A
adma
Guest
Actually, when I saw a newswire about "cartoon protests", I thought that it maybe involved dropping anvils on infidels, etc
|
|
|
D
dan e 1980
Guest
:rollin
P.S, the western standard JUST HAD to publish those cartoons.
any damages that cost canada should be payed out of the pockets of the western standard. our troops are now in more danger overseas because of such a stupid move.
the freedom of speech bandwagon is nothing more than an attempt to make another group look bad. alot of these people touting free speech are nothing more than two-faces.
A
adma
Guest
If the right wing's good for one thing, it's for the vicarious pleasure of delighting us w/the verboten. Like, these cartoons. Or going back election eve, getting the Maritimes results in advance via the Free Republic board, firewalls and protocol be damned. Sure, they're nutsos there--but ultimately, if you were only there for the results, the regulars were just background scenery, like drunken fratboys at a strip club...
G
ganjavih
Guest
"I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law"
"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution"
- Ezra Levant, Publisher, the Western Standard
:lol
"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution"
- Ezra Levant, Publisher, the Western Standard
:lol
B
bizorky
Guest
Yup, Ezra Levant is still an idiot. But he did not do anything really criminal, did he? He just published pictures, after all. The pictures don't really matter; it is what we think and why we think it that matters.
So let's think about it.
Around the world, many people have now been killed in protests over these comics, and hundreds more have been injured in the fury over a perceived feeling of insult, and sense of assualt on closely held beliefs. The idea of free expression is under attack by religious extremists who view it as an offense on their authority, and as a result there have been demands of death for those deemed "responsible" for these comics (as in the entire nation of Denmark).
In Pakistan, music store owners are threatened so that they will close their businesses, since music, too, is considered dangerous by many of these religious extremists and their ignorant followers. Others are intimidated to join a protest they don't see as necessary, except to protect themselves against potential threats of recrimination. There is a free floating feeling among many of these true believers that there is just too much freedom in Western nations.
Too much freedom!
At the United Nations, there is talk of drafting a resolution for a ban against blasphemy that would attempt to prohibit the perceived "defamation" of all religions. In effect, what one would define as "blasphemy" would depend largely on one's own sensitivity, as there is no certain threshold for defining when some statement is "blasphemous." So religions could come to lie beyond question, debate or criticism. They would become facts unto themselves; defacto truths that require no evidence or justification. In effect, one could very well hide within religious belief as a means to justifying an action, and possibly never have to answer since the very questioning of religious tenants and beliefs making up those tenants could be deemed "blasphemous."
While I understand that a comic illustration can offend, I think that the reaction to them is way over the top. While the right to freedom of expression can be exceeded, the creation, enforcement and wielding of laws to curtail it can be used as a weapon that puts a chill over the very idea. This is a warning that should never be forgotten. Free expression is not guaranteed; it is guarded by those who pratice it and partake of it. Hate laws are not truths either; they, too, can thwart debate and the exchange of ideas that force us all to think and learn about what we think and why we think it. So much of the culture we enjoy today is a result of questioning and criticising absolutist thinking and unexamined, knee-jerk beliefs - and even making fun of them at times.
We owe it to the very human act of having ideas about ideas, no matter how uncomfortable, to actually talk and debate those ideas and beliefs, and not to shut up or allow the elevation of any self-declared truths, beliefs or their content, to a level beyond questioning or reasoned criticism.
So let's think about it.
Around the world, many people have now been killed in protests over these comics, and hundreds more have been injured in the fury over a perceived feeling of insult, and sense of assualt on closely held beliefs. The idea of free expression is under attack by religious extremists who view it as an offense on their authority, and as a result there have been demands of death for those deemed "responsible" for these comics (as in the entire nation of Denmark).
In Pakistan, music store owners are threatened so that they will close their businesses, since music, too, is considered dangerous by many of these religious extremists and their ignorant followers. Others are intimidated to join a protest they don't see as necessary, except to protect themselves against potential threats of recrimination. There is a free floating feeling among many of these true believers that there is just too much freedom in Western nations.
Too much freedom!
At the United Nations, there is talk of drafting a resolution for a ban against blasphemy that would attempt to prohibit the perceived "defamation" of all religions. In effect, what one would define as "blasphemy" would depend largely on one's own sensitivity, as there is no certain threshold for defining when some statement is "blasphemous." So religions could come to lie beyond question, debate or criticism. They would become facts unto themselves; defacto truths that require no evidence or justification. In effect, one could very well hide within religious belief as a means to justifying an action, and possibly never have to answer since the very questioning of religious tenants and beliefs making up those tenants could be deemed "blasphemous."
While I understand that a comic illustration can offend, I think that the reaction to them is way over the top. While the right to freedom of expression can be exceeded, the creation, enforcement and wielding of laws to curtail it can be used as a weapon that puts a chill over the very idea. This is a warning that should never be forgotten. Free expression is not guaranteed; it is guarded by those who pratice it and partake of it. Hate laws are not truths either; they, too, can thwart debate and the exchange of ideas that force us all to think and learn about what we think and why we think it. So much of the culture we enjoy today is a result of questioning and criticising absolutist thinking and unexamined, knee-jerk beliefs - and even making fun of them at times.
We owe it to the very human act of having ideas about ideas, no matter how uncomfortable, to actually talk and debate those ideas and beliefs, and not to shut up or allow the elevation of any self-declared truths, beliefs or their content, to a level beyond questioning or reasoned criticism.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
there are limits to freedom of speech & expression, just ask ernst zundel.
you shouldn't publish offensive material in the mainstream media such as those insulting cartoons for the same reason why you shouldn't distribute nazi propaganda or holocaust denial propaganda in the mainstream media - it hurts peoples feelings.
i can understand the dainish newspaper probably didn't have any idea what would happen but the western standard and other such papers are just putting more gas in the fire.
touting freedom of speech is being used in a covert way for some to express their hatred for another group. all of a sudden, freedom of speech isn't only for those "faggety liberal, pot smoking hippy, negro lovers".
you shouldn't publish offensive material in the mainstream media such as those insulting cartoons for the same reason why you shouldn't distribute nazi propaganda or holocaust denial propaganda in the mainstream media - it hurts peoples feelings.
i can understand the dainish newspaper probably didn't have any idea what would happen but the western standard and other such papers are just putting more gas in the fire.
touting freedom of speech is being used in a covert way for some to express their hatred for another group. all of a sudden, freedom of speech isn't only for those "faggety liberal, pot smoking hippy, negro lovers".
B
bizorky
Guest
^So how exactly did all those ideas come to be understood as offensive in the first place? By overcoming the silence of repression. By speaking. By making reasoned assertions. By expression.
You are falling into the trap that suggests that every idea which might "hurt feelings" must automatically be wrong. You are also card stacking the argument by seeking extremes for your assertion. Holocaust denial runs against facts, against evidence. Rather than pursuing silence, the assertions of Zundel require nothing more than the facts and evidence to be exposed. In actual fact, all your examples are recognized today for what they are because people confronted the ideas and argued them by way of reason.
You also seem to be suggesting that preventing "hurt feelings" be something legislated. Given the capriciousness of people's feelings, the laws created from such an approach would be unending. At some point in life, we all have to recognize that the ultimate guardian over our feelings is us. Being pissed off and acting like an idiot is neither an excuse nor a justification. And remember, Holocaust deniers, racists and homophobes are expressing feelings, too, not facts or arguments. I certainly don't think their feelings are deserving of legislated protection, however justified they think their feelings are.
You are falling into the trap that suggests that every idea which might "hurt feelings" must automatically be wrong. You are also card stacking the argument by seeking extremes for your assertion. Holocaust denial runs against facts, against evidence. Rather than pursuing silence, the assertions of Zundel require nothing more than the facts and evidence to be exposed. In actual fact, all your examples are recognized today for what they are because people confronted the ideas and argued them by way of reason.
You also seem to be suggesting that preventing "hurt feelings" be something legislated. Given the capriciousness of people's feelings, the laws created from such an approach would be unending. At some point in life, we all have to recognize that the ultimate guardian over our feelings is us. Being pissed off and acting like an idiot is neither an excuse nor a justification. And remember, Holocaust deniers, racists and homophobes are expressing feelings, too, not facts or arguments. I certainly don't think their feelings are deserving of legislated protection, however justified they think their feelings are.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
here we go....
no, rather the media should show some restraint and act in good taste like they usually do.
no. what you fail to understand is that different cultures tolerate things differently. portraying the prophet of islam in such a fashion is just as hurtful to a muslim as telling a jewish person that the holocaust didn't happen is hurtful to a jew.
i'm not defending the rioting.
so it is a fact that mohammed wore a bomb on his head?
this is the double standard that is pissing them off soo.
i don't know about you but i don't want to have a WW3 over
freedom of speech & a cartoon.
speech is not always free & those exceptions need to be chosen in a way not to create an inbalance.
no, rather the media should show some restraint and act in good taste like they usually do.
no. what you fail to understand is that different cultures tolerate things differently. portraying the prophet of islam in such a fashion is just as hurtful to a muslim as telling a jewish person that the holocaust didn't happen is hurtful to a jew.
i'm not defending the rioting.
so it is a fact that mohammed wore a bomb on his head?
this is the double standard that is pissing them off soo.
i don't know about you but i don't want to have a WW3 over
freedom of speech & a cartoon.
speech is not always free & those exceptions need to be chosen in a way not to create an inbalance.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Who is the cartoonist or who are the editors and what is their opinion worth? We aren't talking about history books or teachings in an institution of higher learning or an official government policy. We are talking about the cartoon of one individual and the decisions of a few newspapers to publish it. It should be noted that some Arab news organizations published the cartoon to show it to people because they thought it newsworthy. When is it news worthy, when is it the opinion of a shock jock, when is it an over exagerration, when is it racism, etc? That is the question. Half the things Howard Stern does I find offensive but we can shrug him off as an eccentric nut and turn the channel. What about Abu on the Simpsons... that could be considered racism. Call it a racist cartoon and completely insensitive but why not also label it the ignorant or poorly thought out actions of a few people. I see people burning US flags in the middle east all the time and while Mohammed may be the most important figure in Islam and it may be forbidden in Islamic law to dirty his image in any way, it is also forbidden in US law to dishonour the US flag and the US flag is a very important symbol in the United States. Both sides would probably argue differing values over which is more important depending on their religion and own personal values. Both sides should be more respectful but both sides could probably be a little more calm and thoughtful too.
B
bizorky
Guest
Pithy answer fest.
Here we go:
Read the history of your own culture. You may note that people died for the right to speak their minds. They died to define that very right. Many died at the hands of religious and other elites who believed that they held the right to define truth, right and wrong. What they and so many others helped to do was to usher in one of the most dynamic societies in human history, one that manages the attempt to balance numerous points of view, many of these views in direct and strong conflict with one and other.
The fact that you actually believe that "the media" shows good taste is an obscure belief. I can find plenty of examples of people being upset by all types media activity and displays, both past and present. If you bother to take five minutes, I am sure you could probably come up with many examples of your own. The media is not a monolith. The history of mass media illustrates this.
No I don't fail to understand what other cultures tolerate. You fail to understand that cultures don't tolerate, individuals do the tolerating. And if those individuals choose to do so, they can think for themselves. Sometimes that requires being faced with contrary ideas to your own. It is a tough, but not impossible, event to deal with. What you are doing here is confusing culture as a monolith.
You say you are not defending rioting; but you appear to unwittingly sanction, to some degree, a response that is clearly excessive, a response that is being driven by religious extremism and closed-mindedness. The riot is an absence for the search of alternatives. Riots and threats censor and kill debate and expression through intimidation and fear. They are hardly reasoned responses.
Maybe you should be up in arms that some Canadian companies are helping to develop software to overcome Chinese internet censorship rules. From your own assertions, this pursuit is an attack on contemporary Chinese political culture.
What do you think? Since there were no bombs as such around when Mohammed was doing his thing, we can assume that the picture is not illustrating a fact. What you fail to see is that some Islamic religious leaders themselves have used Allah, the Koran and Mohammed as justifications for violence and terrorism. Do you reserve your condemnation of this fact because you want to hide behind the idea that "they" are "different" and thus somehow we are all collectively incapable of participating in some larger conversation? The whole point of the comic was to reflect what in fact too many Islamic religious leaders said Mohammed was sanctioning in the first place! Can you see this point?
You have not stated how it is a double standard. And as for "them," who do you mean by "them?" Are you speaking on behalf of all of "them" now?
I really have to hold back my laughter, considering that World War Two was, from our Western perspective, all about stopping the spread of fascism and nazism in Europe; political forces that had absolutely no use for free expression.
Here we go:
Read the history of your own culture. You may note that people died for the right to speak their minds. They died to define that very right. Many died at the hands of religious and other elites who believed that they held the right to define truth, right and wrong. What they and so many others helped to do was to usher in one of the most dynamic societies in human history, one that manages the attempt to balance numerous points of view, many of these views in direct and strong conflict with one and other.
The fact that you actually believe that "the media" shows good taste is an obscure belief. I can find plenty of examples of people being upset by all types media activity and displays, both past and present. If you bother to take five minutes, I am sure you could probably come up with many examples of your own. The media is not a monolith. The history of mass media illustrates this.
No I don't fail to understand what other cultures tolerate. You fail to understand that cultures don't tolerate, individuals do the tolerating. And if those individuals choose to do so, they can think for themselves. Sometimes that requires being faced with contrary ideas to your own. It is a tough, but not impossible, event to deal with. What you are doing here is confusing culture as a monolith.
You say you are not defending rioting; but you appear to unwittingly sanction, to some degree, a response that is clearly excessive, a response that is being driven by religious extremism and closed-mindedness. The riot is an absence for the search of alternatives. Riots and threats censor and kill debate and expression through intimidation and fear. They are hardly reasoned responses.
Maybe you should be up in arms that some Canadian companies are helping to develop software to overcome Chinese internet censorship rules. From your own assertions, this pursuit is an attack on contemporary Chinese political culture.
What do you think? Since there were no bombs as such around when Mohammed was doing his thing, we can assume that the picture is not illustrating a fact. What you fail to see is that some Islamic religious leaders themselves have used Allah, the Koran and Mohammed as justifications for violence and terrorism. Do you reserve your condemnation of this fact because you want to hide behind the idea that "they" are "different" and thus somehow we are all collectively incapable of participating in some larger conversation? The whole point of the comic was to reflect what in fact too many Islamic religious leaders said Mohammed was sanctioning in the first place! Can you see this point?
You have not stated how it is a double standard. And as for "them," who do you mean by "them?" Are you speaking on behalf of all of "them" now?
I really have to hold back my laughter, considering that World War Two was, from our Western perspective, all about stopping the spread of fascism and nazism in Europe; political forces that had absolutely no use for free expression.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
yet bill o'lieley & most patriotic people tell everyone to shut up. talk to some conservative people and if you don't agree with their views they tell you to leave canada.
when i open the toronto star, i don't see them refer to black people as "niggers", arabs as "camel ****ers" italains as "olive niggers", etc.
let them be intolerant in their own land. as long as their protests are peaceful over here.
i'm not saying that they should make laws to limit speech, i'm saying that there should be self control on the part of the mainstream media. if you don't think censorship exists, i don't know where you have been all your life. i have never opened a mainstream paper and seen blacks or jews made fun of in such a manner.
i'm sure america would be free if they debated with the british. i'm all for debate but lets face reality, most freedoms have been won with violence, not with the word.
yes i can see the point. like i said, the dainish newspaper didn't really do anything wrong. it's the papers that know they are enticing riots that are doing the wrong doing.
do you think that the western standard would publish the cartoon about the jew bending over to pick up the penny?
if you wanted a cartoon to reflect what is happening with some islamic leaders & terrorist recruting, they should have drawn a field with sheep that had bombs strapped to them and a shepperd leading them. doesn't that reflect better on reality, that some people are sheep?
them the muslims. am i "speaking on their behalf" now? are you trying to make me look bad somehow? am i either against them or with them kinda speek?
i'm not taking any sides here. if your going to censor material in the media that is hurtful to various groups such as jews or blacks, guess what, you gotta have balance and include some other groups too.
if you wanna find a solution here and not compromise free speech, restrictions must be removed in the press and people must be free to publish whatever they want without the law stepping in.
why are you laughing? look at what you wrote....
doesn't terrorism have no use for freedom of expression?
all this cartoon did was fuel more extremeism. it doesn't look so far fetched.
but again, does freedom of press and expression really exist? i have always known it to have limits. either remove the limits or add another limit. the way things are now are not good. the balance is outta whack. you are allowed to joke about some groups but not others.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
you have to laugh at "this" whole freedom of speech & expression movement - coming from the same people who think gays should be shot, shouldn't be allowed to marry and shouldn't be allowed to have a parade.
this is my beef. the dickheads that are using this freedom of speech argument as a mud slinging device. they neither care for freedom nor speech.
all they care about is making all muslims look like a bunch of backwords people, which is fine if that is what they want to do but you can't help but laugh that most of these people that chant - "freedom of speech" are just as backwards as they claim the other group is when you look at their past efforts.
it's simple, if you hate a group, come out and say it. don't try and use freedom of speech as a shield to hide your hatred. this statemen't isn't directed at you bizorky.
Ezra Levant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ezra Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian publisher, columnist, lawyer and political activist. He is considered to be right-wing by Canadian standards. He has been critical of Canadian foreign policy, perceived anti-American sentiment in Canadian politicians, is known for his staunch defence of Israel, and is an advocate for more provincial rights, especially for Western Canada.
you're telling me when someone is a "staunch defender" of something they don't have a bias?
does ezra care more about freedom of speech? or taking a shot at his enemy?
WTF happened to freedom of speech?
this is my beef. the dickheads that are using this freedom of speech argument as a mud slinging device. they neither care for freedom nor speech.
all they care about is making all muslims look like a bunch of backwords people, which is fine if that is what they want to do but you can't help but laugh that most of these people that chant - "freedom of speech" are just as backwards as they claim the other group is when you look at their past efforts.
it's simple, if you hate a group, come out and say it. don't try and use freedom of speech as a shield to hide your hatred. this statemen't isn't directed at you bizorky.
Ezra Levant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ezra Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian publisher, columnist, lawyer and political activist. He is considered to be right-wing by Canadian standards. He has been critical of Canadian foreign policy, perceived anti-American sentiment in Canadian politicians, is known for his staunch defence of Israel, and is an advocate for more provincial rights, especially for Western Canada.
you're telling me when someone is a "staunch defender" of something they don't have a bias?
does ezra care more about freedom of speech? or taking a shot at his enemy?
WTF happened to freedom of speech?
C
cacruden
Guest
dan_e_1980,
Spock you are not.
You quoted the following:
"He has been critical of Canadian foreign policy, perceived anti-American sentiment in Canadian politicians"
as an example of his obvious distaste
for free speech -- which does absolutely nothing to support your arguement.
Free speech is just that, it can be used to criticize and to criticize a critic, etc. etc. etc.
Where free speech reaches it's limits (legally - criminal) is when you actively incite others to act out their violence against others. (i.e. I am a political leader and I say that my followers should kill all the ???? people). It does not cover those that speak (on any number of subjects) that cause people to react violently if the speech is not asking them to do so (example - Toledo Ohio - White Supremists demonstration that caused the black people (generally speaking) to violently react to that speech. This is an example of "speech of hatred" being covered by free speech. It reaches it's limits if you slander or libel someone (legal civil).
People cannot make you look bad (without crossing the boudaries of fee speech above) without the help of those that they are trying to look bad.
Spock you are not.
You quoted the following:
"He has been critical of Canadian foreign policy, perceived anti-American sentiment in Canadian politicians"
as an example of his obvious distaste
for free speech -- which does absolutely nothing to support your arguement. Free speech is just that, it can be used to criticize and to criticize a critic, etc. etc. etc.
Where free speech reaches it's limits (legally - criminal) is when you actively incite others to act out their violence against others. (i.e. I am a political leader and I say that my followers should kill all the ???? people). It does not cover those that speak (on any number of subjects) that cause people to react violently if the speech is not asking them to do so (example - Toledo Ohio - White Supremists demonstration that caused the black people (generally speaking) to violently react to that speech. This is an example of "speech of hatred" being covered by free speech. It reaches it's limits if you slander or libel someone (legal civil).
People cannot make you look bad (without crossing the boudaries of fee speech above) without the help of those that they are trying to look bad.
C
cacruden
Guest
He has been critical ... wow ....
He would prefer our politicians shutup .... wow .... who hasn't wanted our politicians to shut-up at one time or another .... Sure was a few times I wanted Eugene Whelan (sp) to shut-up -- especially when he was saying things like Africans have lower IQs because they do not wear hats (green stetson or otherwise).
I can tell you to shut-up -- which is free-speech -- it only becomes anti-free speech if a law was passed forbidding someone from speaking.....
He is expressing a sentiment that our politicians were being gratuitiously anti-american and that is hurting us elsewhere -- including losing any ability to influence US foreign or trade policy .... a situation that we have not been in for a very long time.
B
bizorky
Guest
dan_e,
So if Bill O'Reilly says shut up, do you shut up? Who cares what he says? And to add, so much for your earlier suggestion for a tradition of good taste in the media. You have undermined one of your own assertions.
There is a large body of literature of all types, fiction and non-fiction, books, magazines radio shows, motion pictures and a vast range of other methods of expression where racist, ethnocentric and homophobic ideas were propogated. Because you don't know about them does not mean that they don't exist.
People have not come to understand what racism, ethnocentrism, sexism and homophobia mean by shutting up. They come to formulate the concepts and understand the ideas by actually confronting them, both personally and societally. One does not advance understanding by killing debate or over-reacting.
This is a double standard that you support! So other people can be racist, ethnocentric sexist and homophobic over there, so long as it does not affect you. It's okay for other people to suffer in far away lands. Maybe we should avoid talking about it since it might suggest criticism of other different religions and cultures.
Someone publishes a picture in a Western nation, and religious zealots whip up the hatred. Yet some of those zealots have themselves used Allah, Mohammed and the Koran as a justification for acts of violence and terrorism. That does not seem to bother you. A comic does, though.
You actually have been arguing limits to free speech. Read your own posts. As for last sentence, you should try a little history. You would see that in fact there is a large body of racist and ethnocentric writings and imagery over time. There is also an immense body of philosophical and legal explorations concerning the meanings and ideas behind such imagery, writings and ideas. Never seen any of it? So where have you been your whole life?
You also now seem to circumscribe your original statement to "mainstream" media, and by this I think you recognize that there still exists a vast amount of expression that some people would find offensive. Just go surfing the net. It is not hard to find.
Category error. Newspapers don't entice riots. People make that choice. Always.
You are employing a transfer device, and a loaded one at that. It is a propaganda technique, and a well used one in history. It is employed by people who hold a hatred for Jews, but never actually bother to supply an intelligent reason for that hatred. It is an unfounded depiction.
The cartoons that are germain to our discussion are refelections; they illustrate the view among many religious extremists that Allah, Mohammed and the Koran support violence and terrorism. Other Muslims disagree with that point of view, and subsequently disagree with the cartoon depictions reflecting the extremist attitudes of certain religious leaders. So why is it okay for these extremist believers to actively misrepresent their own prophet, their own holy book, their own god, a point of view held by many other Muslims? It surely is worth exploration, don't you think?
No, terrorism has no use for free expression. THAT IS MY POINT! Extremists dislike it with intensity. The extremism in question was already there, and will remain until it is actually challenged. The tough part is to get people to think. Sometimes thinking can hurt feelings. Sometimes we have to get over our hurt feelings in order to think.
So if Bill O'Reilly says shut up, do you shut up? Who cares what he says? And to add, so much for your earlier suggestion for a tradition of good taste in the media. You have undermined one of your own assertions.
There is a large body of literature of all types, fiction and non-fiction, books, magazines radio shows, motion pictures and a vast range of other methods of expression where racist, ethnocentric and homophobic ideas were propogated. Because you don't know about them does not mean that they don't exist.
People have not come to understand what racism, ethnocentrism, sexism and homophobia mean by shutting up. They come to formulate the concepts and understand the ideas by actually confronting them, both personally and societally. One does not advance understanding by killing debate or over-reacting.
This is a double standard that you support! So other people can be racist, ethnocentric sexist and homophobic over there, so long as it does not affect you. It's okay for other people to suffer in far away lands. Maybe we should avoid talking about it since it might suggest criticism of other different religions and cultures.
Someone publishes a picture in a Western nation, and religious zealots whip up the hatred. Yet some of those zealots have themselves used Allah, Mohammed and the Koran as a justification for acts of violence and terrorism. That does not seem to bother you. A comic does, though.
You actually have been arguing limits to free speech. Read your own posts. As for last sentence, you should try a little history. You would see that in fact there is a large body of racist and ethnocentric writings and imagery over time. There is also an immense body of philosophical and legal explorations concerning the meanings and ideas behind such imagery, writings and ideas. Never seen any of it? So where have you been your whole life?
You also now seem to circumscribe your original statement to "mainstream" media, and by this I think you recognize that there still exists a vast amount of expression that some people would find offensive. Just go surfing the net. It is not hard to find.
Category error. Newspapers don't entice riots. People make that choice. Always.
You are employing a transfer device, and a loaded one at that. It is a propaganda technique, and a well used one in history. It is employed by people who hold a hatred for Jews, but never actually bother to supply an intelligent reason for that hatred. It is an unfounded depiction.
The cartoons that are germain to our discussion are refelections; they illustrate the view among many religious extremists that Allah, Mohammed and the Koran support violence and terrorism. Other Muslims disagree with that point of view, and subsequently disagree with the cartoon depictions reflecting the extremist attitudes of certain religious leaders. So why is it okay for these extremist believers to actively misrepresent their own prophet, their own holy book, their own god, a point of view held by many other Muslims? It surely is worth exploration, don't you think?
No, terrorism has no use for free expression. THAT IS MY POINT! Extremists dislike it with intensity. The extremism in question was already there, and will remain until it is actually challenged. The tough part is to get people to think. Sometimes thinking can hurt feelings. Sometimes we have to get over our hurt feelings in order to think.