Responses
Weston, 2/16/2006, 4:44:41 PM
As far as the response in Scandanavian countries, citizens of those countries have the same rights and protection as every other citizen. A muslim reading a newspaper has the same right to respond in editorial as a christian or non-believer, or whoever. Within the law, there is a typical method of dealing with offensive material, and that is to bring it into public discussion. Not to commit general violent acts against symbolic targets. As for the response outside of those countries, Denmark and Norway are sovereign nations, their press belonging to the people of those nations. No foreign body has the right to demand censure from outside the internal legal means of the nation.
As for the pure content of the cartoons, they may be somewhat juvenile, but they are far from the worst material that makes it to the printing press and is disseminated to millions of people in the form of the political economy of the mass media. The cartoons "caused" violence, but only metaphysically, against the idea of a religious concept. The response was violent physically, which is entirely innappropriate, and demonstrates a very narcissistic pathology. Sticks and stones may break our bones, right? Well, in this case words hurt an imaginary character, and so a lot of people brought out sticks and stones in revenge.
That the opinions of non-believers can affect the faithful is a pure sign that faith can accept no challenge.
Brianna , 2/16/2006, 5:02:02 PM
We published the cartoons this past week. We're a small weekly. So far I've had no direct negative feedback, however, some students are throwing away the stacks on campus. I just finished going through the recycle bins and distributing the papers again.
I have had thank you emails from those who had no idea what the cartoons looked like.
To read The Communicator's official stance and the editorial that ran with the cartoons you can visit:
www.ipfwcommunicator.org
----
Brianna Belford
IPFW
The Communicator
bmbelford(at)gmail.com
Roy, 2/22/2006, 4:24:34 PM
I have decided against publishing the cartoons for now.
I am appalled at the lack of understanding by major news organizations (at least in our country) that when you do a story on the cartoons, you don't "pixelate" them like CNN did. You need to show them to illustrate the story.
There is simply no way most newspapers would have the same concern for something that would offend Christians, but they are treating the Muslims with kid gloves. It makes me angry, and I want to stand up for free speech.
This is a free speech issue, not a religious one. The newspaper has the right to publish the cartoons, regardless if people are offended.
However, very few people at my school would even know WHY we were publishing the cartoons. Unless the cartoons will start a good debate on campus, it seems to me that publishing them is not something that should be done. The reason to print them is to stand up for the freedom of the press and initiate debate, not to upset people. If you attend a campus with an ignorant student body, the good of publishing them just does not seem worth it, in my opinion.
Roy Waggoner
Sterling College Stir
http://stir.sterling.edu
Rob V., 2/27/2006, 10:08:10 AM
Responsibility is a very important part of student journalism. I always make the argument that just because you can does not mean you should. If anyone has chosen to run these cartoons, they should have expected some fallout, and a good editor will have a good idea of how much to expect. Some campuses, you'll barely hear a whisper. Others, students and faculty alike will be holding pitchforks and torches. Remember, readers aren't always as astute as student journalists on their "right to know."
Rob Velella
Red & Black Adviser
Washingotn & Jefferson College
Leah, 3/1/2006, 12:53:56 PM
We chose not to run “the” cartoons, but to run a different one, with a message we thought was important.
Wise or not, we ran a cartoon depicting a Muslim extremist drawing a cartoon of a Jew drinking blood, with a huge nose, swastika, horns and other anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Muslim was looking over his shoulder at a Danish man drawing a small simple cartoon of Mohammed. In the speech bubble, he complained that the picture of Mohammed was offensive.
Seems most of the campus didn't get the point. Rather than respond to our cry against the anti-free speech hypocrisy of Muslim extremists, some students have decided to call for my execution and the paper’s demise.
Death threats we can deal with; the cherry on top is the Administration buying into it. Apparently, having a “diverse” campus means we lose our rights to be offensive to anyone. Diversity means that the few Muslim extremists on our campus get to impose their religious beliefs on us. I anticipate a movement to shut us down – another one, that is.
All in a day’s work, I say.
Leah
Brooklyn College Excelsior
editor@bcexcelsior.com
Rob V., 3/10/2006, 1:02:38 PM
Sounds like something to contact the Student Press Law Center about, especially if you're from a public college. Keep us updated.
Rob Velella
Red & Black adviser
Washington & Jefferson College
