Western Standar is being Sued

[gerryhatrick]

Poor Ezra. A martyr for freedom.

[Black Dog]

How many others such as Salman Rushdie have fatwa's hanging over their head making them fair game for any screwball who wants to make a name for himself for Islam?

And Rushdie and Van Gogh have what to do with the cartoons?

Yes, anyone could go on to the internet to see the cartoons as long as it wasn't a Canadian site. Our betters (I guess you must be one of them) consider it too dangerous for Canadians to decide for themselves.

There's something quit emeta about his whole thing. The cartoons weren't the story. Even the reactin in the Muslim world wasn't the story. No, the media itself became the story, turning it into a bizzare, self-perpetuating circus. And you know what makes it even weirder? Even the "corageous" Ezra Levant didn't publish the images that caused the most offense (IIRC, there was one of Mohammed with a pig's snout and another of the prophet screwing a pig).

I disagree entirely. The failure of responsible journalism came from the rest of the mainstream media in Canada who were either too frightened of physical attacks, or more likely, too frightened of being thought to be offensive to a minority group, to print cartoons which formed the entire basis for an international story which gripped headlines for weeks.

Of course anyone who knows anything about the media also knows that choosing not to publish potentially offensive or controversial material is a daily fact of life in the media.

For example.

For the second time, a United Church of Christ TV spot is getting bounced by all the major networks.

UCC’s “Bouncer” ad, which showed bouncers turning away homosexual and minority parishioners from a church, sparked national controversy 15 months ago when major TV networks refused to run it.

Now the Protestant denomination is planning to run another edgy ad, entitled “Ejector Seat,” next week on cable networks.

In the 30-second spot a black woman with a crying baby, a gay couple, a man using a walker and others are ejected from pews and sent sailing into the air during a church service. A tagline reads: “God doesn’t reject people. Neither do we.”

...

NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and The WB have all refused to run the ad, which is part of UCC’s ongoing “Still Speaking” campaign.

“NBC essentially said the ad was too controversial,” said Ron Buford, director of the “Still Speaking” initiative. “CBS said it was too much of an advocacy ad.”

[Wilber]

"And Rushdie and Van Gogh have what to do with the cartoons?"

You mean the cartoons weren't critical of Islam? OK.

Please give us the link to the Danish cartoons which show Mohamed with a pigs snout and with him screwing a pig, or are you referring to the ones that were added by extremists to further stir the pot.

Like these

Looks to me like it is a dog trying to screw something. My dog used to try and screw everything and I am pretty sure he wouldn't know Mohamed from GW Bush. Had you actually seen these cartoons?

Your "Example" is of someone trying to place a paid advertisement, not part of a news story that is causing riots and peoples lives to be threatened. Like any other business, news media is free to do business with whomever they chose.

[Wilber]

Try again

Not having great luck with links these days.

[Black Dog]

"And Rushdie and Van Gogh have what to do with the cartoons?"

You mean the cartoons weren't critical of Islam? OK.

I assked for examples of people in the west who were endangered as a result of the cartoons. Neither example applies. But I know what you're getting at. Because X was critical of Islam and had bad things happen to him, therefore Y is in the same danger because Y published cartoons also critical of Islam. I think there's a major difference (though I also think a lot of right-wing people would be pretty stoked if some Mulsim nutter shanked Ezra over this). That difference is it wa sthe cartoons themselves, the content, not the messenger, that was the problem.

Please give us the link to the Danish cartoons which show Mohamed with a pigs snout and with him screwing a pig, or are you referring to the ones that were added by extremists to further stir the pot.

Looks to me like it is a dog trying to screw something. My dog used to try and screw everything and I am pretty sure he wouldn't know Mohamed from GW Bush. Had you actually seen these cartoons?

We don't know who added the offensive images (which are in your link).

Your "Example" is of someone trying to place a paid advertisement, not part of a news story that is causing riots and peoples lives to be threatened. Like any other business, news media is free to do business with whomever they chose.

And the media is free to publish (or not publish) whatever it chooses for whatever reasons they choose.

[Wilber]

"I assked for examples of people in the west who were endangered as a result of the cartoons. Neither example applies. But I know what you're getting at. Because X was critical of Islam and had bad things happen to him, therefore Y is in the same danger because Y published cartoons also critical of Islam. I think there's a major difference (though I also think a lot of right-wing people would be pretty stoked if some Mulsim nutter shanked Ezra over this). That difference is it wa sthe cartoons themselves, the content, not the messenger, that was the problem."

Holland is not in the west? Salman Rushdie lives in London I believe, still under the protection of the British Secret Service. I always thought that was in the west as well.

You not being a right wing people would rejoice if some Muslim nutter shanked Ezra or at least say he got what he deserved. Shoot the messenger right.

It was not the content of the cartoons that was news, all political cartoons insult someone. It was the reaction that resulted from them. We are not talking about graffiti scrawled on the side of a Mosque, Church or Synagogue here, or the desecration of a cemetery, just cartoons.

"We don't know who added the offensive images (which are in your link)."

True, but you assume they originated in the west. We do know that they were not among the ones printed in Jyllands Posten or any other European newspaper which where the subject of the controversy and the ones the Standard published.

"And the media is free to publish (or not publish) whatever it chooses for whatever reasons they choose."

Yes, but even they know the difference between news and advertising, or at least they should.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

And Rushdie and Van Gogh have what to do with the cartoons?

You're joking, right?

Even the "corageous" Ezra Levant didn't publish the images that caused the most offense (IIRC, there was one of Mohammed with a pig's snout and another of the prophet screwing a pig).

Why should the "cowardly" Ezra Levant publish fake cartoons?

There is no cartoon of Mohammed having sex with a pig. You're confusing this with the cartoon by the University of Saskatchewan's Sheaf student newspaper, a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a pig; a cartoon that the cartoonist refused to apologize for because it showed the "double standards" of Christians who have this wild crazy zany over-the-top thoroughly undocumented idea that suicide bombers are associated with Islam.

[Black Dog]

Holland is not in the west? Salman Rushdie lives in London I believe, still under the protection of the British Secret Service. I always thought that was in the west as well.

Rushdie and Van Gogh had nohing to do with the cartoons.

It was not the content of the cartoons that was news, all political cartoons insult someone. It was the reaction that resulted from them. We are not talking about graffiti scrawled on the side of a Mosque, Church or Synagogue here, or the desecration of a cemetery, just cartoons.

That's an overly simplistic view IMO. Any depiction of the Prophet is offensive, so whether the particular depictions were offensive or not by our standards is beside the point. What's more, the controversy over whether or not to publish the cartoons simply gave the story legs and caused it to last a helluva lot longer than it would have otherwise. It gave Ezra his chance to grandstand (two weeks and change after the story broke). The point here is that there's really two stories here: the Muslim reaction to the original publication of the cartoons and then the endless hand wringing "debate" by western publications to publish the cartoons.

True, but you assume they originated in the west. We do know that they were not among the ones printed in Jyllands Posten or any other European newspaper which where the subject of the controversy and the ones the Standard published.

Well, I can't imagine a Muslim making such an image, even to provoke other Muslims. I duno where they came from, but I'm well aware they weren't among those published originally. However, those "fake" images were the one's that caused the most offense.

[Wilber]

"Rushdie and Van Gogh had nohing to do with the cartoons."

So the death of Van Gogh and the Fatwa on Ruhsdie have nothing to do with certain Muslims reaction to criticism because they had nothing to do with the cartoons.

"That's an overly simplistic view IMO. Any depiction of the Prophet is offensive, so whether the particular depictions were offensive or not by our standards is beside the point. What's more, the controversy over whether or not to publish the cartoons simply gave the story legs and caused it to last a helluva lot longer than it would have otherwise. It gave Ezra his chance to grandstand (two weeks and change after the story broke). The point here is that there's really two stories here: the Muslim reaction to the original publication of the cartoons and then the endless hand wringing "debate" by western publications to publish the cartoons."

It only gave the story more legs in Canada, which it should have. Arab papers have no scrupples about printing far more insulting pictures in their papers but you don't see Jews and Christians threatening them or destroying their property over their cartoons. If they want to be offended they should practice what they preach.

"Well, I can't imagine a Muslim making such an image, even to provoke other Muslims. I duno where they came from, but I'm well aware they weren't among those published originally. However, those "fake" images were the one's that caused the most offense."

When did you come out of your comma? There have been people involved in almost every movement and religion at some time or another who were willing to lie and fabricate in order to influence others. The Reichstag fire etc. You think radical Muslims are somehow exempt?

So Levant is being offensive by not publishing the pictures that weren't published in Europe, which were only published in Arab papers and nobody knows where they came from. Well someone knows but they aren't about to tell. I'm glad that doesn't make any sense to me.