missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Mark Gisleson (not verified) says:

As a career counselor I find this to be a very sad decision by the editors, one made in haste and without a decent understanding of the issues involved.

There is no obvious equivalency between Western and Islamic values, but both sides have very few iron-clad thou shalt nots. Out of simple respect and decency, you do not flout those shall nots in a public forum accessible by children.

I have the freedom to post pornography on my blog, but that doesn't mean a newspaper should do so. Likewise the Mohammed cartoons.

Freedom is not a sharp stick used to poke others in the eye.

And if this decision was made out of fear, rather than respect, you still deserve the scorn of Muslims — and Christians, Jews and atheists.

Some things don't belong in a corner vending machine, but that doesn't mean they don't have a place, or that there isn't a right to express those views.

I think it's increasingly fair to ask the publish-regardless-of-the-consequences crowd if this is really about freedom, or if they just want to bash Muslims. I've seen all the cartoons, and Osama bin Laden's image would have been, in each case, more appropriate and far less offensive.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.