It seems Americans are giving up our free speech out of fear. Sad state.

..Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book

Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.

A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons — including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban — in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them.

The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.

Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.

"I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable."

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."

In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue. It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations.

"The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said.

Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United states and Britain have declined to print the cartoons.

"Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad."

John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are "grandstanding." He said it was not a case of censorship because the university did not suppress original content that was not available in other places.

"I would never have agreed to censor original content," Donatich said.

Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it last week. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included.

"I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said.

The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said. She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence.

Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions. She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence.

Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk.

Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."

It seems Americans are giving up our free speech out of fear. Sad state.

1. many European countries bowed already for fanatic Islamic protests.

2. link please ?

LaoPo

It seems Americans are giving up our free speech out of fear. Sad state.

1. many European countries bowed already for fanatic Islamic protests.

2. link please ?

LaoPo

Here you go.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_...YC2XcOiXdOCfNdF

I'm not sure where I stand on this: freedom of speech vs prudent realism.

There is an alternative....it may sound odd but I've seen ancient art depicting Mohamad (it does exist in Islamic art history) and he is depicted in scenes but with his face blank....ie no features....sort of like pixelating out a face on TV to hide an identity.

The cartoons could be reproduced but have his face "pixelated out". This shows the full import of the cartoon, but hides the "identity" of the subject thus not defying Islamic tradition of having Mohamad's image.

I'm not sure where I stand on this: freedom of speech vs prudent realism.

There is an alternative....it may sound odd but I've seen ancient art depicting Mohamad (it does exist in Islamic art history) and he is depicted in scenes but with his face blank....ie no features....sort of like pixelating out a face on TV to hide an identity.

The cartoons could be reproduced but have his face "pixelated out". This shows the full import of the cartoon, but hides the "identity" of the subject thus not defying Islamic tradition of having Mohamad's image.

I disagree. This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more. Turn the tables and think about all the insults that fanatics have offered the west. What kind of poeple would we be to offer violence in return. Walk up to a random Muslim and beat the heck of out him just because some nut said something insulting to western nations.

No, I don't think so. Let the cartoons be published and any who offer violence can face the court of law. America has lost alot of face in the last few years but I know what we should and can be and living in fear while we give up our rights to be free is not one of them. I no longer want to see Americans hide the heads in the sand or be ashamed of our freedoms. I also don't believe in blind nationalism, the opposite of what I just said, that is what got us into this whole loosing face business.

I'm not sure where I stand on this: freedom of speech vs prudent realism.

There is an alternative....it may sound odd but I've seen ancient art depicting Mohamad (it does exist in Islamic art history) and he is depicted in scenes but with his face blank....ie no features....sort of like pixelating out a face on TV to hide an identity.

The cartoons could be reproduced but have his face "pixelated out". This shows the full import of the cartoon, but hides the "identity" of the subject thus not defying Islamic tradition of having Mohamad's image.

I disagree. This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more. Turn the tables and think about all the insults that fanatics have offered the west. What kind of poeple would we be to offer violence in return. Walk up to a random Muslim and beat the heck of out him just because some nut said something insulting to western nations.

No, I don't think so. Let the cartoons be published and any who offer violence can face the court of law. America has lost alot of face in the last few years but I know what we should and can be and living in fear while we give up our rights to be free is not one of them. I no longer want to see Americans hide the heads in the sand or be ashamed of our freedoms. I also don't believe in blind nationalism, the opposite of what I just said, that is what got us into this whole loosing face business.

Free speech vs prudent realism. Rights vs life.

There's two arguments for acting prudently in this case.

To do something that you have a right to do, but has a negative consequence (possibly a dramatic negative consequence) for yourself and your fellow countrymen/family members, seems like a right that would be prudent to forego. What price do you pay on a matter of principle? Especially when excersising that principle has little or no benefit to your family and countrymen.

To say "do it and let anyone who reacts violently face a court of law" is putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Far more prudent to fence off the top of the cliff.

To do something that you have a right to do but insults other people, seems like an unthinking and selfish right. Surely your rights carry responsibilities? Especially when you can excersise your right in an alternative way that does not insult anyone.

Pedestrians have the right of way at a zebra crossing. What do you think of the pedestrian who walks quickly to the crossing, then slows right down to cross knowing that he has the power over the waiting motorists because it is his RIGHT. He could have walked at a normal pace to the crossing, and across the crossing, with minimal impact on the motorists....but he had the right to walk as slowly as possible, so he did. Perhaps he got his jollies from that "power".

Utilising your rights "just because you can" is childish if it impacts on others unnecessarily.

What will students lose or miss out on if the cartoons are not published?

What vital information is lost if the caricatured eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, and wrinkles are missing from these particular cartoons? The message the cartoons convey, and the message that the publishers would convey in their book do not rely on those details and removing those details would pacify and prevent insult....so why not?

Just because you can?

This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more.

try your freedom of speech in Thailand by ridiculing publicly Lord Buddha and/or Buddhism. then report back with the result or call us from that hospital ward where you suck liquid food through a straw after they plastered up your broken bones and you regained consciousness.

we will visit you and mix some good ol' Scotch (or whatever your choice is) in your food.

This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more.

try your freedom of speech in Thailand by ridiculing publicly Lord Buddha and/or Buddhism. then report back with the result or call us from that hospital ward where you suck liquid food through a straw after they plastered up your broken bones and you regained consciousness.

we will visit you and mix some good ol' Scotch (or whatever your choice is) in your food.

i am not in Thailand, I am in America, where I believe free speech is still a common thing.

I'm not sure where I stand on this: freedom of speech vs prudent realism.

There is an alternative....it may sound odd but I've seen ancient art depicting Mohamad (it does exist in Islamic art history) and he is depicted in scenes but with his face blank....ie no features....sort of like pixelating out a face on TV to hide an identity.

The cartoons could be reproduced but have his face "pixelated out". This shows the full import of the cartoon, but hides the "identity" of the subject thus not defying Islamic tradition of having Mohamad's image.

I disagree. This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more. Turn the tables and think about all the insults that fanatics have offered the west. What kind of poeple would we be to offer violence in return. Walk up to a random Muslim and beat the heck of out him just because some nut said something insulting to western nations.

No, I don't think so. Let the cartoons be published and any who offer violence can face the court of law. America has lost alot of face in the last few years but I know what we should and can be and living in fear while we give up our rights to be free is not one of them. I no longer want to see Americans hide the heads in the sand or be ashamed of our freedoms. I also don't believe in blind nationalism, the opposite of what I just said, that is what got us into this whole loosing face business.

Free speech vs prudent realism. Rights vs life.

There's two arguments for acting prudently in this case.

To do something that you have a right to do, but has a negative consequence (possibly a dramatic negative consequence) for yourself and your fellow countrymen/family members, seems like a right that would be prudent to forego. What price do you pay on a matter of principle? Especially when excersising that principle has little or no benefit to your family and countrymen.

To say "do it and let anyone who reacts violently face a court of law" is putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Far more prudent to fence off the top of the cliff.

To do something that you have a right to do but insults other people, seems like an unthinking and selfish right. Surely your rights carry responsibilities? Especially when you can excersise your right in an alternative way that does not insult anyone.

Pedestrians have the right of way at a zebra crossing. What do you think of the pedestrian who walks quickly to the crossing, then slows right down to cross knowing that he has the power over the waiting motorists because it is his RIGHT. He could have walked at a normal pace to the crossing, and across the crossing, with minimal impact on the motorists....but he had the right to walk as slowly as possible, so he did. Perhaps he got his jollies from that "power".

Utilising your rights "just because you can" is childish if it impacts on others unnecessarily.

What will students lose or miss out on if the cartoons are not published?

What vital information is lost if the caricatured eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, and wrinkles are missing from these particular cartoons? The message the cartoons convey, and the message that the publishers would convey in their book do not rely on those details and removing those details would pacify and prevent insult....so why not?

Just because you can?

This is a weak agruement. Gay pride parades offend let's shove them back in the closet because the poeple they offend might not behave themselves.

You are suggesting that just because there might be violence done that free speech should be ignored. That cuts out a massive amout of social commentary from centuries of civilization. All the protests that have led to change like Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington....oh he should have stayed home, there could have been violence. Martin Luther's 99 Thesis, shouldn't have nailed it the door, violence could come about.

Childish? Freedome of the press, childish? Freedom of academic research, childish? No wonder freedoms in the west disappear so quickly, everyone is fearful og casue offensive which would give someoen else the right to be childish and be violent.

Classic! It's not the criminal's fault the publsiher was asking for it.

This is a weak agruement. Gay pride parades offend let's shove them back in the closet because the poeple they offend might not behave themselves.

You are suggesting that just because there might be violence done that free speech should be ignored. That cuts out a massive amout of social commentary from centuries of civilization. All the protests that have led to change like Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington....oh he should have stayed home, there could have been violence. Martin Luther's 99 Thesis, shouldn't have nailed it the door, violence could come about.

Childish? Freedome of the press, childish? Freedom of academic research, childish? No wonder freedoms in the west disappear so quickly, everyone is fearful og casue offensive which would give someoen else the right to be childish and be violent.

Classic! It's not the criminal's fault the publsiher was asking for it.

You've misread or misquoted me.

"Utilising your rights "just because you can" is childish if it impacts on others unnecessarily."

Excersising your right to free speech for a reason is fine. Doing it just because you can, and it has a negative impact on others, is childish....or antagonistic....or unlawful....and is not what the founding fathers of the American Constitution intended, I'm sure.

Are you contending that I can stand on a soap box in the park and shout out a diatribe against niggers and jews? Shout out Holocaust denying statements? Is that what free speech allows? Or are there some limitations to freedom of speech....if so, what are they and why?

This is a weak agruement. Gay pride parades offend let's shove them back in the closet because the poeple they offend might not behave themselves.

You are suggesting that just because there might be violence done that free speech should be ignored. That cuts out a massive amout of social commentary from centuries of civilization. All the protests that have led to change like Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington....oh he should have stayed home, there could have been violence. Martin Luther's 99 Thesis, shouldn't have nailed it the door, violence could come about.

Childish? Freedome of the press, childish? Freedom of academic research, childish? No wonder freedoms in the west disappear so quickly, everyone is fearful og casue offensive which would give someoen else the right to be childish and be violent.

Classic! It's not the criminal's fault the publsiher was asking for it.

You've misread or misquoted me.

"Utilising your rights "just because you can" is childish if it impacts on others unnecessarily."

Excersising your right to free speech for a reason is fine. Doing it just because you can, and it has a negative impact on others, is childish....or antagonistic....or unlawful....and is not what the founding fathers of the American Constitution intended, I'm sure.

Are you contending that I can stand on a soap box in the park and shout out a diatribe against niggers and jews? Shout out Holocaust denying statements? Is that what free speech allows? Or are there some limitations to freedom of speech....if so, what are they and why?

That is exactly what I am saying. The KKK and neo-Nazi groups have rallies all over America, in public, where that state their twisted beliefs. The police are there to make sure that these sick groups have their freedom of speech rights protected. If someone throws a punch at them the police will arrest this person for assault. Black Panathers, the black verison of Nazia gets the same treatment. They can call white people devils and all sorts of horrible things and if someone attacks them for it they will be arrested for assault. These groups such have to make sure that they inform the police that they are holding the rally in the first place, os that their behavior isn't viewed as disturbing the peasce.

I know many Americans who hate such groups, but will say in the same breath that these groups should also have to the right to say what they believe for if one group is forced into silence what is to stop it happening to others? It's freedom of speech for all or only the select few and if it's the select few then who decides? There are Muslim hate speeches that take place on American soil and our police have the job of making sure their rallies are not disturbed as well. I may hate your opinion but I will defend your right to voice it?

This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more.

try your freedom of speech in Thailand by ridiculing publicly Lord Buddha and/or Buddhism. then report back with the result or call us from that hospital ward where you suck liquid food through a straw after they plastered up your broken bones and you regained consciousness.

we will visit you and mix some good ol' Scotch (or whatever your choice is) in your food.

i am not in Thailand, I am in America, where I believe free speech is still a common thing.

i see. that must be the logical reason why you selected the handle "Thaibebop"

This is a weak agruement. Gay pride parades offend let's shove them back in the closet because the poeple they offend might not behave themselves.

You are suggesting that just because there might be violence done that free speech should be ignored. That cuts out a massive amout of social commentary from centuries of civilization. All the protests that have led to change like Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington....oh he should have stayed home, there could have been violence. Martin Luther's 99 Thesis, shouldn't have nailed it the door, violence could come about.

Childish? Freedome of the press, childish? Freedom of academic research, childish? No wonder freedoms in the west disappear so quickly, everyone is fearful og casue offensive which would give someoen else the right to be childish and be violent.

Classic! It's not the criminal's fault the publsiher was asking for it.

You've misread or misquoted me.

"Utilising your rights "just because you can" is childish if it impacts on others unnecessarily."

Excersising your right to free speech for a reason is fine. Doing it just because you can, and it has a negative impact on others, is childish....or antagonistic....or unlawful....and is not what the founding fathers of the American Constitution intended, I'm sure.

Are you contending that I can stand on a soap box in the park and shout out a diatribe against niggers and jews? Shout out Holocaust denying statements? Is that what free speech allows? Or are there some limitations to freedom of speech....if so, what are they and why?

That is exactly what I am saying. The KKK and neo-Nazi groups have rallies all over America, in public, where that state their twisted beliefs. The police are there to make sure that these sick groups have their freedom of speech rights protected. If someone throws a punch at them the police will arrest this person for assault. Black Panathers, the black verison of Nazia gets the same treatment. They can call white people devils and all sorts of horrible things and if someone attacks them for it they will be arrested for assault. These groups such have to make sure that they inform the police that they are holding the rally in the first place, os that their behavior isn't viewed as disturbing the peasce.

I know many Americans who hate such groups, but will say in the same breath that these groups should also have to the right to say what they believe for if one group is forced into silence what is to stop it happening to others? It's freedom of speech for all or only the select few and if it's the select few then who decides? There are Muslim hate speeches that take place on American soil and our police have the job of making sure their rallies are not disturbed as well. I may hate your opinion but I will defend your right to voice it?

The KKK are excersising their right because they supposedly believe what they are saying and they want to "spread the word". This is different from saying something unnecessary and antagonistic purely because you can. Deliberate antagonism, saying something purely for the thrill of seeing others angered or offended is not what freedom of speech is about. This is why publicly voicing obscenities is not protected by the freedom of speech conditions.

While I'm standing on my soapbox extolling the evils of Jews and niggers, do you think that policeman protecting me will continue to protect me if I call a heckler a motherfuxxing cocksxxer? Or will he arrest me on a valid charge that I will NOT be able to defend with the freedom of speech clause? I would be arrested for speaking words!! Why?

Getting back to the cartoons.....the acedemics that decided to self-censor are well aware of their right to freedom of speech. They made a decision that is more in line with what freedom of speech is about at it's roots, ie to consider the impact in the bigger picture. With rights come responsibilities.......this is what it all comes down to.

People get very excited and animated when it comes to the subject of protecting their rights. People forget that rights are given to them, and carry responsibilities.

Rights are given by man, and can be taken away by man.....as the right to walk the streets is taken away from a foul-mouthed obscenity-shouting public speaker when he is arrested.

This is freedom of speech, if I don't like what is said and my response to this is violence than I am a two year old with a man's body, nothing more.

try your freedom of speech in Thailand by ridiculing publicly Lord Buddha and/or Buddhism. then report back with the result or call us from that hospital ward where you suck liquid food through a straw after they plastered up your broken bones and you regained consciousness.

we will visit you and mix some good ol' Scotch (or whatever your choice is) in your food.

i am not in Thailand, I am in America, where I believe free speech is still a common thing.

i see. that must be the logical reason why you selected the handle "Thaibebop"

No, I like Thai music....you trying to have go?

The KKK are excersising their right because they supposedly believe what they are saying and they want to "spread the word". This is different from saying something unnecessary and antagonistic purely because you can. Deliberate antagonism, saying something purely for the thrill of seeing others angered or offended is not what freedom of speech is about. This is why publicly voicing obscenities is not protected by the freedom of speech conditions.

While I'm standing on my soapbox extolling the evils of Jews and niggers, do you think that policeman protecting me will continue to protect me if I call a heckler a motherfuxxing cocksxxer? Or will he arrest me on a valid charge that I will NOT be able to defend with the freedom of speech clause? I would be arrested for speaking words!! Why?

Getting back to the cartoons.....the acedemics that decided to self-censor are well aware of their right to freedom of speech. They made a decision that is more in line with what freedom of speech is about at it's roots, ie to consider the impact in the bigger picture. With rights come responsibilities.......this is what it all comes down to.

People get very excited and animated when it comes to the subject of protecting their rights. People forget that rights are given to them, and carry responsibilities.

Rights are given by man, and can be taken away by man.....as the right to walk the streets is taken away from a foul-mouthed obscenity-shouting public speaker when he is arrested.

You can't be arrested for saying words, at least not in America. Micheal Richards is proof enough for calling someone nigger from on stage, never saw jail time. Now, person can be sued for defamation of character or libel but that doesn't include jail time. Yes, there are responsibilities with rigths, which is why you can't yell "FIRE" when there isn't one.

Why does it matter why a person is excercising their rights. You think just because they believe what they say it's okay? Your post before didn't seem to suggest this saying that calling someone a nigger isn't free speech, well what if you believe that they are? According to this post as long as you believe that they are it's covered under freedom of speech. Refering to others as inferior beings, more like animals than humans, part of the KKK message that they believe in according to you isn't antagonistic? It is allowed because they believe it? There are Muslims who believe the west is all infidels deserving of death, they threaten to burn us and kill us, chop our heads off, but this isn't, according to you, antagonistic and covered under freedom of speech because this in what they believe, it's part of their message they are trying to spread. However, the author of the book which only talks about examples of cartoons that shook the world up shouldn't excercise thier freedom of speech, because of cartoon featured in the book, not of the authors making, you would consider antagonictic and only trying to insualt and start trouble?

Now, rights are given by man and can be taken away.......by man. Really? Have you ever read any Locke, I recommend him, really. My right to speak freely is given by man? My right to earn a living, feed my family, protect them is given by man? My right to have a say in my government is given by man? Who then, a king? Is their some upper class title holding ninnies who know better than me what I need and want and therefore know what rights I should and shouldn't have? Do you work for the PRC by the way?

This is not the foundation of free society you are speaking of. This is monarchy or oligarchy even communism at best. Just becasue someone says something you don't like doesn't give you the "right" to act violently. You seem to be suggesting that if this cartoon was published in the book and violence happened because it, then those that were apart of the violence were within their rights, yes? The more "responsible" course of action for those offended would be to make use of their "right" to free speech to speak out against it, wouldn't you think? Violence isn't such a "responsible" action, yeah? I twists my mind all up that you are telling me that it would be irresponsible to publish the cartoon but not condemn violence as irresponsible. I guess Auckland is just too much of a different place for me to understand.

I gotta side with Bops, here. At least America still has some rights her people still hold dearly and are not willing to relinquish, and for good reason. Good on you, Bops.

Give people an inch and they will take a mile (or give people a centimeter and they'll take a kilo, for all you metric users ). That's my argument in a nutshell in support of Bops. Not a tough concept to work through.

I gotta side with Bops, here. At least America still has some rights her people still hold dearly and are not willing to relinquish, and for good reason. Good on you, Bops.

Give people an inch and they will take a mile (or give people a centimeter and they'll take a kilo, for all you metric users ). That's my argument in a nutshell in support of Bops. Not a tough concept to work through.

I concur.

Thanks guys. I really do understand what Harcourt is trying to agrue. Violence is never a good thing, but I believe that the individual is responsible for their actions, there is no "the devil made me do it" in my view of the world. So, it stands to reason that the individual be held accountable for their actions regardless of why they took that action in the first place.

In the end I wish that no disagrement or misunderstand ended in violence. It is a day I pray for.

You can't be arrested for saying words, at least not in America. Micheal Richards is proof enough for calling someone nigger from on stage, never saw jail time. Now, person can be sued for defamation of character or libel but that doesn't include jail time. Yes, there are responsibilities with rigths, which is why you can't yell "FIRE" when there isn't one.

Why does it matter why a person is excercising their rights. You think just because they believe what they say it's okay? Your post before didn't seem to suggest this saying that calling someone a nigger isn't free speech, well what if you believe that they are? According to this post as long as you believe that they are it's covered under freedom of speech. Refering to others as inferior beings, more like animals than humans, part of the KKK message that they believe in according to you isn't antagonistic? It is allowed because they believe it? There are Muslims who believe the west is all infidels deserving of death, they threaten to burn us and kill us, chop our heads off, but this isn't, according to you, antagonistic and covered under freedom of speech because this in what they believe, it's part of their message they are trying to spread. However, the author of the book which only talks about examples of cartoons that shook the world up shouldn't excercise thier freedom of speech, because of cartoon featured in the book, not of the authors making, you would consider antagonictic and only trying to insualt and start trouble?

Now, rights are given by man and can be taken away.......by man. Really? Have you ever read any Locke, I recommend him, really. My right to speak freely is given by man? My right to earn a living, feed my family, protect them is given by man? My right to have a say in my government is given by man? Who then, a king? Is their some upper class title holding ninnies who know better than me what I need and want and therefore know what rights I should and shouldn't have? Do you work for the PRC by the way?

This is not the foundation of free society you are speaking of. This is monarchy or oligarchy even communism at best. Just becasue someone says something you don't like doesn't give you the "right" to act violently. You seem to be suggesting that if this cartoon was published in the book and violence happened because it, then those that were apart of the violence were within their rights, yes? The more "responsible" course of action for those offended would be to make use of their "right" to free speech to speak out against it, wouldn't you think? Violence isn't such a "responsible" action, yeah? I twists my mind all up that you are telling me that it would be irresponsible to publish the cartoon but not condemn violence as irresponsible. I guess Auckland is just too much of a different place for me to understand.

I'm not saying this at all.

Obscene language or pictures are not an offense in law in America? I think they are. Ever tried swearing at a cop or in front of a cop? Can a picture of Janet Jackson's nipple be shown on TV? Why not? Because it will offend some viewers! Can pornography be laid out in full view alongside the fishing magazines in a shop?

Of course the KKK are offensive. Does "jail time" distinguish what is right and what is wrong? If you think so, then I will need to re-think how I express feelings on this topic.

I may have been wrong in distinguishing a belief in a subject as grounds to voice it. Not "may have been"....was. I concede that. However I still maintain that doing something that antagonises, for no other reason than because it is your right to do so, is wrong albeit legal. Antagonising for the sake of antagonising. What's the point of it? Offending, hurting, impacting negatively on someone just because you are allowed to, or have the ability to......verges on some sort of sadism, and is certainly narcissistic and anti-social.

It's not some monarch that deemed your rights, it's your society. Some monarch may well have designed the rights of others. That is why your society protects your "rights". Your right or ability to have a say in your government is given to you by society, by that government.....just look at the rights of the Burmese: they don't have the same rights as you because men didn't give them those rights.

In nature, it is survival of the fittest, and no animal in the wild kingdom has any "rights" except those that have been devised by man to protect them from man. In human society, it is whatever system that society has created, including the ethics, morals, laws, and "rights" of that society....this is why different cultures have different laws and "rights".

Of course rights are a man made concept and a man-managed ideal.

Don't confuse your "right" to do something with your "ability" to do it. Your abilities are certainly "God given" (for want of a better expression....you know what I mean), but your "rights" are layed down in ink on paper.

If publishing images of Mohamad will lead, rightly or wrongly, to bloodshed, and if not publishing them hurts nobody, what is the prudent option? What is the option with the higher moral standing?

You say publish them anyway because it is a "right" as written in law or the constitution, and that this particular "right" is somehow threatened by taking a prudent path.....so it's a matter of principle to you to do it.

I'm a great believer in acting on principle. Sometimes, though, reality bites and I need to concede.....like when I got a traffic ticket that I didn't deserve.....it would have been FAR cheaper in the long run, in terms of money and my time just to have paid the fine....but silly me took the matter to heart and defended the charge....all for a matter of principle. Silly me. Not prudent nor wise......BUT, I stood on my principle!!!! Yay for me, what a hero . (Which one is the sarcastic emoticon?). I should have been practical and conceeded.

I expect that some redneck "patriots" would condemn the self-censorship of the publishers, not because of any freedom of expression principles but because it involves revving up the "ragheads".

Does it matter what their motive is if they argue against this nixing of the pictures?

I'm not hinting that anyone here is a redneck....just curious as to what is a good motive for wanting these cartoons published.

You can't be arrested for saying words, at least not in America. Micheal Richards is proof enough for calling someone nigger from on stage, never saw jail time. Now, person can be sued for defamation of character or libel but that doesn't include jail time. Yes, there are responsibilities with rigths, which is why you can't yell "FIRE" when there isn't one.

Why does it matter why a person is excercising their rights. You think just because they believe what they say it's okay? Your post before didn't seem to suggest this saying that calling someone a nigger isn't free speech, well what if you believe that they are? According to this post as long as you believe that they are it's covered under freedom of speech. Refering to others as inferior beings, more like animals than humans, part of the KKK message that they believe in according to you isn't antagonistic? It is allowed because they believe it? There are Muslims who believe the west is all infidels deserving of death, they threaten to burn us and kill us, chop our heads off, but this isn't, according to you, antagonistic and covered under freedom of speech because this in what they believe, it's part of their message they are trying to spread. However, the author of the book which only talks about examples of cartoons that shook the world up shouldn't excercise thier freedom of speech, because of cartoon featured in the book, not of the authors making, you would consider antagonictic and only trying to insualt and start trouble?

Now, rights are given by man and can be taken away.......by man. Really? Have you ever read any Locke, I recommend him, really. My right to speak freely is given by man? My right to earn a living, feed my family, protect them is given by man? My right to have a say in my government is given by man? Who then, a king? Is their some upper class title holding ninnies who know better than me what I need and want and therefore know what rights I should and shouldn't have? Do you work for the PRC by the way?

This is not the foundation of free society you are speaking of. This is monarchy or oligarchy even communism at best. Just becasue someone says something you don't like doesn't give you the "right" to act violently. You seem to be suggesting that if this cartoon was published in the book and violence happened because it, then those that were apart of the violence were within their rights, yes? The more "responsible" course of action for those offended would be to make use of their "right" to free speech to speak out against it, wouldn't you think? Violence isn't such a "responsible" action, yeah? I twists my mind all up that you are telling me that it would be irresponsible to publish the cartoon but not condemn violence as irresponsible. I guess Auckland is just too much of a different place for me to understand.

I'm not saying this at all.

Obscene language or pictures are not an offense in law in America? I think they are. Ever tried swearing at a cop or in front of a cop? Can a picture of Janet Jackson's nipple be shown on TV? Why not? Because it will offend some viewers! Can pornography be laid out in full view alongside the fishing magazines in a shop?

Of course the KKK are offensive. Does "jail time" distinguish what is right and what is wrong? If you think so, then I will need to re-think how I express feelings on this topic.

I may have been wrong in distinguishing a belief in a subject as grounds to voice it. Not "may have been"....was. I concede that. However I still maintain that doing something that antagonises, for no other reason than because it is your right to do so, is wrong albeit legal. Antagonising for the sake of antagonising. What's the point of it? Offending, hurting, impacting negatively on someone just because you are allowed to, or have the ability to......verges on some sort of sadism, and is certainly narcissistic and anti-social.

It's not some monarch that deemed your rights, it's your society. Some monarch may well have designed the rights of others. That is why your society protects your "rights". Your right or ability to have a say in your government is given to you by society, by that government.....just look at the rights of the Burmese: they don't have the same rights as you because men didn't give them those rights.

In nature, it is survival of the fittest, and no animal in the wild kingdom has any "rights" except those that have been devised by man to protect them from man. In human society, it is whatever system that society has created, including the ethics, morals, laws, and "rights" of that society....this is why different cultures have different laws and "rights".

Of course rights are a man made concept and a man-managed ideal.

Don't confuse your "right" to do something with your "ability" to do it. Your abilities are certainly "God given" (for want of a better expression....you know what I mean), but your "rights" are layed down in ink on paper.

If publishing images of Mohamad will lead, rightly or wrongly, to bloodshed, and if not publishing them hurts nobody, what is the prudent option? What is the option with the higher moral standing?

You say publish them anyway because it is a "right" as written in law or the constitution, and that this particular "right" is somehow threatened by taking a prudent path.....so it's a matter of principle to you to do it.

I'm a great believer in acting on principle. Sometimes, though, reality bites and I need to concede.....like when I got a traffic ticket that I didn't deserve.....it would have been FAR cheaper in the long run, in terms of money and my time just to have paid the fine....but silly me took the matter to heart and defended the charge....all for a matter of principle. Silly me. Not prudent nor wise......BUT, I stood on my principle!!!! Yay for me, what a hero . (Which one is the sarcastic emoticon?). I should have been practical and conceeded.

I expect that some redneck "patriots" would condemn the self-censorship of the publishers, not because of any freedom of expression principles but because it involves revving up the "ragheads".

Does it matter what their motive is if they argue against this nixing of the pictures?

I'm not hinting that anyone here is a redneck....just curious as to what is a good motive for wanting these cartoons published.

I really do agree with you here on a lot of points. I don't like people being offensive just to be offensive, I think it's in poor taste, but that is the decision of the individual and we can't punish people, by law any way for poor taste. Some company once upon a time made a Jesus dildo, offensive, disgusting and in every poor taste, yet there was no violence as a resault of this and know making the dildo saw jail time.

So, I think the picture being published is a bit more than just being offensive to be offensive. This is really about free speech, which in America still stands. No, I would not recommend publishing this book in Iran, a country with different laws and norms, that might be offensive just to be offensive, but the book was to be published in America were that would not be the case. So, the fear here was directed at American Muslims, who people were thinking might become violent over the picture. Well, they are in America and our scoiety has decided these laws and those are the ones the nation will be going by. So, any one rioting over this would be directly attacking American laws and norms. Which is why I defend the publication. I think it would be stupid to want to publish this in a Muslim country within their laws and norms, but that is not what was being done.

Our government needs to be a secular government, we have a problem with this already, bowing one too many times to Christian demands, we really don't need to start giving in to Muslim demands as well. Plus, as I pointed out this fear had ot focused on American Muslims. Where is the trust I ask? These folks are Americans, some born and rasied here. Why can't we show this population of citizens a little trust that they can and will uphold American values? This image of the crazy Muslim is BS. Yes, there are issues but the population of Muslims on this planet are not looking for chances to be violent. This fear over what they might do is just sad.

Oh yeah, your story about the ticket.....I went through the same thing. Got a ticket and knew I didn't deserve it, so I went to court, by myself,no lawyer and defended my claim. I won, didn't pay a dime. Standing up even when it seems stupid sometimes pays off.

Cheers!

If the decision to publish the cartoons or not is swayed by threat of violence then where do the concessions end? Claiming prudence is the easy way out. Rather than put yourself at risk of negative consequence prudence dictates avoidance. We're all guilty of failing to stand up for our rights over one issue or another for the sake of avoiding confrontation and deleterious effects to ourselves. Prudence? Yes. Do we then see the beginnings of an erosion of our rights? Yes.

It must be remembered, too, that Americans shed quite some blood during the American Revolution over rights denied them by their government at the time, England. After 200+ years that sentiment is still strongly felt. Granted, though, greatly subdued. Think Patriot Act. Since you live in New Zealand, Harcourt, you have not witnessed first hand the continuing, and accelerating, erosion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. That erosion begins with the seemingly harmless acquiescence of a single right at a time. America is now faced with a very serious dilemma where the scale of erosion is at a tipping point. Even presidents themselves, sworn into office to uphold and defend the Constitution, no longer defend it and use the flimsiest of reasons as justification to ignore it.

In my mind there is this distinction between freedom and rights: While we are free to choose as we please we are all well aware that some choices that we are free to make can have harmful effects on others and ourselves. Hence the adage, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." As a society develops and learns from the results of it's individual and collective choices it begins to categorically formulate value judgments - which actions are "good" and which are "bad." And thus the concept of rights is born. If an action is deemed to produce "bad" results then it is said that it is "not right" to take that action. And those in power will then deny that action claiming one no longer has that course of action available as a "right." You still possess the freedom to choose but are now faced with societal consequences.

Where the trouble begins, as I see it, is as individuals we all conclude our own value judgments as to what is "right" and what is "wrong." Wrong for you may be right for me, and vice versa. The definition of right and wrong varies amongst us, and I believe is defined solely in accordance to what we feel is beneficial and pleasing to us and what is not. In my opinion, this is the birth of the concepts of "good" and "bad." If it benefits, or pleases me then it's "good," if not then it's "bad." And since two people cannot agree conclusively as to what is good and what is bad, let alone billions of people, then it appears someone has to decide and make the rules for all. Usually those decisions are left to the ones we grant with power "over us."

If others begin to assert their rights and beliefs over ours then we have the option to resist. Or not. I believe in resisting. Otherwise . . . give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.

Was this comment helpful? If not, please provide suggestions. Thank you.

Some company once upon a time made a Jesus dildo, offensive, disgusting and in every poor taste, yet there was no violence as a resault of this and know making the dildo saw jail time.

Christians have got used to living in secular societies where such things as freedom of speech are held very highly. Most Muslims still do not, I think many would answer you that to them, religious taboos are more important. Maybe with time?

Some company once upon a time made a Jesus dildo, offensive, disgusting and in every poor taste, yet there was no violence as a resault of this and know making the dildo saw jail time.

Christians have got used to living in secular societies where such things as freedom of speech are held very highly. Most Muslims still do not, I think many would answer you that to them, religious taboos are more important. Maybe with time?

That's why I think not publishing them can also be considered an insult to Muslims in America. Not all who claim that religion here are new. There are Mosques in the area I live in that have been here for decades. These poeple are American too and should be treated as such.

Also, America has it's Christian fringe groups. Just look at that shooting this year of the aboration doctor, in his church no less. Phelps nuts who protest at military funerals saying that the dead got what they deserved because is punishing us for accpecting gays. So, I was surprised when bomb threats didn't show up at that companies door. I do see what you are saying though.

If the decision to publish the cartoons or not is swayed by threat of violence then where do the concessions end? Claiming prudence is the easy way out. Rather than put yourself at risk of negative consequence prudence dictates avoidance. We're all guilty of failing to stand up for our rights over one issue or another for the sake of avoiding confrontation and deleterious effects to ourselves. Prudence? Yes. Do we then see the beginnings of an erosion of our rights? Yes.

It must be remembered, too, that Americans shed quite some blood during the American Revolution over rights denied them by their government at the time, England. After 200+ years that sentiment is still strongly felt. Granted, though, greatly subdued. Think Patriot Act. Since you live in New Zealand, Harcourt, you have not witnessed first hand the continuing, and accelerating, erosion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. That erosion begins with the seemingly harmless acquiescence of a single right at a time. America is now faced with a very serious dilemma where the scale of erosion is at a tipping point. Even presidents themselves, sworn into office to uphold and defend the Constitution, no longer defend it and use the flimsiest of reasons as justification to ignore it.

In my mind there is this distinction between freedom and rights: While we are free to choose as we please we are all well aware that some choices that we are free to make can have harmful effects on others and ourselves. Hence the adage, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." As a society develops and learns from the results of it's individual and collective choices it begins to categorically formulate value judgments - which actions are "good" and which are "bad." And thus the concept of rights is born. If an action is deemed to produce "bad" results then it is said that it is "not right" to take that action. And those in power will then deny that action claiming one no longer has that course of action available as a "right." You still possess the freedom to choose but are now faced with societal consequences.

Where the trouble begins, as I see it, is as individuals we all conclude our own value judgments as to what is "right" and what is "wrong." Wrong for you may be right for me, and vice versa. The definition of right and wrong varies amongst us, and I believe is defined solely in accordance to what we feel is beneficial and pleasing to us and what is not. In my opinion, this is the birth of the concepts of "good" and "bad." If it benefits, or pleases me then it's "good," if not then it's "bad." And since two people cannot agree conclusively as to what is good and what is bad, let alone billions of people, then it appears someone has to decide and make the rules for all. Usually those decisions are left to the ones we grant with power "over us."

If others begin to assert their rights and beliefs over ours then we have the option to resist. Or not. I believe in resisting. Otherwise . . . give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.

Was this comment helpful? If not, please provide suggestions. Thank you.

Nicely put. I seem to be stumbling over my posts, but this one flowed very well.

Cheers!

You can't be arrested for saying words, at least not in America. Micheal Richards is proof enough for calling someone nigger from on stage, never saw jail time. Now, person can be sued for defamation of character or libel but that doesn't include jail time. Yes, there are responsibilities with rigths, which is why you can't yell "FIRE" when there isn't one.

Why does it matter why a person is excercising their rights. You think just because they believe what they say it's okay? Your post before didn't seem to suggest this saying that calling someone a nigger isn't free speech, well what if you believe that they are? According to this post as long as you believe that they are it's covered under freedom of speech. Refering to others as inferior beings, more like animals than humans, part of the KKK message that they believe in according to you isn't antagonistic? It is allowed because they believe it? There are Muslims who believe the west is all infidels deserving of death, they threaten to burn us and kill us, chop our heads off, but this isn't, according to you, antagonistic and covered under freedom of speech because this in what they believe, it's part of their message they are trying to spread. However, the author of the book which only talks about examples of cartoons that shook the world up shouldn't excercise thier freedom of speech, because of cartoon featured in the book, not of the authors making, you would consider antagonictic and only trying to insualt and start trouble?

Now, rights are given by man and can be taken away.......by man. Really? Have you ever read any Locke, I recommend him, really. My right to speak freely is given by man? My right to earn a living, feed my family, protect them is given by man? My right to have a say in my government is given by man? Who then, a king? Is their some upper class title holding ninnies who know better than me what I need and want and therefore know what rights I should and shouldn't have? Do you work for the PRC by the way?

This is not the foundation of free society you are speaking of. This is monarchy or oligarchy even communism at best. Just becasue someone says something you don't like doesn't give you the "right" to act violently. You seem to be suggesting that if this cartoon was published in the book and violence happened because it, then those that were apart of the violence were within their rights, yes? The more "responsible" course of action for those offended would be to make use of their "right" to free speech to speak out against it, wouldn't you think? Violence isn't such a "responsible" action, yeah? I twists my mind all up that you are telling me that it would be irresponsible to publish the cartoon but not condemn violence as irresponsible. I guess Auckland is just too much of a different place for me to understand.

I'm not saying this at all.

Obscene language or pictures are not an offense in law in America? I think they are. Ever tried swearing at a cop or in front of a cop? Can a picture of Janet Jackson's nipple be shown on TV? Why not? Because it will offend some viewers! Can pornography be laid out in full view alongside the fishing magazines in a shop?

Of course the KKK are offensive. Does "jail time" distinguish what is right and what is wrong? If you think so, then I will need to re-think how I express feelings on this topic.

I may have been wrong in distinguishing a belief in a subject as grounds to voice it. Not "may have been"....was. I concede that. However I still maintain that doing something that antagonises, for no other reason than because it is your right to do so, is wrong albeit legal. Antagonising for the sake of antagonising. What's the point of it? Offending, hurting, impacting negatively on someone just because you are allowed to, or have the ability to......verges on some sort of sadism, and is certainly narcissistic and anti-social.

It's not some monarch that deemed your rights, it's your society. Some monarch may well have designed the rights of others. That is why your society protects your "rights". Your right or ability to have a say in your government is given to you by society, by that government.....just look at the rights of the Burmese: they don't have the same rights as you because men didn't give them those rights.

In nature, it is survival of the fittest, and no animal in the wild kingdom has any "rights" except those that have been devised by man to protect them from man. In human society, it is whatever system that society has created, including the ethics, morals, laws, and "rights" of that society....this is why different cultures have different laws and "rights".

Of course rights are a man made concept and a man-managed ideal.

Don't confuse your "right" to do something with your "ability" to do it. Your abilities are certainly "God given" (for want of a better expression....you know what I mean), but your "rights" are layed down in ink on paper.

If publishing images of Mohamad will lead, rightly or wrongly, to bloodshed, and if not publishing them hurts nobody, what is the prudent option? What is the option with the higher moral standing?

You say publish them anyway because it is a "right" as written in law or the constitution, and that this particular "right" is somehow threatened by taking a prudent path.....so it's a matter of principle to you to do it.

I'm a great believer in acting on principle. Sometimes, though, reality bites and I need to concede.....like when I got a traffic ticket that I didn't deserve.....it would have been FAR cheaper in the long run, in terms of money and my time just to have paid the fine....but silly me took the matter to heart and defended the charge....all for a matter of principle. Silly me. Not prudent nor wise......BUT, I stood on my principle!!!! Yay for me, what a hero . (Which one is the sarcastic emoticon?). I should have been practical and conceeded.

I expect that some redneck "patriots" would condemn the self-censorship of the publishers, not because of any freedom of expression principles but because it involves revving up the "ragheads".

Does it matter what their motive is if they argue against this nixing of the pictures?

I'm not hinting that anyone here is a redneck....just curious as to what is a good motive for wanting these cartoons published.

I really do agree with you here on a lot of points. I don't like people being offensive just to be offensive, I think it's in poor taste, but that is the decision of the individual and we can't punish people, by law any way for poor taste. Some company once upon a time made a Jesus dildo, offensive, disgusting and in every poor taste, yet there was no violence as a resault of this and know making the dildo saw jail time.

So, I think the picture being published is a bit more than just being offensive to be offensive. This is really about free speech, which in America still stands. No, I would not recommend publishing this book in Iran, a country with different laws and norms, that might be offensive just to be offensive, but the book was to be published in America were that would not be the case. So, the fear here was directed at American Muslims, who people were thinking might become violent over the picture. Well, they are in America and our scoiety has decided these laws and those are the ones the nation will be going by. So, any one rioting over this would be directly attacking American laws and norms. Which is why I defend the publication. I think it would be stupid to want to publish this in a Muslim country within their laws and norms, but that is not what was being done.

Our government needs to be a secular government, we have a problem with this already, bowing one too many times to Christian demands, we really don't need to start giving in to Muslim demands as well. Plus, as I pointed out this fear had ot focused on American Muslims. Where is the trust I ask? These folks are Americans, some born and rasied here. Why can't we show this population of citizens a little trust that they can and will uphold American values? This image of the crazy Muslim is BS. Yes, there are issues but the population of Muslims on this planet are not looking for chances to be violent. This fear over what they might do is just sad.

Oh yeah, your story about the ticket.....I went through the same thing. Got a ticket and knew I didn't deserve it, so I went to court, by myself,no lawyer and defended my claim. I won, didn't pay a dime. Standing up even when it seems stupid sometimes pays off.

Cheers!

Yeah, I defended myself too. I lost. (And I could still argue my case, but I was outgunned, not wrong. )

It paid off in that I retained my pride, but for all practical purposes, I lost out more, monetarily, by not bowing to reality in the first instance.

In saying that, I realise what this is about....values. As "beauty is in the eye.....", the values one holds is an individual thing too. Some people worship a god, some people hold the mighty dollar as paramount, some love family above all else.....etc. We all prioritise.

By definition, what is important to me may not be important to you.

These priorities are dynamic emotions and will change with time/circumstances.

@ what I've put in blue..... I empathise completely.

I read into that blue-highlighted paragraph that your overall arguments (which by and large I'm empathetic with) are not so much born of your desire to free speech, but a desire to lose no more rights.

As much as I empathise, I ask myself, is it fair to victimise "free speech" for ends that are actually about rights in general?

Harking back to my question about motives and do they matter?

Is the real threat of violence a higher priority than the real threat of another right put in jeopardy? Debateable, because I believe what I'm holding, but don't know for sure, but perhaps moot because it's all subjective. Highly dependant on personal values.

I don't know, guys. I don't know what the answer is. I don't have a high education or experience with debating intelligent people, so I don't have practiced eloquence.

Yeah, I defended myself too. I lost. (And I could still argue my case, but I was outgunned, not wrong. )

It paid off in that I retained my pride, but for all practical purposes, I lost out more, monetarily, by not bowing to reality in the first instance.

In saying that, I realise what this is about....values. As "beauty is in the eye.....", the values one holds is an individual thing too. Some people worship a god, some people hold the mighty dollar as paramount, some love family above all else.....etc. We all prioritise.

By definition, what is important to me may not be important to you.

These priorities are dynamic emotions and will change with time/circumstances.

@ what I've put in blue..... I empathise completely.

I read into that blue-highlighted paragraph that your overall arguments (which by and large I'm empathetic with) are not so much born of your desire to free speech, but a desire to lose no more rights.

As much as I empathise, I ask myself, is it fair to victimise "free speech" for ends that are actually about rights in general?

Harking back to my question about motives and do they matter?

Is the real threat of violence a higher priority than the real threat of another right put in jeopardy? Debateable, because I believe what I'm holding, but don't know for sure, but perhaps moot because it's all subjective. Highly dependant on personal values.

I don't know, guys. I don't know what the answer is. I don't have a high education or experience with debating intelligent people, so I don't have practiced eloquence.

High education matter little a lot of the times. I lost respect for the PhD gods when I went back to school and found how many I disagreed with and how defended positions of other reasons then the truth.

What we are both talking about here is an individuals right to choose, which I think we both feel is a power the poeple in the free world have? Even of Yale didn't want to publish the cartoon the prof can take it to court or blast Yale if he wanted to and therefore free speech is still in effect. We always agree that free speech is not abusive speech, which is why we can all be thankful Serena Williams wasn't trying to get a book with offensive cartoons published at Yale.

I gotta side with Bops, here. At least America still has some rights her people still hold dearly and are not willing to relinquish, and for good reason. Good on you, Bops.

Give people an inch and they will take a mile (or give people a centimeter and they'll take a kilo, for all you metric users ). That's my argument in a nutshell in support of Bops. Not a tough concept to work through.

I concur.

likewise. i find the topic fascinating because of its close relation to Thailand, its impact on expats in Thailand and especially Thai pop music

I gotta side with Bops, here. At least America still has some rights her people still hold dearly and are not willing to relinquish, and for good reason. Good on you, Bops.

Give people an inch and they will take a mile (or give people a centimeter and they'll take a kilo, for all you metric users ). That's my argument in a nutshell in support of Bops. Not a tough concept to work through.

I concur.

likewise. i find the topic fascinating because of its close relation to Thailand, its impact on expats in Thailand and especially Thai pop music

Well, what's your problem? I never thought you would turn troll. What, I can't have an opinion on this subject because of my name? An event happening in my country, concerning the laws of my country are out of bounds for me to speak on because it's not Thai related? Really, in Bedlam, in Outside The Box? You didn't seem to have a problem with my non-Thai related about the German langauge, or is it just threads that don't meet your approval? Well, let me take the time to go to all of your un-Thai related threads and show you the error of your ways.

I'm wondering where the ACLU is in this debate. Why aren't they filing legal action against the Yale Press to print the cartoons, as they did when the pictures of Abu Ghraib were in the headlines?

It seems a given that the release of those photos put many westerners under threat during the height of the lunacy over the pictures....myself included.

What's the difference betwseen then and now and why hasn't the ACLU come out on the side of freedom of the press?

I'm wondering where the ACLU is in this debate. Why aren't they filing legal action against the Yale Press to print the cartoons, as they did when the pictures of Abu Ghraib were in the headlines?

It seems a given that the release of those photos put many westerners under threat during the height of the lunacy over the pictures....myself included.

What's the difference betwseen then and now and why hasn't the ACLU come out on the side of freedom of the press?

I was wondering the same thing, but I have yet to see anything from them on this. I feel the ACLU has their plan and are not there for everybody as they say they are, only the cases that help them.