that line is crossed. My point was that even though you tried to come off as someone who understands where free speech ends you really are completely clueless about the whole subject. No where in my posts did I say that all speech was protected and I in no way tried to imply that. I'm not allowed to tell someone to kill someone else. I'm not allowed to, at a protest, tell the protestors to storm a building. THAT is incitement to riot. I'm not allowed to encourage a mob to attack police. THAT is incitement to riot. You have no clue at all where the line of protected speech is crossed so you shouldn't call other people's arguments a joke when yours is the joke. I was arguing with you about what you said. Period. This editor publishing these pictures doesn't even come close to crossing the line of protected free speech. It's miles away.

I hope you never stop posting. I nearly choked on my wild cherry pepsi. The only way I could be more impressed is if you were actually joking.

But that isn't the question. "Did he know it would anger someone?" isn't the question you should ask.

The question is, "Was his intent in publishing the cartoons to cause violence?" If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his reason for printing the cartoons was to cause violence, then you can use "inciting to riot." Otherwise, it's someone being insensitive and doing something he knew would make people angry, and then the angry people broke the law if they became violent.

A KKK march down the street is certainly meant to make people angry. But unless it is meant to cause violence, then the KKK can't be held responsible for "inciting to riot" if someone starts beating them up.

Actually, the litmus test is whether they could have reasonably expected a riot. The example of walking into a rally of black men and calling them niggers is appropriate. I may not have intended for them to riot, but I sure as hell should have expected that they would.

*sigh*.
AND this is my point.
You have thge exactly same people jumping up and down demanding cartoons that are extremely offensive to certain people to be published, yet in the next breath demanding that some others that THEY find offensive shouldn't have been.
Ummm.... I pay a lot of attention to the news and I listen to a lot of talk radio. I have yet to hear one single person demand that these cartoons be published. They have demanded that the right to publish them be defended, but no one is demanding that they be published. They complain about some of the news sites being too weak kneed to publish them, but they are not demanding that they be published. And, BTW, I cant' stand most of these right-wing radio zealots. I just listen to them because I enjoy the feeling of righteous indignation I get when they try to defend the absolute and blatant incompetency of the Bush Adminitsration. Also, in regards to the Rumsfeld cartoon no one is saying that the papers didn't have the right to publish it, just that better judgement was called for. If the Muslims were running around complaining and saying they were offended and asked for Muslims to boycott the papers that publish cartoons and the advertisers that support them, great. That's what free speech is all about. I LOVE it. But thw fact is they ar calling for the people who have published these cartoons to be killed and they are in fact killing people and burning buildings, etc... and people in the west are calling for "curtailing," as one person on here put it. people's right to self expression. Fuck that. If you don't liek something taht gets published, do what Rush and Bill O'Reilly are doing. Bitch up a storm and call for boycotts etc... That's freedom of expression.

Admiringly, the one people who might be offended (Disabled American Veterans) aren't. Dave Autry from Disabled American Veterans said he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon. "It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point."


There. Do you get it now?
Yes. That's exactly how people should behave in a country with freedom of expression. Good thiing these vets aren't killing people and offering rewards for the heads of of the people who run the newspapers that ran the cartoon.

Actually, the litmus test is whether they could have reasonably expected a riot. The example of walking into a rally of black men and calling them niggers is appropriate. I may not have intended for them to riot, but I sure as hell should have expected that they would.
That's not true. The litmus test is wether it can be shown that that was his intent. You have to have intended to cause a riot and have taken direct action to do so.

That's not true. The litmus test is wether it can be shown that that was his intent. You have to have intended to cause a riot and have taken direct action to do so.

Intent is not a requirement for a crime. Whether one could reasonably expect the outcome is. Shall I name about a dozen crimes where intent need not be shown?

If I yell fire in a theatre, is the fact that I thought people would think it was funny instead of run out a defense?

Remember kids:

It's Freedom of Speech when you're putting those dirty brown-skinned Muslims in their place, but it's Offensive when you suggest that Dear Leader Chairman Bush might be putting our troops' lives in danger for personal gain!
No. It is offensive to some when you're putting those brown-skinned Muslims in their place and its offensive to others when you suggest that Dear Leader Chairman Bush might be putting our troops' lives in danger for personal gain!

Both are protected free speech and should be. You don't know anyone who was arrested for criticizing Bush, do you? Because I see hundreds of people following im around wherever he goes calling him baby killer and nazi and all kinds of other shit all the time and I never see them get arrested and I never see Rush Limbaugh offering money for their heads. :confused: Also, I criticize him at every available opportunity.

No. It is offensive to some when you're putting those brown-skinned Muslims in their place and its offensive to others when you suggest that Dear Leader Chairman Bush might be putting our troops' lives in danger for personal gain!

Both are protected free speech and should be. You don't know anyone who was arrested for criticizing Bush, do you? Because I see hundreds of people following im around wherever he goes calling him baby killer and nazi and all kinds of other shit all the time and I never see them get arrested and I never see Rush Limbaugh offering money for their heads. :confused: Also, I criticize him at every available opportunity.

Good thing no one was arrested or sanctioned by the government in any way. This IS NOT a freedom of the press issue. And it's freedom of the press, friend, not freedom of speech that we are talking about.

Intent is not a requirement for a crime. Whether one could reasonably expect the outcome is. Shall I name about a dozen crimes where intent need not be shown?

If I yell fire in a theatre, is the fact that I thought people would think it was funny instead of run out a defense?
Of course not. There are all kinds of crimes that need no intent. Reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, I could go on. But there are many crimes that DO require intent. Murder, grand theft, embezzlement. Didn't mean to argue with you because you do have a point. In the "******" argument I'm sure you could probably get a reasonable case for reckless endangerment, but incitement to riot requires intent, not just forsight.

Good thing no one was arrested or sanctioned by the government in any way. This IS NOT a freedom of the press issue. And it's freedom of the press, friend, not freedom of speech that we are talking about.
Actually, if you want to be legally correct, it's freedom of expression.

Of course not. There are all kinds of crimes that need no intent. Reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, I could go on. But there are many crimes that DO require intent. Murder, grand theft, embezzlement. Didn't mean to argue with you because you do have a point. In the "******" argument I'm sure you could probably get a reasonable case for reckless endangerment, but incitement to riot requires intent, not just forsight.

YOu should be able to link to the legal requirement for intent then, yes?

YOu should be able to link to the legal requirement for intent then, yes?
In this particular instance I think you could make a good point, I was just pointing out that for incitement to riot there has to actually be intent to cause a riot. Knowing that its possible is not enough, though that may be enough for reckless endangerment or some equivalent crime.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1951/january_15_1951_112148.html

In this particular instance I think you could make a good point, I was just pointing out that for incitement to riot there has to actually be intent to cause a riot. Knowing that its possible is not enough, though that may be enough for reckless endangerment or some equivalent crime.

You act like you're agreeing with me and then you say the same thing. Intent is not required. If one knows that it is reasonably likely that a riot will occur then it does not fall under free speech. The police and the government have to have a reasonable amount of power to preserve order and peace. As noted in the link above.

The point is that the state can decide not to enforce unless there is intent as noted in some state and local laws, but the Supreme court holds that free speech does not including speech which has a reasonable likelihood of causing violence or civil unrest.

It really POs me when Muslims call this blasemphy when these cartoons would be considered "Sesame Street" level compared to what Arab newspapers say about Jews.

Christians and Jews deal with it. Deal with it, Muslims.

Hear hear.

You act like you're agreeing with me and then you say the same thing. Intent is not required. If one knows that it is reasonably likely that a riot will occur then it does not fall under free speech. The police and the government have to have a reasonable amount of power to preserve order and peace. As noted in the link above.

The point is that the state can decide not to enforce unless there is intent as noted in some state and local laws, but the Supreme court holds that free speech does not including speech which has a reasonable likelihood of causing violence or civil unrest.
I am agreeing that a person who yells "******" at the 1 million man march not only has a reasonable expectation that a riot may start, but probably can be shown to have intended one to start. My point is that in order for a person to get convicted of incitment to riot you do have to show, not only that the riot was the DIRECT result of your actions, but that you intended for it to happen. If you are in the middle of a protest, for example, and you pull out a bullhorn and start yelling, "kill the police" and the crowd then attacks the cops then that is a clear case of incitement to riot. If you disagree with a group of protestors and start chucking eggs and the crowd not only attacks you but some surrounding businesses as well, then that may be a case of reckless endangerment but probably not a case of incitement to riot because it has to be shown that the riot was your intent.

However, publishing catoons in a newspaper doesn't even come close to any of this. It is absolutely in everyway shape and form a protected first amendment right. Period. Not even a semblance of an argument can be made otherwise on any legal grounds. In fact, since the newspaper in question is a publically funded institution and is intended to teach journalism for which the editor payed a handsome chunk of change to attend, not a private enterprise intended to generate a profit, the editor may have his own recourse in court regarding his first amendment rights. There is no DIRECT causal relationship and there is no overt act and not only can it not be shown that the editor intended to cause a riot, he in fact DID NOT cause a riot. However, even if it did cause a riot it still would be protected free expression.

I am agreeing that a person who yells "******" at the 1 million man march not only has a reasonable expectation that a riot may start, but probably can be shown to have intended one to start. My point is that in order for a person to get convicted of incitment to riot you do have to show, not only that the riot was the DIRECT result of your actions, but that you intended for it to happen. If you are in the middle of a protest, for example, and you pull out a bullhorn and start yelling, "kill the police" and the crowd then attacks the cops then that is a clear case of incitement to riot. If you disagree with a group of protestors and start chucking eggs and the crowd not only attacks you but some surrounding businesses as well, then that may be a case of reckless endangerment but probably not a case of incitement to riot because it has to be shown that the riot was your intent.

However, publishing catoons in a newspaper doesn't even come close to any of this. It is absolutely in everyway shape and form a protected first amendment right. Period. Not even a semblance of an argument can be made otherwise on any legal grounds. In fact, since the newspaper in question is a publically funded institution and is intended to teach journalism for which the editor payed a handsome chunk of change to attend, not a private enterprise intended to generate a profit, the editor may have his own recourse in court regarding his first amendment rights. There is no DIRECT causal relationship and there is no overt act and not only can it not be shown that the editor intended to cause a riot, he in fact DID NOT cause a riot. However, even if it did cause a riot it still would be protected free expression.

You keep saying that and I keep asking you to support it. I showed you that a case in 1951 decided that intent is not required. You can keep shaking your fist and saying your right, but you've offered nothing other than your specious claims to support it.

By the way, the paper in question is NO SUCH THING. It's owned by The Daily Illini, another daily rag in my town. Are you just making up everything in your argument?

I am agreeing that a person who yells "******" at the 1 million man march not only has a reasonable expectation that a riot may start, but probably can be shown to have intended one to start. My point is that in order for a person to get convicted of incitment to riot you do have to show, not only that the riot was the DIRECT result of your actions, but that you intended for it to happen. If you are in the middle of a protest, for example, and you pull out a bullhorn and start yelling, "kill the police" and the crowd then attacks the cops then that is a clear case of incitement to riot. If you disagree with a group of protestors and start chucking eggs and the crowd not only attacks you but some surrounding businesses as well, then that may be a case of reckless endangerment but probably not a case of incitement to riot because it has to be shown that the riot was your intent.

However, publishing catoons in a newspaper doesn't even come close to any of this. It is absolutely in everyway shape and form a protected first amendment right. Period. Not even a semblance of an argument can be made otherwise on any legal grounds. In fact, since the newspaper in question is a publically funded institution and is intended to teach journalism for which the editor payed a handsome chunk of change to attend, not a private enterprise intended to generate a profit, the editor may have his own recourse in court regarding his first amendment rights. There is no DIRECT causal relationship and there is no overt act and not only can it not be shown that the editor intended to cause a riot, he in fact DID NOT cause a riot. However, even if it did cause a riot it still would be protected free expression.

You are right. It IS a protected first amendment right.

However, while the first amendment protects the right of the cartoonist to create an inflammatory piece, or another individual to display that piece... IF the piece incites a riot, your 'first amendment right' does NOT protect you from the legal ramifications of your action.

Here is another example.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=315

What I find irksome about the whole affair, starting from the original publication in the Danish newspaper, is that the press has expressed far more condemnation of the publishers than the rioters. This story is a prime example. The press is quick to point out that the the editor was suspended, but when it comes to the rioting, there are no headlines that say "X number of people arrested for rioting". It is as if rioting is considered a freedom of expression that is more acceptable than publishing.

Ok, yes, further down in the article, then they start to show how government officials are condemning these actions, but from a superficial treatment, the press seems to be matter-of-fact about rioting and severely condemning publishing. I would say the whole reason behind the riots in the first place is that people just saw the cartoon and neglected to read the article that inspired it.

... while the first amendment protects the right of the cartoonist to create an inflammatory piece, or another individual to display that piece... IF the piece incites a riot, your 'first amendment right' does NOT protect you from the legal ramifications of your action.
Um ... not quite. What the first Amendment and how it's been interpreted do is protect all forms of speech, unless they openly advocate violence.

EDIT: Where the hell is Cat_Tribe when you need him??? :headbang:

I guess I'm not quite clear on what you are arguing. If you are arguing that someone yelling "******" during teh million man march is not protected speech, I agree. If you are saying that publishing these cartoons is not protected then you are just wrong and I am absolutely right. In fact, if that is what you are saying, your own link proves it. The danger has to be clear AND PRESENT. In otherwords right in front of you and not metaphorically but teh danger has to be RIGHT THERE NOW. The word "present" is not some vagure term. They don't use language like that in law. If they said it needs to be present then it needs to be present.

Um ... not quite. What the first Amendment and how it's been interpreted does is protect all forms of speech, unless they openly advocate violence.

Well, I guess that depends on a couple of factors, really... like, whether you accept the 'living constitution' argument. Or... what the Supreme Court decides. Or... how far the current establishment feels like extending it... after all, originally, the scope was limited to Congress alone, wasn't it?

However, while the first amendment protects the right of the cartoonist to create an inflammatory piece, or another individual to display that piece... IF the piece incites a riot, your 'first amendment right' does NOT protect you from the legal ramifications of your action.
Yes it does. That's exactly the point. If there were legal ramifications then it would not be protected. The first amendment protects you from legal ramifications resulting from free expression of ideas.

Here is another example.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=315
I'm not sure how this counters my argument. This guy stood up in front of people on a soap box and started yelling for people to riot. The danger was claer and present and his intent was documented and clear.

Intent is not a requirement for a crime. Whether one could reasonably expect the outcome is. Shall I name about a dozen crimes where intent need not be shown?

If I yell fire in a theatre, is the fact that I thought people would think it was funny instead of run out a defense?
While it is true that intent is not required for all crimes, for the particular charge being discussed -incitement to riot- it most certainly is a prerequisite.

Here is another example.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=315
Um, firstly, you have to get an illinois case if you want your argument to stick at all. Statutes are different in each state for this and it is not a federal matter. In montana you have the law stated like this:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-104.htm

45-8-104. Incitement to riot. (1) A person commits the offense of incitement to riot if he purposely and knowingly commits an act or engages in conduct that urges other persons to riot. Such act or conduct shall not include the mere oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief which advocacy or expression does not urge the commission of an act of immediate violence.

Really you have the burden of proof here. Show us the iliinois statute that supports your viewpoint.

Whereas I can show you the section in the illinois constitution which backs up my side of the argument

SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being
responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for
libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a
sufficient defense.

It is also important to understand that the "clear and present danger" exclusion to the first amendment's right to freedom of expression does not say what crime a person can or will be charged with, just that a person CAN be charged with a crime if it can be shown that their actions led to a riot or disturbance and that the danger was clear and present. The actual charge will probably very greatly from municipality to municipality and state to state. Maybe in california it's called "incitement to riot" and in Texas it's called "encouraging public disorder" or whatever...

Um, firstly, you have to get an illinois case if you want your argument to stick at all. Statutes are different in each state for this and it is not a federal matter. In montana you have the law stated like this:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-104.htm



Really you have the burden of proof here. Show us the iliinois statute that supports your viewpoint.

Whereas I can show you the section in the illinois constitution which backs up my side of the argument
We just said the exact same thing only you hit submit first and you said it better. :(

So basically unless a newspaper editor outright confesses to the effect of "Hey, I knew the cartoons offend those sand niggers and I wanted them to react so we can continue painting Islam as a savage religion that needs to be wiped out," it's Freedom of Speech regardless of well-observed Cause and Effect.

Well then, I guess that makes all those Pro-Life websites with the names and addresses of physicians who perform abortions Free Speech as well.

:rolleyes:

So basically unless a newspaper editor outright confesses to the effect of "Hey, I knew the cartoons offend those sand niggers and I wanted them to react so we can continue painting Islam as a savage religion that needs to be wiped out," it's Freedom of Speech regardless of well-observed Cause and Effect.Actually, even if he admitted that it would still be protected. You sure don't like Muslims do you? Racist. To assume they have no control of themselves is highly bigoted.

As myself and Ravenshrike pointed out the exclusion to first amendment rights here is "CLEAR and PRESENT." This means that a danger needs to be CLEAR. How can the editor know that Muslims are unable to control themselves and, moreover, how can he be responsible? More importantly, the danger must be PRESENT. Right in front of you and not metaphorically. It needs to be right there and right now.

Well then, I guess that makes all those Pro-Life websites with the names and addresses of physicians who perform abortions Free Speech as well.

:rolleyes:
No. That's:

1. An invasion of privacy.
2. May also maybe inciting to murder depending on the context and the result.

If the site says, "Here are the addresses of some abortion doctors. Go kill them." Then that, of course, is not protected expression.

Can I ask you a question? Since you brought it up, what if some pro-choice newspaper published some cartoons that characterized some right to life religious figures as Satan or Hitler? Worse, since the pro-life movement is largely a religious movement, what if they published a cartoon with Jesus looking through the crosshairs of his assault rifle at a doctor? What if, as a result, a bunch of pro-lifers held a protest that turned into a riot and a clinic got burned down and some people in the clinic died as a result. Should that pro-choice paper be held responsible?

Um ... not quite. What the first Amendment and how it's been interpreted do is protect all forms of speech, unless they openly advocate violence.

EDIT: Where the hell is Cat_Tribe when you need him??? :headbang:

Or you could just read the case. If you should reasonably know that your speech is going to cause violence then your freedom of speech can be abridged not to stop the discussion of such issues but to protect people. It's a fine line, but you don't have to openly advocate violence in order for your speech to be abridged. Yelling Fire in a theatre does not advocate violence in any way and is not protected.

It is also important to understand that the "clear and present danger" exclusion to the first amendment's right to freedom of expression does not say what crime a person can or will be charged with, just that a person CAN be charged with a crime if it can be shown that their actions led to a riot or disturbance and that the danger was clear and present. The actual charge will probably very greatly from municipality to municipality and state to state. Maybe in california it's called "incitement to riot" and in Texas it's called "encouraging public disorder" or whatever...

Absolutely, over and over the point remains that -

One) this case has nothing to do with freedom of speech

Two) this case has nothing to do with freedom of the press

Three) You do not have to establish intent in cases where free speech is abridged.

I'm not sure how this counters my argument. This guy stood up in front of people on a soap box and started yelling for people to riot. The danger was claer and present and his intent was documented and clear.

Um, no, he didn't.

Um, firstly, you have to get an illinois case if you want your argument to stick at all. Statutes are different in each state for this and it is not a federal matter. In montana you have the law stated like this:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-104.htm



Really you have the burden of proof here. Show us the iliinois statute that supports your viewpoint.

Whereas I can show you the section in the illinois constitution which backs up my side of the argument

I'm going to go ahead and be more polite than my original response. I noted earlier in the thread that some states (actually Montana was the state I found first probably using the same search you did) choose to make intent a requirement but as noted in the Supreme Court case the US Constitution does not have so narrow a requirement. State laws can expand rights but not contract them. You posted a law that expands the right.

We are so quick to jump on the "freedom of speech" bandwagon that we ignore any practicality. Not only is the University of Illinois alright to disallow the paper from offending current and prospective muslim students, but it is wise to not endanger current students who are not muslim.

It seems right now that we are poking a hornets' nest just to prove that we are nicer than hornets.

We are so quick to jump on the "freedom of speech" bandwagon that we ignore any practicality. Not only is the University of Illinois alright to disallow the paper from offending current and prospective muslim students, but it is wise to not endanger current students who are not muslim.

It seems right now that we are poking a hornets' nest just to prove that we are nicer than hornets.

Well, the U of I didn't actually do anything. The student's paper is privately held and the person was fired for not following protocol.

Tell ya what. Let me know when you've read my posts and then we'll have a discussion. I don't intend to post the same point over simply because you're lazy.
Such act or conduct shall not include the mere oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief which advocacy or expression does not urge the commission of an act of immediate violence.

Umm... that's it. Merely expressingan idea oral or written is not enough to be in violation of the statute.

I'm still fuzzy here. Are you saying that the paper or editor can be prosecuted? I guess I never got that clear. Because you're wrong if you are.

Um, no, he didn't.
Umm... yes he did.

Petitioner made an inflammatory speech to a mixed crowd of 75 or 80 Negroes and white people on a city street. He made derogatory remarks about President Truman, the American Legion, and local political officials; endeavored to arouse the Negroes against the whites; and urged that Negroes rise up in arms and fight for equal rights. The crowd, which blocked the sidewalk and overflowed into the street, became restless; its feelings for and against the speaker were rising; and there was at least one threat of violence. After observing the situation for some time without interference, police officers, in order to prevent a fight, thrice requested petitioner to get off the box and stop speaking. After his third refusal, and after he had been speaking over 30 minutes, they arrested him, and he was convicted of violating 722 of the Penal Code of New York, which, in effect, forbids incitement of a breach of the peace. The conviction was affirmed by two New York courts on review. Held: The conviction is sustained against a claim that it violated petitioner's right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 316-321.

Well, the U of I didn't actually do anything. The student's paper is privately held and the person was fired for not following protocol.
No it's not. The University of Illinois is a public institution that receives public support.

Absolutely, over and over the point remains that -

One) this case has nothing to do with freedom of speech

Two) this case has nothing to do with freedom of the press

Three) You do not have to establish intent in cases where free speech is abridged.

So you are saying that a person who does not intend for his words to incite violence and may well not want his words to incite violence can still be tried and convicted for inciting a riot? If that is the case, then exactly what speech cannot be taken as a possible incitement to violence?

It seems to me that for all your citation of caselaw, you forgot the void-for-vagueness principle of constitutionality: no law is ever constitutional if a reasonable person cannot determine beforehand whether his actions will or will not violate the law. In this case, the person clearly was not intending any incitement to riot, and any riots are the direct result of rioters, not the desire of the writer, and as such it seems that he could not reasonably determine whether his actions would have violated the law. Follow the logic, Jocabia.

You seem to have the well-intentioned belief that free speech must be curbed sometimes in the interest of the greater good, but you apparently forget that free speech is the greater good, always.

Umm... yes he did.

His cries were not for them to do so right then. He was calling for the people to rise up and force a change. He didn't tell them to do so that minute. It's not a minor difference. He told them to prepare for war. If what he did was inciting a riot with purpose then Pat Robertson is also guilty. The difference is that Pat Robertson doesn't reasonably expect that a disturbance will actually happen while this person should absolutely have expected it.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show a supreme court case requiring intent as you claimed over and over.

Absolutely, over and over the point remains that -

One) this case has nothing to do with freedom of speech

Two) this case has nothing to do with freedom of the press
Yes it does. That's exactly what it's about.

Three) You do not have to establish intent in cases where free speech is abridged.
That depends on the crime. All the clear and present danger exclusion means is that if your speech causes a riot or other destructive disturbance in a situation where it is obvious that that can happen right now in front of you then you CAN be charged with a crime. It does not proscribe one. The crime that you are charged with will very from state to state and from city to city, but in order for you to be charged at all you have to be aware that there is a CLEAR danger, which means you have to know that you may cause a riot or other disturbance, and PRESENT, meaning that the danger has to be in front of you right now, not tomorrow or next week. Publishing the pictures in a newspaper is absolutely protected. Now, if there was a protest against these pictures and the guy went and passed out leaflet of them at the protest and a riot ensued maybe that would fit, but even then you'd have a tough time.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it's about.

Really? Whose freedom was abridged? Can you tell me? The press is the paper and the paper didn't want this published? Self-censorship is not a violation of freedom. You keep making this claim but it's like saying that I should sue myself when I choose not to call people fat.

That depends on the crime. All the clear and present danger exclusion means is that if your speech causes a riot or other destructive disturbance in a situation where it is obvious that that can happen right now in front of you then you CAN be charged with a crime. It does not proscribe one. The crime that you are charged with will very from state to state and from city to city, but in order for you to be charged at all you have to be aware that there is a CLEAR danger, which means you have to know that you may cause a riot or other disturbance, and PRESENT, meaning that the danger has to be in front of you right now, not tomorrow or next week. Publishing the pictures in a newspaper is absolutely protected. Now, if there was a protest against these pictures and the guy went and passed out leaflet of them at the protest and a riot ensued maybe that would fit, but even then you'd have a tough time.

Ah, I see. So you were wrong about intent. I agree.

His cries were not for them to do so right then. He was calling for the people to rise up and force a change. He didn't tell them to do so that minute. It's not a minor difference. He told them to prepare for war. If what he did was inciting a riot with purpose then Pat Robertson is also guilty.
hwo do you know? Were you there? The point in this case is thet he coudl see the crowd getting more and more agitated, there was at least one threat of violence and he kept at it. Right in front of him, right there he could see that the crowd was on the verge of rioting and he kept inflaming them. That's akin to yelling "fire" in a theater. Right now, in front of you a dangerous situation is developing and you keep at it even after being asked three times to stop. The danger is CLEAR, you can see the crowd getting more and more agitated, and PRESENT, they are standing right in front of you.

So you are saying that a person who does not intend for his words to incite violence and may well not want his words to incite violence can still be tried and convicted for inciting a riot? If that is the case, then exactly what speech cannot be taken as a possible incitement to violence?

It's a judgement call just like, it's a judgement call on hatecrimes. It's about whether you should reasonably be expected to know that your words are going to cause a disturbance.

If you read the case law you'll see that many judgement state exactly the concern you're noting. They not that it's a fine line, but that the right cannot be construed as taking away the ability of the police to maintain or restore order.

It seems to me that for all your citation of caselaw, you forgot the void-for-vagueness principle of constitutionality: no law is ever constitutional if a reasonable person cannot determine beforehand whether his actions will or will not violate the law. In this case, the person clearly was not intending any incitement to riot, and any riots are the direct result of rioters, not the desire of the writer, and as such it seems that he could not reasonably determine whether his actions would have violated the law. Follow the logic, Jocabia.

You seem to have the well-intentioned belief that free speech must be curbed sometimes in the interest of the greater good, but you apparently forget that free speech is the greater good, always.

You're wrong. Again you should try reading my posts. I said specifically if a reasonable person would expect a riot whether they intend for their to be a riot or not they can be charged. It follows directly along with your point about a reasonable person knowing they are violating the law. If you'd read my post you'd have seen that I put that in several of the initial posts. Who's not following along?

And, speech, is not for the greater good always. Should freedom of speech be protected? Yes. Should people be allowed to make racist remarks? Yes. But speech is not free from consequence. You seem to not realize that there are consequences of this freedom and if those consequences abridge the rights of others or the public safety then you are held accountable.

Really? Whose freedom was abridged? Can you tell me? The press is the paper and the paper didn't want this published? Self-censorship is not a violation of freedom. You keep making this claim but it's like saying that I should sue myself when I choose not to call people fat.Possibly the editor who was fired, but I'm not saying that anyone's rights were violated in this case. I'm saying that anyone who wants should be free to publish those cartoons if they want without fear of legal action as some people, yourself included, seem to want to suggest. There shoudl be no law preventing someone from doing this and the people who have cannot be criminally liable for publishing them even if someone riots as a result.

Just to be clear. If a paper publishes these pictures and people riot the paper shoudl in no way be punished and the rioters should all be arrested. that's my point and that, in fact, is the way it works under US law... as it should.



Ah, I see. So you were wrong about intent. I agree.
As I mentioned earlier I wasnt' clear what you were arguing at the time. I thought you were arguing specifically about the crime of "inciting to riot," not about a broad exclusion to first amendment protection.

As myself and Ravenshrike pointed out the exclusion to first amendment rights here is "CLEAR and PRESENT." This means that a danger needs to be CLEAR. How can the editor know that Muslims are unable to control themselves and, moreover, how can he be responsible? More importantly, the danger must be PRESENT. Right in front of you and not metaphorically. It needs to be right there and right now.

The danger IS clear. And present.

Or am I mistaken in the reaction to the publishing of such cartoons? Or does it have to mean that he has to be threatened?

Possibly the editor who was fired, but I'm not saying that anyone's rights were violated in this case. I'm saying that anyone who wants should be free to publish those cartoons if they want without fear of legal action as some people, yourself included, seem to want to suggest. There shoudl be no law preventing someone from doing this and the people who have cannot be criminally liable for publishing them even if someone riots as a result.

Just to be clear. If a paper publishes these pictures and people riot the paper shoudl in no way be punished and the rioters should all be arrested. that's my point and that, in fact, is the way it works under US law... as it should.

Freedom of the press belongs to the paper not the editor. The paper decides what they publish. The editor has no right to invoke.

I'm not disagreeing with arresting rioters or those who advocate violence. I support the right to free speech, but I also support consequences for what we say. I think people don't invoke those consequences often enough. For the record, those consequences should never be violence.

As I mentioned earlier I wasnt' clear what you were arguing at the time. I thought you were arguing specifically about the crime of "inciting to riot," not about a broad exclusion to first amendment protection.

Inciting to riot does no require intent. It's called different things in different states, but the question is whether a reasonable person would expect the outcome not whether the outcome was the intent. You have yet to show that I can make a bid to the Surpreme Court for a violation of my right to free speech because I didn't have intent and was arrested for incitement to riot or whatever it is called in particular state.

Some states expand the right, but the federal right does not require intent for abridgement, period. The case I cited first specifically noted that a clear and present danger was enough in the case of incitement to riot.

but you apparently forget that free speech is the greater good, always.
Very well put. Thanks.

The danger IS clear. And present.

Or am I mistaken in the reaction to the publishing of such cartoons? Or does it have to mean that he has to be threatened?
It is not present in the sense of the law. By present they mean right there in front of you. Not metaphorically, but PHYSICALLY right there right now. A group of people getting more and more agitated on a street corner as they react to your words is PRESENT. A bunch of people in a crowded theater is PRESENT. Some people that may or may not read the newspaper you publish tomorrow mornning are not PRESENT.

Very well put. Thanks.

Free speech is not always for the greater good and we all know it. Freedom of speech is but there is absolutely a reason for abridgement of freedom of speech and while that abridgment should be fairly narrow, one cannot argue that there should never be a restriction on speech. You, for one, don't even seem to know what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is. According to you I can't fire one of my employees for call all of the black employees niggers because it's a violation of free speech and it's for the greater good that they be permitted to say it. I would fire the employee on the spot.

According to your logic, laws on sexual harassment abridge freedom of speech.

The danger IS clear. And present.

Or am I mistaken in the reaction to the publishing of such cartoons? Or does it have to mean that he has to be threatened?

I agree with PD here. It's not clear or present actually. This editor could NOT be charged with any crime at all.

PD, my point is not that this editor should be charged, but simply that intent is not a requirement as you suggested.

Also, freedom of the press is not an issue in this case as the paper self-censored as is their right.

Who cares what people draw or write for that matter.. there are hundreds of blasphemous sites on christianity.. do we get pissed off about it, umm no whay should they. Its not like muslims drew the picture

Freedom of the press belongs to the paper not the editor. The paper decides what they publish. The editor has no right to invoke.True for most papers, but this is a public institution so the paper belongs to the people of teh state of Illinois and, further, the editor was a student who paid good money to go to the school and lean journalism so, I'm not positive of this, but he may have a first amendment case.

I'm not disagreeing with arresting rioters or those who advocate violence. I support the right to free speech, but I also support consequences for what we say. I think people don't invoke those consequences often enough. For the record, those consequences should never be violence.If you can be held criminally liable for expressing yourself then you do not have freedom of expression. What shoud be the punishment? Jail time? probation? Genital mutilation? If we have softer punishments for publishing things the state has decided are not allowable does that mean we have free expression? That's just the definition of what freedom of expression means - the state cannot hold you crminally liable for expressing yourself. In our country, excluding the obvious like asking someone to kill someone or causing a crowd, the only consequences you have for your expression are the reaction of people who are exposed to it. They may boycott your paper or advertisers, they may picket your studio, they may print there own articles trashing your movie or record album, but the government cannot prosecute you for a crime and, although someone can file a lawsut against you, so far in every case I have heard of that does not involve direct slander or liable no one has ever been held civilly liable, either. Which is exactly how it should be.



Inciting to riot does no require intent. It's called different things in different states, but the question is whether a reasonable person would expect the outcome not whether the outcome was the intent. You have yet to show that I can make a bid to the Surpreme Court for a violation of my right to free speech because I didn't have intent and was arrested for incitement to riot or whatever it is called in particular state.

Some states expand the right, but the federal right does not require intent for abridgement, period. The case I cited first specifically noted that a clear and present danger was enough in the case of incitement to riot.
This is beside the point now anyways. I thought you were arguing earlier about a specific crime so I was off base. However, the CLEAR an PRESENT does matter. It has to be clear that it could cause a riot and not at some point in the future or some other place. It has to be here and now.

Free speech is not always for the greater good and we all know it. Freedom of speech is but there is absolutely a reason for abridgement of freedom of speech and while that abridgment should be fairly narrow, one cannot argue that there should never be a restriction on speech. You, for one, don't even seem to know what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is. According to you I can't fire one of my employees for call all of the black employees niggers because it's a violation of free speech and it's for the greater good that they be permitted to say it. I would fire the employee on the spot.

According to your logic, laws on sexual harassment abridge freedom of speech.
The point is not that every instance of free speech is for the common good. I work in Hollywood on TV shows and movies so I can tell you first hand that some of the garbage that gets put on TV is horendous and should be viewed by no one. The point is that the PRESERVATION of freedom of expression is for teh common good and the only way to insure its preservation is to protect everyone's right to free expression including, for example, the producers of sit coms. No matter how stupid some of these shows are, the fact that we allow people to express themselves without fear of criminal liability means that we can ALL continue to enjoy that freedom.

You, for one, don't even seem to know what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is. According to you I can't fire one of my employees for call all of the black employees niggers because it's a violation of free speech and it's for the greater good that they be permitted to say it. I would fire the employee on the spot.

According to your logic, laws on sexual harassment abridge freedom of speech.
oops, lost half my post.

No, I am not saying that. You can fire someone for saying what they want, but if someone at yoru place of work calls someone a ****** they cannot be prosecuted for it. If someone sexually harrases someone else at work, again, you're free to fire them, but I am unaware of anyone being criminally prosecuted for sexual harrasment.

I agree with PD here. It's not clear or present actually. This editor could NOT be charged with any crime at all.
Then we have been arguing for no reason at all. That was my only point this whole time. He cannot be prosectuted and should not be. The only other point I disagree with you on is sort of wishy washy because I'm not sure how the clause will be interpreted, but the editor may have a first amendment lawsuit because this is a public institution of higher learning and he is a journalism student who paid money to go there. BTW - I was at one time the Editor In Chief of my college newspaper during the first Gulf War and they would have never fired me for this. We published controversial shit all the time. I think it was wrong to fire him. I think he probably just wanted to get involved in the controversy and make a point about free speech. He's a student journalist, not a political activist.

Which you are taking out of context just to be annoying.

No, I'm
A) not taking it out of context,
B) not trying to be annoying, merely pointing out your hypocrisy in demanding that a student paper be sensitive to the feelings of a group of people, when you are not doing the same.

Freedom of the press belongs to the paper not the editor. The paper decides what they publish. The editor has no right to invoke.


That's complete nonsense. The Editor has sole responsibility over what and what not to publish. From the view of the hacks, the Editor is like God, but with more power and authority.

He can get fired afterwards ('publish and be damned' principle) but when it comes to the actual decision about whether to print or not, it's his decision. That's what he's paid for.

True for most papers, but this is a public institution so the paper belongs to the people of teh state of Illinois and, further, the editor was a student who paid good money to go to the school and lean journalism so, I'm not positive of this, but he may have a first amendment case.

You are incorrect. The paper is not owned by the university. I keep telling you that. This is not a publicly held paper. The student paper is a service afforded the university students on behalf of the Daily Illini, another rag in my town.

If you can be held criminally liable for expressing yourself then you do not have freedom of expression. What shoud be the punishment? Jail time? probation? Genital mutilation? If we have softer punishments for publishing things the state has decided are not allowable does that mean we have free expression? That's just the definition of what freedom of expression means - the state cannot hold you crminally liable for expressing yourself. In our country, excluding the obvious like asking someone to kill someone or causing a crowd, the only consequences you have for your expression are the reaction of people who are exposed to it. They may boycott your paper or advertisers, they may picket your studio, they may print there own articles trashing your movie or record album, but the government cannot prosecute you for a crime and, although someone can file a lawsut against you, so far in every case I have heard of that does not involve direct slander or liable no one has ever been held civilly liable, either. Which is exactly how it should be.

You're already held liable. I can't lie about another party. I can't incite murder or public disorder. I can't show porn in the park. To pretend like all speech should be protected is ridiculous. The problem lies in where to draw the line. As I said, in this case I would not advocate censorship, but I do think that people should boycott papers that seek to simply incite racial and religious tensions. I'm fairly certain this editor intended to exactly that.

Besides I wasn't talking about criminal liability, but I do think civil liability is appropriate. If you print something untrue about me I should absolutely be permitted to find you civilly liable, but unfortunately that is not the trend as evidenced by the National Enquirer and the like. I also agree with boycotting and the like. It should happen more often. I think people should learn about taking responsibility for actions. I totally believe that the 'mistakes' of election night in 2000 changed the outcome of the election and we'll never know which way it would have gone. I believe the news outlets should have been sued by voting leagues throughout FL.

This is beside the point now anyways. I thought you were arguing earlier about a specific crime so I was off base. However, the CLEAR an PRESENT does matter. It has to be clear that it could cause a riot and not at some point in the future or some other place. It has to be here and now.
The point is that intent is not a requirement. You were wrong about that. Simply admit it. For inciting a riot, intent is not required unless a state makes it required. The right to free speech can be abridged for inciting a riot whether or not intent was there. That was what the first link I put up said. Just admit you were wrong. Trust me, it feels kind of good. I've already done it twice today.

That's complete nonsense. The Editor has sole responsibility over what and what not to publish. From the view of the hacks, the Editor is like God, but with more power and authority.

He can get fired afterwards ('publish and be damned' principle) but when it comes to the actual decision about whether to print or not, it's his decision. That's what he's paid for.

False. The Daily Illini requires this type of material to be okayed and he didn't follow protocol. His employment is at their discretion. What he publishes is at their discretion. They own the business and they decide how it is run. That has nothing to do with freedom of the press.

Well, he's not getting paid anymore, is he?

Actually, even if he admitted that it would still be protected. You sure don't like Muslims do you? Racist. To assume they have no control of themselves is highly bigoted.

As if you couldn't note I'm actually tolerant of many religions that don't worship The Great Old Ones. The racist tone is a sarcastic observation of public perception of Muslims by the West in general and NationStates posters in particular.

Considering that many of the Muslim extremists who actually engaged in violent acts to protest were either incited by demagogue imams or lived in fundamentalist regimes or a combination of both I would hardly call it that a matter of free will on the part of most. Some most certainly, but not all.

And how is your accusation much worse than the currently popular perception that Muslims as an entirety are a warmongering barbaric zealot hivemind?

As myself and Ravenshrike pointed out the exclusion to first amendment rights here is "CLEAR and PRESENT." This means that a danger needs to be CLEAR. How can the editor know that Muslims are unable to control themselves and, moreover, how can he be responsible? More importantly, the danger must be PRESENT. Right in front of you and not metaphorically. It needs to be right there and right now.

This was a valid point when the cartoons were first published in the Dutch newspaper, editor intentions aside. However, when it is now widely known that Muslims find the cartoons sacriligeous if not outright blasphemous to the point where extremists can be incited to riot that's a pretty disingenuous defense.

No. That's:

1. An invasion of privacy.
2. May also maybe inciting to murder depending on the context and the result.

If the site says, "Here are the addresses of some abortion doctors. Go kill them." Then that, of course, is not protected expression.

Note that these sites never explicitly make a statement to the effect of "Kill these murderers for Jesus and the unborn." Often they attach an entry that lists if the physicians are alive or dead, which subtly implies that such actions should be taken. And obviously a couple people have taken those suggestions to heart.

Can I ask you a question? Since you brought it up, what if some pro-choice newspaper published some cartoons that characterized some right to life religious figures as Satan or Hitler? Worse, since the pro-life movement is largely a religious movement, what if they published a cartoon with Jesus looking through the crosshairs of his assault rifle at a doctor? What if, as a result, a bunch of pro-lifers held a protest that turned into a riot and a clinic got burned down and some people in the clinic died as a result. Should that pro-choice paper be held responsible?

Held responsible in terms of criminal charges? Only if there's an applicable law similar to the Inciting Religious Hatred clause of the U.K. or such an event has occurred previously to set a precedent and thus make the world aware of the consequence of such events. Otherwise, those responsible for the publication of the cartoons should be severely reprimanded if not fired.

Of course this is all hypothesis and hyperbole since Christians are much more peaceful and tolerant than those savage dirty, brown-skinned Muslims right?

:rolleyes:

Um ... not quite. What the first Amendment and how it's been interpreted do is protect all forms of speech, unless they openly advocate violence.

EDIT: Where the hell is Cat_Tribe when you need him??? :headbang:
He really knows his stuff lol its anoying when you think he is wrong or what not but he REALLY knows his stuff

I love how so many can think words can "cause" someone else to automatically physically react.

It will always be a choice of the individual to riot or perform some other act of violence. Someone's words do not send the signal from another's brain to the fist.

It will always be the choice and the responsibility of the person who chooses to perform the act of violence--not the speaker's.

That's what I hate about the society today--victimization and no personal responsibility. "His words CAUSED me to be violent". No. The words pissed you off, and you lost control or just decided to hit/break/whatever someone or something. If words automatically cause a person to move their fist at high velocity at a target, then we've got a very large problem on our hands--physical control of another through their own nervous system.

But I find that highly doubtful. I think it's a whole bunch of weak people that won't live up to what they chose to do.

I love how so many can think words can "cause" someone else to automatically physically react.

It will always be a choice of the individual to riot or perform some other act of violence. Someone's words do not send the signal from another's brain to the fist.

It will always be the choice and the responsibility of the person who chooses to perform the act of violence--not the speaker's.

That's what I hate about the society today--victimization and no personal responsibility. "His words CAUSED me to be violent". No. The words pissed you off, and you lost control or just decided to hit/break/whatever someone or something. If words automatically cause a person to move their fist at high velocity at a target, then we've got a very large problem on our hands--physical control of another through their own nervous system.

But I find that highly doubtful. I think it's a whole bunch of weak people that won't live up to what they chose to do.

You clearly don't get it. They are holding the individuals that riot responsible. I have yet to see anyone suggest they shouldn't be held responsible. If anyone has, please quote them or cease with the strawman. The argument is about responsibility. It's about people being responsible for the damage that they cause. And there is no doubt that some level of responsibility lies on the person who looks at a hornet's nest and says it's right to smack it with a stick.

You clearly don't get it. They are holding the individuals that riot responsible. I have yet to see anyone suggest they shouldn't be held responsible. If anyone has, please quote them or cease with the strawman. The argument is about responsibility. It's about people being responsible for the damage that they cause. And there is no doubt that some level of responsibility lies on the person who looks at a hornet's nest and says it's right to smack it with a stick.

I'm afraid it is you that does not get it. Someone says to smack a hornet's nest, and you're gonna?

The person that tells you to smack the nest has ZERO responsibility in whether or not you do it. You may not have thought to smack the hornet's nest, but to blame the person that suggested it is playing a victim where there is none.

Speaking causes no physical damage. Ever. Maybe a bit of emotional trauma, but that is QUITE survivable, generally bearable.

Words do NOT cause wars. People acting upon words does. It's all about self control, and it's evident that many people aren't held responsible for losing it. And that's just wrong.

Blaming a picture for violence is just weak.

Words do NOT cause wars.
I disagree.

I'm afraid it is you that does not get it. Someone says to smack a hornet's nest, and you're gonna?

The person that tells you to smack the nest has ZERO responsibility in whether or not you do it. You may not have thought to smack the hornet's nest, but to blame the person that suggested it is playing a victim where there is none.

Speaking causes no physical damage. Ever. Maybe a bit of emotional trauma, but that is QUITE survivable, generally bearable.

Words do NOT cause wars. People acting upon words does. It's all about self control, and it's evident that many people aren't held responsible for losing it. And that's just wrong.

Blaming a picture for violence is just weak.

Nobody is acting like the pictures are totally at fault or even mostly at fault. Words do cause wars, in fact. And unfortunately, some people don't understand the power of words and the importance of diplomacy. If person go to the neighborhood where I grew up with a KKK outift on and a sign that says go back to Africa, does that person deserve to get shot? No. Does it excuse the person who shot him? Nope. Is the guy who wore that outfit a dumbass who should have known better? Yep.

Meanwhile, you fail to understand that it is against the law. I can't encite a crowd of people to violence (which is not what happened here). You fail to acknowledge the effect of mob mentality. I absolutely can be responsible for starting a riot. I absolutely can be responsible for civil unrest and for inciting violence. All without actually committing violence, civil unrest or rioting. The law recognizes this because who aren't just pulling crap out of their ass actually recognize the power of words.

No one here is talking about absolving ANYONE of responsibility except you. We are advocating putting out ALL of the blame that deserves to be cast. Your attempts to act as if anyone is absolving the violent protesters of responsibity just proves that you're not actually attempting to digest the discussion.

Nobody is acting like the pictures are totally at fault or even mostly at fault. Words do cause wars, in fact. And unfortunately, some people don't understand the power of words and the importance of diplomacy. If person go to the neighborhood where I grew up with a KKK outift on and a sign that says go back to Africa, does that person deserve to get shot? No. Does it excuse the person who shot him? Nope. Is the guy who wore that outfit a dumbass who should have known better? Yep.


I'm not disputing that. Yes, the person was an idiot. It doesn't excuse anyone for doing anything violent to him. And he is free to be stupid and do something like that. He wasn't breaking any laws.

So if I piss you off so much with my words, that's going to potentioally cause you to kill me? A word from me will cause your fist to ball up and strike me, without your CONSCIOUS mind being in the middle somewhere? I highly doubt that. There's the problem. Words do NOT cause an action. Words are perceived and interpreted by another human's brain, who then makes an assumption (because it's not possible to have complete understanding of another, even through language--philosophy 101) and then DECIDES to act upon this information/assumption. Words do NOT cause WAR. A person gets pissed off and DECIDES to do something violent or stupid.


Meanwhile, you fail to understand that it is against the law.


Oh, no--I'm quite aware that it is against the law. Doesn't mean I agree with the law.


I can't encite a crowd of people to violence (which is not what happened here).


You can't incite a crowd to violence anyway. EACH one has to make the choice to do something violent. You can't force them.


You fail to acknowledge the effect of mob mentality.


I fail to see society actually holding all the individuals in a "mob" accountable for their own actions. From what I've seen, they're just some amorphous blob of non-intelligence, so they're forgiven, and the person who talked gets nailed for a group of human's stupidity. Brilliant.


I absolutely can be responsible for starting a riot.


A single person cannot riot, therefore you cannot start one. A lot of people can be blamed together--but not one.


I absolutely can be responsible for civil unrest and for inciting violence.


Not unless you have some direct control over another person's nervous system that bypasses their own thought processes and physical control of their own body.


All without actually committing violence, civil unrest or rioting. The law recognizes this because who aren't just pulling crap out of their ass actually recognize the power of words.


I recognize the power to CONVINCE others with words. I also recognize that every human has their own will, and cannot be forced to hit someone else or cause some other sort of damage. They make the conscious decision to move that fist at someone else's face.


No one here is talking about absolving ANYONE of responsibility except you.


Except you want to blame someone who just spoke, and DID NOT control someone else into being violent, panicky, or whatnot.


We are advocating putting out ALL of the blame that deserves to be cast.


No, that's what *I'm* doing. You want to blame someone for speaking. And not actually doing anything beyond that. Not breaking things, not even touching anyone.


Your attempts to act as if anyone is absolving the violent protesters of responsibity just proves that you're not actually attempting to digest the discussion.

Jocabia, I am seeing exactly what's going on. You think that if I say, "Libertarians are stupid, we should kill them," someone hears me and starts killing Libertarians, *I'm* somehow to blame. That's bullshit. Or if I make jokes at Christians and I get hit without starting anything physical myself, that it's okay for a Christian to come up and hit me? Again, bullshit. Wake up and realize that each human is in direct control of themselves, and they only act upon words if they choose to do so. No one can make them do it--therefore, words, or expressions in art for that matter, regardless how harsh, cannot be to blame for a violent act. Only the people performing the act can be blamed.