Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an "I have some good news and some bad news" scenario for you regarding the now-infamous caricatures of Mohammed that have Muslims around the world throwing a temper tantrum. A French newspaper reprinted the caricatures and took a stand for freedom of the press:
France-Soir reprinted 12 caricatures of Muhammad and proclaimed on its front page: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God".It also showed a new cartoon of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim gods floating on a cloud over Earth.
"Don't grumble Muhammad ... we have all been caricatured here," a smiling Christian God tells the angry-looking prophet.
Glad to see them taking the right stand. Well, temporarily at least. The French newspaper's owner promptly fired the newspaper's editor.
Update: Things are escalating even further according to this AP report:
Armed militants angered by a cartoon drawing of the Prophet Muhammad published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world.Foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers began leaving Gaza as gunmen there threatened to kidnap citizens of France, Norway, Denmark and Germany unless those governments apologize for the cartoon...
Gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus entered four hotels to search for foreigners to abduct, and they warned hotel owners not to host citizens from several European countries. Gunmen said they were also searching apartments in Nablus for Europeans.
And then there's this statement:
The director of media rights group Reporters Without Borders, Robert Menard, called for calm. "We need to figure out how to reconcile freedom of expression and respect of faith," he said.
Nonsense. No faith that believes it's okay to murder people for blasphemy is worthy of respect. That is barbarism and it is no less so just because the belief claims to come from a holy text. If someone proclaimed that anyone who offends their political views should be kidnapped and killed, we would instantly judge them as insane. Somehow just because this is deemed a religious view, we suddenly have to "reconcile" freedom of expression with "respect" for that faith. You cannot reason with such people and you cannot reconcile with them. Freedom of expression cannot be compromised to appease lunatics with guns.
Comments
So far, the list of countries that have reprinted the cartoons is as follows: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Iceland, the Netherlands, and apparently Mexico.
I am not sure that I agree with Jyllands Posten editor Carsten Juste that the opponents of free expression have won.
My main concern now, however, is that Muslims will perceive this as Europe united against them...which it may well be, in a semi-covert way. If this really is about freedom of speech, they need to make that clear by being willing to show similar treatment to any religion, that Islam has not been singled out for ridicule.
Posted by: Gretchen
| February 2, 2006 11:29 AM
Oh, and I should note that the owner of the French paper is Egyptian. That might explain things somewhat.
Posted by: Gretchen
| February 2, 2006 11:38 AM
Why is it wrong for the owner to fire the editor? I would think that if I was an owner of a paper, than of course I could fire the editor if he did something I did not agree with - especially not "straight" news. After all this is not the *government* supressing speech.
Now, a wise editor would have run it past the owner *first.* 8^)
Posted by: KeithB
| February 2, 2006 12:06 PM
Again, I make the distinction between sane protests and boycotts of danish products (such as those happening in Saudi Arabia) from criminals who demolish property and threaten the lives of artists. It's no more against freedom of speech to think the caricatures are offensive and that the publishers should retract them, than it is against freedom of protest for Ed to think these particular protests are ridiculous. Ok, back to the issues now.. :)
Posted by: Matthew
| February 2, 2006 12:10 PM
Just because you can do something does not mean it is right for you to do so.
Posted by: Gretchen
| February 2, 2006 12:11 PM
People don't seem to understand what a great insult it is to Muslim people. A culture that is not used to such insults.
Posted by: Ryan S
| February 2, 2006 12:36 PM
Gretchen, it's not "right" in what regard? Do you mean morally right? If that is the case, then I disagree. Frankly I think the caricatures themselves are a lot closer to being morally wrong (though i would stop short of saying they are), than protesting them. I see little difference between muslims taking offense to cartoons which depict their prophet as a terrorist, and christian conservatives who found the NBC show "Book of Daniel" to be offensive. The former is actually a lot more understandable.
Posted by: Matthew
| February 2, 2006 1:01 PM
The issue here is not whether they have a right to be offended. Of course they have a right to be offended. They have a right to boycott products in response, to write angry letters, to stand outside the newspaper's office building and call them the world's biggest jerks. What they don't have a right to do is riot, kidnap people and threaten to kill them and that is what they are doing. I don't care how offensive it is to them, that response is insane.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| February 2, 2006 1:19 PM
Matthew-- I don't consider it morally right to fire someone for displaying a cartoon in the newspaper in order to report on the dispute over objections to it. Newspeople have a duty to make their reports to the public on important issues clear and accessible, and you can't effectively report on how and why a cartoon is offending people without showing the cartoon. The choice to display these cartoons in a newspaper is not the same as endorsing the sentiments in them.
Posted by: Gretchen
| February 2, 2006 1:58 PM
This is getting surreal, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/ :
Apparently now you can get sued just for hurting someone's feelings? If France allows that legal standard to pass they'll be bankrupt in a month from all the tourists pissed off by supercilious, rude French waiters!
Posted by: Jeff Hebert
| February 2, 2006 2:11 PM
People don't seem to understand what a great insult it is to Muslim people. A culture that is not used to such insults.
I do understand them. I understand they are hurt and angry. I don't understand why they threaten people with death.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski
| February 2, 2006 2:51 PM
Well we need to step back and look at the people who are threatening violence. Why are we surprised to learn that terrorist groups who have assassinated people for similar artwork in the past would threaten to do the same thing here? However the vast majority of people are simply boycotting danish goods and, at worst, asking their governments to get involved diplomatically.
Posted by: Matthew
| February 2, 2006 4:04 PM
And in the US, the WaPo is being hassled for its use of an editorial cartoon. I am sure before the day is over, we will hear calls from all sorts of reichwingers demanding all sorts of retribution upon the Post and Tom Toles.
Here is the statement sent by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Washington Post:
Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon was beyond tasteless. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues, and The Post is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of the armed forces. However, The Post and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to readers and to The Post’s reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.
Those who visit wounded veterans in hospitals have found lives profoundly changed by pain and loss. They also have found brave men and women with a sense of purpose and selfless commitment that causes battle-hardened warriors to pause.
While The Post and some of its readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, these men and women and their families are owed the decency of not having a cartoon make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.
As the joint chiefs, we rarely put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.
The letter is signed by the Chairman, Marine General Peter Pace, and all members of the JCS.
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/24star.html
Posted by: spyder
| February 2, 2006 4:14 PM
I would hope this statement applied equally to a thousand years of Christianity, and all the other religions who, over the centuries, have been just as heinous and evil in the same way.
Posted by: spyder
| February 2, 2006 4:20 PM
Matthew wrote:
I don't think anyone here has expressed surprise. I'm not surprised by this any more than I'm surprised at the latest stupid statement from the StopTheACLU group or by the latest dissembling from the Discovery Institute. I don't have to be surprised by something to find it worth discussing.
But their government has no authority or responsibility to protect them from being offended. No government does, anywhere. The Danish prime minister is exactly right, the government has no business apologizing for the actions of a newspaper that it has no control over.
The point of all of this is the same point I make to Christians in the US who want to control everything that offends them - get over it. You don't have any authority to control the expressions of others, no matter how offensive you find them. You don't like gay sex? Don't have it. You don't like pornography? Don't watch it. You don't like the cartoons about Mohammed? Don't buy the paper.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| February 2, 2006 4:21 PM
spyder wrote:
It certainly does.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| February 2, 2006 4:22 PM
And in the US, the WaPo is being hassled for its use of an editorial cartoon. I am sure before the day is over, we will hear calls from all sorts of reichwingers demanding all sorts of retribution upon the Post and Tom Toles.[...]
After reading the Join Chief of Staff's letter, I fail to see the "hassle" part. Why should Washington Post be immune from criticism?
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski
| February 2, 2006 4:35 PM
Roman wrote:
Hey, all they have to do is say they did it on "faith" and then it will be bigotry to criticize them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| February 2, 2006 4:39 PM
Well, you can tell that Mr. Brayton applies this statement equally because he went off on a tirade against StopTheACLU for exactly the same thing just an hour before writing this post.
Posted by: Skemono
| February 2, 2006 10:33 PM
-- from Der Spiegel
He has a good point-- the problem is only that I think his solution is to stop the European press from making caricatures of Islam rather than encouraging them to make caricatures of Judaism as well, whereas I would sooner see it happen the other way around. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen
| February 3, 2006 8:06 AM
A Danish newspaper published a set cartoons that included Mohammed with a bomb-turban, and the Moslems have gone nuts over it, with boycotts, lawsuits and death threats. It puts my aggravation with American Christian whack-jobs in a different perspective, since most of them seem to believe in the Bill of Rights as semi-sacred, even if we argue over some of its implications. My compliments to the other European newspapers that have reprinted the cartoons. I expect, but don't know, that newspapers in Moslem countries have been much more insulting, for decades, of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. beliefs, symbols and people than these cartoons were of Islam. A series of wrongs don't make a right, but I can't get upset at the superstitious having a mud fight, until it affects innocent people.
Posted by: dkew
| February 3, 2006 9:22 AM