News-Record.com

Should the news department publish them now to give context to the 'disturbing violence?'

In light of your hesitancy to have considered running the cartoons I found this article to be very interesting. At the end please note the comments made by one journalist who was "canned" for publishing them. He evidently sees the need for "freedom of expression" and freedom of the press. Does that thought only exist if it is politically correct Allen?

Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq, in Germany's Der Spiegel, on why the West must stand firmly with the Danish

February 06, 2006

THE great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty: "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the West going to cave in to pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom: freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth.

Unless we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamisation of Europe will have begun in earnest.

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologise. Do we have to go on apologising for the sins of our fathers? Do we still have to apologise, for example, for the British Empire, when, in fact, the British presence in India led to the Indian renaissance, resulted in famine relief, railways, roads and irrigation schemes, eradication of cholera, the civil service, the establishment of a universal educational system where none existed before, the institution of elected parliamentary democracy and the rule of law?

On the world stage, should we really apologise for Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Brueghel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The West is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the West that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of inquiry, expression and conscience. No, the West needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

Jordanian editor Jihad Momani, sacked for reprinting the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, in Newsweek online:

QUESTION: Don't you think that by publishing the caricatures you were just fanning the flames of hatred?

Momani: No, not at all. I was trying to calm them down, to tell them these cartoons are not the end of the world, that insults have happened before and will happen again. The cartoons are silly. They don't deserve such an intense reaction.

Question: Does the world lack a sense of humour?

Momani: Religion is a red line. No religion should be laughed at. But you have to know how to respond appropriately.

Question: Is there more prejudice today against the Muslim community in general?

Momani: Yes, and I think it will increase even more because of the reaction to these silly cartoons. We're seeing more discrimination against Muslims throughout the world ... I feel we, the Muslims, are overreacting. I didn't publish the cartoons because I support them. My position is to show our leaders how silly they are and how they insulted the Prophet Mohammed. They show him as a terrorist and I'm against this. We must respect not just Mohammed but all religions.

David, that's the question I asked.

When it became clear that none of the US news services I normally frequent would offer that "context", I clicked on the BBC. The BBC didn't publish the cartoons either - but I surfed around for a few minutes on the site and found a list of "unaffiliated" European news organizations (i.e. "don't blame the BBC for the content of what we direct you to"). I finally found the cartoons on a French website. I don't read French, so all I got was the pictures without the "context" of their text.

God bless America. Land of the Free (as in speech). Home of the Brave (as in those who gave their lives on 9/11 - or our boys and girls fighting and dying in Afganistan & Iraq). So WHY Allen, when we want to be fully informed about WHAT exactly is inciting the "very disturbing" violence (as in embassies burning and protestors dying), do we have to turn to the Frenchies to look at "silly" cartoons?

On the other, the cartoon's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his headdress was clearly provocative, especially in light of Muslims' belief that the prophet's image should not be represented in cartoons, period.

I've been thinking about this today. Setting aside the image representation aspect, is it really provocative? Seems to me it would only be provocative if Muhammad was against bombing.

Mary, a few of the New Zealand newspapers posted the cartoons, much to the dismay of the PM in that country. I do not have the link for them off hand, since I didn't save it, but I am sure that you can "google" them. The captions will be in English.
I found the same thing in most of the foreign papers that I read daily, most did not publish the cartoons except those in languages other than English.
Give the NZ papers a shot, they will be in the weekend editions.

Thanks Mr. P! I appreciate that. I kinda want to know what the caption said under the lady in the burqa.

It's a girl thing.

Mr. Johnson, The article from Der Speigel should be reprinted in tomorrow's N&R commentary page. I personally do not need to see the cartoon. It is beautiful and states exactly what we are all about. That said, I will must go further: I agree the cartoon didn't need to be printed because all people's religion should be off limits. There were other ways to get this message across. This was very much like the crucifix in a bottle of urine and the same excuse of freedom of expression was used for that too. There are things that in all decency should simply on a moral basis be out of bounds.

Oh Dear! I meant to put the second sentence in brackets! The cartoon certainly was not beautiful. So sorry.

Don't hold your breath Brenda. You will read little or nothing like this in any of the US papers for you see, it is not politically correct. Seems that our overseas neighbors seem to have the corner on publishing a "fair and balanced" report. Or perhaps to keep that from sounding too right winginsh, I should say the corner on "freedom of expression and freedom of the press". What is it someone on the N&R said? The public has a right to know?? Hmmm wonder what happened in this situation? Double speak is what it seems to be, Brenda, because it means the public only has the right to know if it is 1. Politically Correct; 2. If it is in the interest of those in control of this community; 3. If it is only in the interest of the N&R to let YOU know.

Brenda, there is many many articles on this subject in most of the European English published papers, the Australian Papers, and the New Zealand papers. You can google about any country and find a list of papers and from there find the website for that paper and read all about what is going on in the world, but you won't read it in this country, unless of course it is biased to the enth degree or if it is anti-war, anti- US or anti- business. Then of course it is front page above the fold.

I have seen the cartoon but don't believe it needs to be republished for context. The context already is clear.
As I wrote before, I would not have chosen to publish it in the first place.
But I should have the right to make that choice in a society with a free press without fear or intimidation. And I would defend other papers' right to choose whether they would publish it as well.
If, however, you want to see the cartoon, you can find it easily enough on the Internet.

I would hope the N&R and other American media would not publish the cartoons in light of the increased level of anger that might occur against our troops by people who're borderline and have not taken up arms against our troops in Iraq and elsewhere.

This would only exacerbate an already volatile situation that our troops are faced with in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

During wartime sometimes you gotta use discretion and with this situation, any American fuel added to the fire by publishing these cartoons in one of the major media outlets would just enflame these psychos. I can just see it now, the terrorists holding a copy of an American publication with the published cartoons shown next to the journalist Jill Carroll. Not a pretty sight.

If the building burners and rioters could just see themselves as other see them they might begin to realize that, once again, they are walking stereotypes of the Western press. Not only are the rioters forgetting the message of the Koran they claim to serve they obviously don't look at the cartoons in their own newpapers which contain grossly distorted views of the West and the Jewish faith.

Brenda, why should people's religion be off limits as a subject for criticism? Why not make criticism of political views off limits as well? Some people feel very strongly about their family - should their family members, if they happen to be public figures, be out of bounds for criticism so as not to offend them?

I'm not sure how one can justify singling out religion as being off limits for criticism.

PotatoStew:
I agree. I don't believe religion should be off-limits. Frankly, I don't know that there can be, in this day and age. But I do believe there are boundaries in taste and sensitivity, as with other issues.

If, however, you want to see the cartoon, you can find it easily enough on the Internet.

No doubt. Thank God for freedom. I wonder how you would feel if this was ten years ago and there was no Internet? Would you feel differently about your responsibility to inform or would you tell me to order a newspaper from someplace else?

Here's the context I got when looking at the cartoons that I didn't get when reading the descriptions - Wow. These cartoons are mild. It's amazing that lots of people would get worked up about this to the point of killing people. I better do some more thinking.

Leading Australian blogger Tim Blair, at timblair.net, published the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed yesterday.

Just in case anyone is interested and hasn't found the cartoons and captions in English.

From an article entitlted, "Why Religion Can be a Laughing Matter" in regard to the Islamicnoids reaction to the cartoons.

The Europeans have not taken this lying down. France and Germany have upped the ante. "Enough from these reactionary bigots!" wrote France Soir editor Serge Faubert. The newspaper's front page carried the headline: "Yes we have the right to caricature God", accompanied by a cartoon depicting figures from the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Buddhist faiths on a cloud. The Christian figure was shown saying: "Don't complain, Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here."

So the answer to someone's question, yes all religions are open to jokes, cartoons, being made fun of, even critisized. This is what freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about. Just because someone makes fun of something don't get all bent out out of shape about it, ala, Donald Wildman etal, and the Islamicnutzoids (both are a bit alike along with the Phelps guy in Kansas). Just consider the source and get on with life.

From what I saw on the French website, we are not talking about just one cartoon, but several.

And, yes, Allen, we all know the context. We "got" that on 9/11. Blood and ashes.

On January 31, you spoke of how much the movie "Flight 93" moved you. I wonder what those brave souls would think of American journalism's courageous stand here?

Jon, I understand your point. On the other hand, if these cartoons are all it takes to intice people to take up arms (???), maybe our soldiers need to know that - and who they are. And Toby is right about the rioters playing into sterotypes.

I'm still having a very hard time with the oh-so-PC notion that "freedom from fear and intimidation" means that news organizations in the United States . . . the sanctuary for freedom of religion . . . the original champion of freedom of speech . . . the leader of the "free" world (not to mention "the war on terrorism") . . . feel compelled to direct citizens to websites in France and New Zealand and Australia and Denmark in order to see a "silly" cartoon.

I'll think about the "context" there some more, but it seems to me that CNN and the AP (and all the other "hard news" boys) are wrapping themselves in the safety of a journalistic burqa.

Trouble is, whether the cartoons are ever printed/posted by American news organizations or not, we're still not "safe".

Brenda here. Several people have commented on my stated belief that ALL religions should ALWAYS be off the table for any type of derogatory form of speech. I am not a Bible thumper, in fact haven’t been inside a church for 30 years or more. I do however have an deep and private relationship with my God. Furthermore, I have been a lifelong rebel of sorts, and champion for the rights of all people of all races, sex and religions. This is just so you know where I am coming from.

ALL things are manmade and of this world BUT a person’s relationship with his God. That relationship is “not of this world” (I hope you recognize this quote!) It is never appropriate nor necessary to ever denigrate this private and personal relationship. That is what freedom of religion means! You have your beliefs and I have mine and we neither one will tread on the other’s beliefs.

On the other hand, it is appropriate and even necessary if a society is to remain free to “render unto Caesar” all that belongs to Caesar, because Caesar is of this world and therefore manmade. It is also appropriate, and even necessary at times to criticize, poke fun at, and even rebel against ALL that is of this world and manmade. I have never been called upon to stake my life for these beliefs, but I have several times staked my career for the privilege of upholding and yes, demanding them for all people. I have many times gone against, and alienated, my family, friends, colleagues, neighbors and strangers in upholding and demanding these freedoms that I believe in for all people. That is why I am standing against many of you and stating that you are WRONG to ever criticize in any way, shape or form another’s relationship with his God.

That said, I must agree with Jon that we in the United States should remain mum on this topic. We should make no responses pro or con. We have young men whose lives are in danger every moment of every day fighting for these freedoms that we hold and they are doing it in the enemies own back yard. I would stake my own life and allow you that privelege if you wish, but I will damn to Hell’s fires any arrogant fool sitting safely in some office somewhere in the United States for staking the lives of our young soldiers over there!

So sayeth Brenda Bowers. Now let the bombardment begin.

Brenda, you have as much right as anybody to speak your mind. Just like the rest of us should have the opportunity to make ours up about a bunch of "silly" cartoons.

That's kinda the point. Where free speech (and freedom of religion) is concerned, the USA is supposed to be the "home team". You said it yourself, our young men and women are bleeding and dying to protect and preserve our FREEDOMS.

Yet let us all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" while the Danes take the nasty hits for things Americans say we hold dear and are self-evident. How does that honor anyone's sacrifice? Isn't that the worst kind of hypocrisy?

I was sued (unsuccessfully) for putting thought to pen and telling the government I served the truth. It was a hellish experience, so I kinda identify with the cartoonists & journalists who have been fired or threatened with prosecution/execution for putting their thoughts to pen in an effort to get the rest of us to think. It bothers me very much that American journalists don't seem to identify with them more.

As for religion, my Christian beliefs get affronted and stomped on every day. That's the world we live in. It makes me sick sometimes . . . but I DO NOT riot and I DO NOT throw pipe bombs into embassies. And I don't dream up inane "contests" for Holocaust cartoons to "get back" at the infidels.

Forget the cartoons. Thanks, Mr. P, for introducing me to Tim Blair. I know were to go now for complete commentary and context on this subject - the kind I can't find from the sensitive and pc US press.

People out there I need an answer to what just may be a VERY STUPID QUESTION. In fact I am sure it has to be, and so I have been reluctant to ask and have been trying to find it myself with no luck. So here goes: If these cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper in September (I am assuming 2005) why all the uproar in February 2006? What have I missed? I mean, I have certainly been behind the 8 ball before (no problem there!), but considering all the newspapers I read from around the world almost daily I just don't know how this one got by me. So will someone take pity and answer my question? Most Sincerely from a lil' old lady whose brain sometimes shows a bit of wear and tear. Brenda Bowers

BB, I've wondered that too. It looks like there have been protests all along, but it finally reached critical mass.

Brenda, Tim Blair speaks to that very issue.

If you peruse his postings on the subject (WARNING for the sensitive: as Mr. Produce promised, those posts include the uncensored cartoons), on February 4, Mr. Blair directed bloggers to a link on The Guardian's website that tells the story of how this all came to be: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1702091,00.html

The link appears "safe" from the N&R's standpoint. It does not print the cartoons - and it includes links to other news reports on the subject - a kind of time line.

Ironically (and interesting/deeply disturbing from my standpoint), it all started with a children's book.

BB, there's a front page article in The Wall Street Journal today that steps through the whole conflict. Looks like the protests were confined to Denmark in October. When Muslim clerics there didn't get the response they wanted out of the newspaper, they put together a package of the cartoons and other information and went on a Middle East tour in November and it grew from there. So, in part, this grew out of a PR campaign.

Mr. Blair does have quite a site doesn't he Mary. I thought that you, of all people would enjoy the heck out of it. hahahha. Intuition I guess, oops that's gut feeling fer us guys. At least he is willing to tell , as you said, the story that our PC media is afraid to tell. That is why I read so many foreign papers.

Glad to see that someone else does also, Brenda. It is certainly fun and educational isn't it. We get the news while the rest of the US gets what some PC cowered publisher/editor wants to dish out to us, like we are simpletons or something and can't decide what the truth is for ourselves. They have kept us "ignorant" of some many things and have some believing anything they print is the "gospel truth" and all the while sit laughing at how easily manipulated and lead we are.

Politicians don't have a thing on newspapers when it comes to manipulation and feeding us only what they want us to believe.

Thank you both very much, not only for the information but for being 'gentle' with me.

Have just been introduced to Tim Blair today Mary but he will become a regular I am sure. I was almost convinced by my husband's explanation that the news had traveled from Denmark to the Middle East by a very old, very lame camel!

David, wouldn't you just know it, I haven't yet gotten around to the WSJ today. Been busy on the other side of the Atlantic trying to run this down and of course getting side tracked in other stories along the way. BrendaBee

See the reaction on The Jewish Street Explosion in reaction to Iran's intent on publishing "funny" Holocaust cartoons. Note the difference in reactions.

How do we explain that difference?

Come on, Allen. Y'all can do better than not publishing the cartoons because it "wouldn't serve any purpose." There are several purposes publishing would serve including allowing your readers who haven't seen the cartoons to better judge the violence that is occurring in the Middle East.

If you don't want to publish because it may offend some folks, fine, state it so it can be debated.

David, it won't happen. You see, "we the people" don't have a need to know according to the powers that be at the N&R.
However if this were concerning the police debacle and the situation was under an ongoing investigation by the FBI and others then the screams would be loud to release ALL information so the "people can know the truth". Guess it depends on who is in control of the N&R board room. Don't belive me, read story on front page of on line edition. Last sentence is almost a repeat of what was said last week in this column about "uncovering the truth". Again , guess it depends on who's truth it is.
So don't worry Dave, the subject won't be opened for "real" debate and the pictures will never be seen here.

Brenda, you're easy to be gentle to. Mr. Produce, I think I love you. Your "intuition" was right on the money. Tim Blair is a hoot - a breath of fresh air on this subject. And you are very correct about the N&R's wish-wash on what is fit to report in THIS community and what is not. I do not want to be accused of "hijacking" this thread (cause it's a good one), but please be aware that this month I simplified and updated my website(www.asheboropediatrics.com) - and pummeled Asheboro City Council/Randolph Hospital BOD members with letters (posted). You might want to take a look - if anything, for the "entertainment" value. Because ("the public has a right to know") JR and Allen don't consider it news.

The reason the website exists speaks to the "free speech" and "free press" issues we've discussed here. The people in Asheboro (again, a "local" area this paper says it covers) who paid for that party - and the parents/children who lost doctors deserve to know the truth about what happened. But you won't see the newspapers in this area telling it. It might embarrass or "offend" somebody important. Therefore, Mr. Produce is right. The N&R (like the Courier Tribune thirty miles south) has decided that the public does not have the right to know. It's called selective, biased journalism. God forbid that you put the facts out there and let the plebes decide.

Sue, I am am having trouble pulling up things on your blog. I finally found the link you referenced. I'm not Jewish, but I expect if I were, this (stupid) "contest" would be digested/processed in the "context" of the systematic extermination of over six million of my people a half century ago - a fact that cannot be denied or ignored by reasonable or rational people. Since in today's world, a huge section of the Arab world would like to see Israel "wiped off the map" (or at least "moved" to Europe), I imagine it would hard to get worked up over a cartoon contest in a country whose President has stated that the Holocaust was a "myth". You cannot reason with people who believe that - just like you cannot reason with people who would burn down an embassy over cartoons. Besides, at this point, the cartoons are not a reason, they are an excuse. Does it suprise anybody that some newsroom minion in Iran (who wants attention and a raise from his Editors) dreamed up this "contest" as some kind of warped retaliation (against the Danes???)? Sarcasm, quiet contempt and indifference would be my reaction (Tim Blair's post on this was good too). And no more Iranian pistaschios for me!

Truth trumps all (if the newspapers have the courage to tell it). Sticks and stones draw blood . . . words and cartoons do not.

The National Review's "Corner" blog (that I pulled up while searching for Sue's reference) offered a post today noting that the New York Times, reporting on the cartoon controversy, printed a picture of the protesters accompanied NOT by the cartoons in question, but a picture of the Virgin Mary painted in elephant dung (from seven years ago). As Kathyrn Jean Lopez pointed out, nuns don't storm embassies. A number of posts on a number of blogs have said it - the reason these cartoons are not being printed is not the "high-minded" reasons the Editorial boards give - but fear. Fear for the safety of employees and property.

It's reasonable and perfectly understandable. But own up to it. And when you do, admit that "the terrorists won" this one.

It's 2006. We supposedly live in an enlightened world. So I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that this global bruhaha started with the author of a children's book trying to find an illustrator for his book on the life of the Prophet. At least now I know why no artist would touch those crayons.

Lord have mercy, Mary don't let the other half hear you say that hahahah. Naw, she would probably agree with you most of the time but let you know real fast that "he's taken". It took her 40 years to run me down so I guess she is deserving to say that.

Dang near married a Doctor once upon a time but didn't ask her for some strange reason. She later told me that she would have married me if I had only ask her. Just as well , she probably would not have enjoyed moving all the time and living in less than wonderful places.
We do have a bit in common, you deal with youngens after they get here and I have delivered a few in my day. One was delivered on a helicopter going hell bent for leather because the baby was breech. I figured if I could deliver a breech calf, I could turn a baby. I did with some help and baby and momma did super good. Old chief in the village threw a big party for us when we delivered his daughter and grandson back to the village in a week or so. Others in various places, back seats of cars on the way to hospital and other strange and not so sterile places.

Glad you enjoy Mr. Blair. I discovered him sometime ago during my reading of the Australian news papers. I read 4 or so from that country and then another dozen or so from other places that I have either lived or had short term assignments in.

Glad to hear that Brenda is enjoying the blogs. Also glad to hear that she enjoys reading world wide newspapers. Welcome aboard Brenda, we don't all bite unless provoked or tempted hahaha, we just sometimes bark loud and snarl occassionaly.

To David's point on why we would not publish the cartoons in question:
I wrote that they wouldn't serve any purpose in response to a request that republish the cartoons so our readers could see what all the fuss is about.
On their merits alone we also wouldn't publish them because they cross the line (in our opinion) in taste and tone.
As for whether this is making an exception only for cartoons that might be offensive to Muslims, it's not.
The News & Record regularly chooses not to publish dozens of cartoons for various reasons, including many that cross the line in attacks on Christians, Jews, minorities and other groups.
For instance, as I've mentioned earlier, we have not published several cartoons by U.S. editorial cartoonists that depict Jesus in a disrespectful manner.

As for the violent response to the cartoons, it is sickening and ironic: Why would Muslims express outrage about cartoons that depict them as violent ... by resortng to violence?

Aside from the one with the turban bomb (Which I reserve the right to debate later because it seems to me little different than the pictures of Jesus handling a whip as he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple.) which of these crosses the line in terms of taste and tone? The one of the cartoonist sweating as he draws his picture? The one of Muhammad in the desert? The funny one about the virgins? The face with the crescent and star? The stick figure Muhammad? The one with the halo?

I think it's easy for non-Muslims to see these cartoons and say "oh they are nothing" and dismiss the concerns of those who are offended. The IMAGE of Muhammad is not to be displayed. Ever. We are looking for something obscene or distasteful and see nothing, but Muslims see these depictions as something that, in their religion, is akin to blasphemy. So to dismiss them as silly says to me we are not taking into consideration the perspective of those who practice the Muslim faith. This small group of radical terrorists who are waging war over this are over the top, yes, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Muslims are not offended by these cartoons and I think that reprinting them compounds the crime.

Allen, the "toons" are now, for all practical purposes posted on The Editor's Blog - via a link posted by Roch. I'm getting dizzy now - going back and forth.

I posed some questions to JR - but you can answer them too. If JR leaves Roch's link up, it seems to me that you-all are just having your cake and eating it too.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. For instance, when I first looked at one of the drawings, I assumed someone had given the Prophet horns. But the caption says that what appeared to be horns (to me) is actually a halo formed by the crescent moon. Some would consider that trick of hand "offensive", others would find it very clever cartoon "commentary".

In viewing the cartoons, I understand the issue better . . . both why people are angry (although not why they're rioting) . . . and why others find the cartoons very relevant to the difference between what a religion stands for and what its followers do (a problem NOT unique to the Muslim faith).

On that note, I'd like to see Jesus drive some money-changers out of some places that do "the people's business". But that's another story.

As for the fig leaf about the N&R's refusal to publish cartoons irreverent to Jesus, the web site had the Kenye West picture up the other day. Yawn.

The paper should publish the cartoons because they are at the center of the largest international news story of the past week. They are news, plain and simple.

To claim that publishing them because it would serve no purpose is clearly wrong and dishonest. It would allow readers to judge more clearly what the response is about. Anyone can see that. If a description will do, then why not simply describe all political cartoons? The editorial yesterday was mealymouthed even by N&R standards. Its gist was: freedom of the press is important even if we're not practicing it today. If the issue is cultural sensitivity, then say so (as someone above has already said). But allowing our standards of acceptable speech to be dictated by Islamic norms is already to submit to coercion.

As for the question of why Muslims would violently respond to caricatures of them as violent, the answer is clear enough: it's not a caricature. They really are violent. The protests prove the point of the cartoons. I read in the paper that Islam is a religion of peace, but the evidence on the ground says otherwise.

Scott:
I'm still not willing to paint all Muslims with a broad brush as violent.
There have been too many ugly acts committed by a misguided few in the name of Christianity for me to cast a blanket over a whole religion.
As for the cartoons, I've stated our stance earlier. We wouldn't have published them then, when they first appeared, and we won't publish them now.
As for Kanye West, that was our news department's call; I'd have to yield to them to respond.

And there's the hand-off to the news department.

I knew the Crusades would come up sometime.

Scott's right. The cartoons are NEWS. No other explanation necessary.

These cartoons only crossed a line which exists for Muslims who are NOT accustomed to the principle of free speech. One can't dictate the taste of art. So, these are tasteless, agreed. Maybe even really bad art. But in Western societies, artists are allowed (just like every ugly American consumer and many an Itailan, German, etc. lover of kitsch) to embrace their own bad taste.

The decision of the newspapers is also valid, whether they choose to publish or not; their owners and editors are as fallible in taste as the rest of us, on one scale or another.

The most disturbing part of this is the tenor in which both sides have carried on: self-righteousness galore. I would hope we could accept the ridiculous immaturity (or crazy foolhardiness) of the cartoonists. They aren't known as a refined lot; nor should they be. Their job is to skewer.

Freddy, I did not find the cartoonists "ridiculously immature" or "crazy" or "foolhardy" or even particularly "tasteless". It's that eye of the beholder thing (assuming you get to behold).

You are right. Editorial cartoons are meant to skewer - they are art making a statement - the point of which is to get people to think - and for that reason their publication should be protected/respected/even championed in societies that value free speech.

Like ours? You would not know it by the wishy-washy position most American newspapers have taken.

Once the cartoons were online, the majority of those Americans wishing to see them did not need their local paper to print them.
And the papers are a business, as well as a public service. They must make decisions about the needs to avoid undue offense; as explained, they often avoid publishing images considered bad taste or offensive to Christians.

Do we have a right, as US citizens, to see the low art of these cartoons? Certainly. We watch TV full of bad taste every day. We have a right to even support financially in some way what may be considered hateful imagery. As long as the intent to publish is not incitement to riot, which is criminal and can bve prosecuted, papers can do as they deem is in their (usually monetary/PR) interest.

But don't be surprised when protests (hopefully more peaceful than those we have seen stirred up by ill-meaning leaders abroad) are lodged against paper and cartoonist. The cartoonists invite this kind of reaction! They would be naive to expect otherwise. Being marked for one's art is the highest badge of honor for this lowest of the visual arts (or just above bathroom scrawls, which were the inspiration for men like the great anti-Fascist Dada cartoonist, George Grosz
http://www.greatwar.nl/georgegrosz/groszjesuschrist.html).