Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons

[Craig]

Interesting response in the cartoon wars:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

Quote:

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons From: Agence France-Presse From correspondents in Tehran February 07, 2006* IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality. He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression. "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said. Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated. Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel. Mr Mortazavi said tomorrow's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Last week, the Iranian foreign ministry also invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Teheran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Mr Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid". Mr Blair also said Mr Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators".

[Jay_Gatsby]

Let the Middle Eastern newspapers publish whatever they want. Like them, I'll have the right to be offended. What I will not have the right to do is destroy property, burn foreign embassies, firebomb cars, or kill people. That's the difference.

You want the respect of the international community? You need to earn it by acting like a responsible member of the international community.

[JPatrick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby Let the Middle Eastern newspapers publish whatever they want.* Like them, I'll have the right to be offended.* What I will not have the right to do is destroy property, burn foreign embassies, firebomb cars, or kill people.* That's the difference. You want the respect of the international community?* You need to earn it by acting like a responsible member of the international community.

Very well said gatsby.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I can clearly see the direct connection between the danish and the holocaust. :

Up until now i was onboard with the declaration that the muslim religion espouses peace and that the terrorist acts were just being committed by outliers.

[justin]

I like Iran's approach. Publish some distasteful (to Western audiences) cartoons. Exercise that free speech. Beats attacking embassies and chanting "death to Westerners".

The reaction by some Muslims are orchestrated and many Muslim Groups have decried their actions.

The cartoons lacked sensitivity, freedom of expression should not allow outright insults, but wanton destruction and acts of aggression should also not be tolerated.

Punch, a British satirical magazine, now out of print, would often print cartoon of Jews, or Blacks or Arabs, with such insensitivity that today we would all agree they should not have been allowed.

The reactions by certain groups in certain countries is wrong, but so was the cartooons, time to let things cool down, buy some Danish Cheese or a Nokia phone, and realise that freedom does have some limits.

[Marshac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard The reactions by certain groups in certain countries is wrong, but so was the cartooons, time to let things cool down, buy some Danish Cheese or a Nokia phone, and realise that freedom does have some limits.

Freedom of speech is not, and should not be limited simply because words may offend- indeed, this is they very essence of free speech. Sometimes however, the best way to exercise, and responsibly defend the idea of free speech is by choosing to remain silent.

[Craig]

Quote:

Punch, a British satirical magazine, now out of print, would often print cartoon of Jews, or Blacks or Arabs, with such insensitivity that today we would all agree they should not have been allowed.

With respect, I do not agree to any such thing ... and I believe you might have a problem even getting a majority to agree with that statement.* There is a practical challenge as well ... who is to make that call for you, and enforce such limitations?

I believe that for any society to function there must be boundaries and limits set that may infringe upon Individual freedoms but are deemed to benefit the majority.

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, he deemed it to be in societies best interest, George Bush has tapped your phones, same rationale.

Racist Cartoons, statements , that may make some people laugh but offend others are no longer acceptable.

Muslims have certain defined ideals, they will soon be a potent voting force in the US and Canada, boundaries that they deem necessary will be enacted.

Jews and Women were once denied entrance into Medical Schoool, Women and Blacks the vote, that has changed, so will the limits on expression that offends certain groups.

[Craig]

Howard, if you are an American, how do you get past that Constitutional problem?* Creative interpretations? If the 1st Amendment is not a problem for you, how about the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... ?

Lincoln's actions were during wartime, an exception, still debated and dangerous. Bush's are currently under debate, but an argument can be made for the same rationale as Lincoln. Both a far cry from limiting free speech simply because of offense.

[sgeeeee]

I'm sure if some newspaper published a picture of Jesus involved in some act that offended the fundamentalists, there would be irrational protests somewhere. *But I really have to scratch my head on this one. *The protestors seem to be saying, "How insulting that you portray us and our religious leaders as violent. *We're not violent. *Just for that we're going to burn your embassy."

[Rustic23]

It seems the the very essence of free speach is to defend ones right to offend. You vote against objectionable speach with your wallet not with your gun! There is a big difference between free speach and politicaly correct speach. I agree it is most likely a smart idea to publish things that insult a portion of your readers, however, in this company you have the right to be stupid. If you didn't I would really be in trouble sometimes!

Balance is necessary in any Society, offending just for the sake of Offending is cruel and intolerant.

The reaction of the so called Offended, and I have seen some of the reactionary cartoons, is as bad or worse, but do we really want to be compared to those howling mobs??

My concern is that we create some more whackos that go on a mission from Allah(as they perceive it), and somethimes it isn't smart to throw gasoline on the fire

Why do newspapers not print compromising cartoons of Martin Luther King, because they know what the results would be, so why is it OK to do the same thing to some other group??

Charles, I am not American, but I am aware of the Amendments, but they can also be interpreted to provide guidance.

The right to Bear Arms now has limitations as to the types of weapons available, written at a time when the uzi wasn't even imagined.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 It seems the the very essence of free speech is to defend ones right to offend. You vote against objectionable speech with your wallet not with your gun!

This is why boycotting a company's (or a country's) products can be very effective in encouraging sensitivity.

On the other hand, burning an embassy or two gets you far more press coverage.

As for Iran publishing Holocaust cartoons, how is that any different than usual? If an Israeli newspaper had published the allegedly offensive cartoons of Mohammed, that wouldn't be news. It would just be another day in the Middle East.

[Rustic23]

American newspapers do not print cartoons about King because their clientele would not stand for it, not because the Government would put them in jail. Besides, this was a Danish newspaper, not an Israeli paper, not a U.S. paper. If Iran wants to print cartoons of Danish Cookies, or Ikea, of hard wood walnut furniture, that would show the Danes a thing or two. I don’t understand the connections between Denmark and the Holocaust.

[Eagle43]

You can always tell when someone agrees with freedom of speech.* They allow someone who says something they don't like, something that they hate, to say it anyway.* This is what is wrong with political correctness.* You can bad-mouth certain groups, but not others.* Universities, which are supposed to be bastions of freedom, are centers which daily practice stifling free speech.* There was an art exhibit a few years ago which had the cross in urine.* How about "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Free speech, anyone?* The Muslim clerics, as do most religious leaders, fear freedom. Can you spell Inquisition.* I say the more freedom, the better. The Europeans have it right; good for them.

Abu Hamza al-Masri was sentenced to 7 years in jail at London's Old Bailey for speeches that incited his followers to kill Non- Muslims and for inciting hatred.

England has long been held to be a bastion of tolerance, much of US laws are derived from English Common Law and from the Magna Carta, but even tolerance has its' limits.

[Rustic23]

I think at this time we would need a lawyer to answer the questions being posed…. Maybe two… well at least three… Can this forum afford a dozen. U.S Lawyer, Constitution Lawyer, Islam Lawyer, Danish Lawyer, English Lawyer. When will it ever end?

Yes U.S. law was derived from British Common Law, however, they are different. The Right to Free Speech in the Constitution was, I believe, a distinct difference.

I still think you are talking more about political correctness than law. To quote a now famous Californian “can’t we all just get along”

Too true.

[nuisance]

That's actually a really interesting move by the Iranian newspaper. The Danish paper was criticised (by the muslim community) for publishing their cartoons. In response several other European papers published the same cartoons as a show of support for freedom of the press.
So now an Iranian newspaper will publish cartoons that will get them criticised. The European papers will look very biased if they don't also support them, and I think their readership will get quite upset at cartoons implying the Holocaust didn't happen. Even worse, I think in France speech concerning Nazism is limited or prohibited in some form.
One of the arguments the Europeans are making is that it's stupid for muslims to burn down embassies because the governments don't control what the newspapers print. In France at least, that will be shown to be false.

Personally I think that the papers can print anything they want (with a few small exceptions, but being offensive isn't one of them).

Tim