Screenshots

Precisely! Like I said, one should not be confused between "individual rights" and "press freedom".

A mainstream media does not enjoy the same status as individual person's right. It has a distinct difference where someone's opinion does not represent the majority.

In this case, the Danish newspaper is wrong for publishing the demeaning cartoons and the Danish government should apologize for refusing to take action against the newspaper firm in the first place.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
- 19th-century Danish Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard

I believe that freedom of the press is one of the most important rights society has bestowed upon the media. Under no circumstances shall anyone demand self-censorship or self-mutilation from the members of the press.

I do not see any circumstances that justify to do different. We need indipendant media who can publish their views, comments etc. in any way they please if they have considered that by doing so there is a possibility to offend people. If self-censorship becomes acceptable or worse expected we are left with a knife that losts its edge. In fact we are loosing an important power as the press should serve a role in observing and criticising events, people, politics and yes even religion.

The press also should have the right to publish caricatures of any kind if they decide to do so. They are afterall overgeneralisations and applystereotypes.
This has been done in the past with (i assume) very insulting caricatures of Jesus and other religous figures and it might just encourage dialogue and maybe even reflection.
I am not commenting in any way on the specific drawings in question and while I do agree that more sensibility could have proofed usefull and generalising in certain ways was probably overshooting a bit, I believe strongly that freedom of the press is a right that shall not be touched, ammended, castrated or otherwise altered but that should be upheld as an achievement to be proud of even and maybe also because it at times stirrs an uproar of some sort or another.
How I wish the media in the USA would have had more balls during the the war george w bush started, it might have helped causing an uproar and gradually caused americans to reconsider (faster).

There is no excuse (in my book) to touch free speech as it is pretty much a step towards a (totalitarian) regime.

We all have a brain and can make use of it by forming our own opinion based on information received. We should not always agree as disputes are healthy and encourage new and exciting views on things.

regarding AdmiralChengHo:

the danish government has nothing to do with the drawings whatsoever and thus is not obliged to an apology. danmark observes freedom of the pres and it's a good thing that they do.

ROFL. I can't stop laughing. Simon Jenkins has his own view, but isn't it the argument has brought out for DECADES? What Jenkins saying is NOTHING NEW. Ironically, he will be "balanced" out with other view.

Unlike Times, it seems NST selectively republish Jenkins "curbing" view but refuse to publish other view to defend freedom of speech.

It is funny that Asian can accept when western paper to poke fun on westerner leader, they threat it as openess of freedom of speech. Hey, it is even ok to make a cartoon on Pope.

But when the western paper poke fun on Asian politicians, it suddenly become "offensive". Even more amusing, some of these "leader" are "elected" from the democracy process.

When you look back at the issue, don't you think it is strange that people who ask to "curb" purposely skip the REAL foul play that attack the freedom of speech?

What happens to the Imam that publish false information?

Moo_t

You are exactly correct in what you said. Far too many times I have read in the Malaysian papers attacks and comments on the West, the US the Presidents, etc. I have seen and read articles calling the western cutlure being damaging to the eastern culture etc.

However if the west does comment about things over here then everyone here gets upset. This is where press censorship becomes a problem cause there is no clear cut line where to draw yourself. Thus it must be open, free and allow to havbe differnt view points. Yes allow people to attack, ridicule, poke fun and even be insensitive if that is what it takes, you can always make another paper to show a different point of view. Yes maybe my comment is to simple but it is a fact that happens. In the US there are more then 787 mainstream newspapers in 2003 according to http://www.naa.org, newspapers have different view point, political relations, some are conservative some are libreal some are religious. They are alolowed their view point, some do point and make fun of Jewish people, there is even a christian national television network in America where one of it most well known Pastors on a TV show that has been around for decades calls Gays an abonimation, calls muslims an eveil religion and has called jews liars and tryign to take over the world. He is hurtful and disrespctful yet he is allowed to be on tv every single night, why? peoplke there can comment and protest in a civil manner. His name by the way is Pat Robertson www.cbn.com, The Christian Broadcasting Network. I have never liked it, I think they literally spread outright lies and malicious comments to anyone who does not hold their view. They reach millions of people every single day on TV, radio and publications, have arms that spread to many poor countries and have the belief that Islam, Judaism should be wiped off the earth. But I would never surpress their right to voice their own view, it is what they Believe and they have a right to tell people that.

Those cartoons may be offensive to many people, but it may be those perosn's own belief they have their right to express that even in a public domain, espcially in a public domain. Those that are offended by it have the right to comment and protest back about it as is being done. If the press were to not alow it, to censor it then there would be NO Press Responsibility. Being cautious about offending people is NOT the job of a true press, expressing views of different people, and discussing the news is their only job.

leninbird,

If the paper publishes Holocaust Denials or cartoons with fascist salutations, will the Danish government not take any action against it? Does the European government condones speeches of terroristic nature in mosques?

Nuff said.

AdmiralChengHo

Perhaps not the Danish, but yes in the US that has exactly happened and still does you can go to www.cbn.com the Christian broadcasting Network with over 20 millions television views aroudn the world, it states the Jews have been liars, thieves, it claims Islam is a religion of evil, it says homosexuals shoudl be arrested and are sick minded, and much worse, it says it on television all the time, and in news letters. It's founder Pat Robinson is known to make these comments almost every week. AQnd yet they are allowed to make these comments. As for citing riots, as for calling for the deaths of people, these are not the same as drawing a cartoon abotu something you feel about or your own belief. There is no comparrision. One was a peacful act of artisit expression the other is a violent act to instill a common belief to harm people. The mid-east were upset even though the cartoons were not meant for them, they started their protest like a civil society should, they would not buy Danish products, they voiced their concerns. that was fine that was great, but when they turned violent, when starting to burn property, when calling for censorships, that was not an act of being civil

rmo, put the Yankees aside and stay relevant...

[quote]a peacful act of artisit expression[unquote]
Instilling contempt at something which other people value the most is not a peaceful development in a society.

[quote]when they turned violent...[unquote]
That is a separate issue which does not make the irresponsible publishing any less sinful which is the premise of my debate here.

AdmiralChengHo,
I am staying relavent when I bring in the Yankees as this involves western and eastern ideas, I do not agree or hold your opinion that the act is sinful, I do not agree that the act of the cartoons was ill moral, morality has been shown to be a cultural interpretation.

You may consider what the paper done was sinful, I do not hold that view, I hold the view it was the artist own right to do so and it was the papers right to publish it under the current laws in Denmark in which the publication was directed towards. Because one group considers this to be sacraligious does not mean that another group must adhere to the same principle, if so then again as I had stated where do you draw the line. Some say religion should not be touched upon, I say if that is the case then it is impossinble to adhere to since there are too many religions in the world and thus you can not make comments about gods, cows, animals, etc. No this is not simplistic it is true. But then do you only mean main stream religions, if so then you step on the rights of those who are not mainstream. What about those who have no religious belief at all, what about those who hold other issues with high regard such as scince, politics.
The bottom line again is no one is forcing you to view something you do notagree with, no one is forcing you to read it or believe it, if you do not like it, then say so, debate it, discuss it, change people's minds about it, but you should not have to silence them just because "your belief" is your belief, for then you step on their beliefs.

AdmiralChengHo,

while I can not comment on this particular question, I know for a fact that the Dutch press ridiculed one of their own royalty (king or prince I can't remember) as beeing far too close to facist ideas and displayed corresponding ridiculing cartoons.
I also believe that it would and most likely is perfectly alright and legal to produce and publish caricatures picking on facist ideas. It would be a whole different story alltogether if you publish a pseudo-factual story stating that facism is acceptable or for example that all muslims are terrorists. This would be despicable and simply wrong - a lie. This would also not get past any self-respecting newspaper and their fact-checking people.
satire is a different story and boundaries are ment to be balanced on or even crossed.

Holocaust Denials are in no way related to the subject matter as their would be simply lies. This has nothing todo with caricatures whatsoever and as such the analogy is wrongly applied.
Do not mistake satire fore factual believes as they are entirely different things.

A caricature is and i quote
- "a representation of a person that is exaggerated for comic effect";
- "A caricature is a humorous illustration that exaggerates or distorts the basic essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness."
- "A picture where the subject is depicted in a satirizing way that exaggerates its distinctive characteristics in a comical or grotesque way. Often used as a commentary on political or social matters."

Also I would like to highlight once again that numerous caricatures on biblical stories, jesus and other biblical characters have been published widely throughout the world. While some catholics might have been insulted by this, it has generally been accepted as part of freedom of the press. I guess it's part of the game that sometimes one simply has to swallow things that one personally disagrees to.

It's simply impossible to permanently handle everyone and everything with silk gloves - this would leed to a gagged media that would never be able to uncover abuse, misuse etc. - any step into such a direction should be prevented even at the cost that sometimes events like the one in question occur.