February 10, 2006

KUDOS

When I attended the University of Illinois, I used to get so mad reading The Daily Illini newspaper. I would seethe for days over some of their editorials, and I'm sure I could maintain this website by just blogging about some of the stuff they print (I don't visit their website anymore out of respect for my blood pressure). However, I was proud today to hear that they printed the "offensive" Mohammed cartoons. Good for them for actually reporting the news instead of censoring it to make sure no one's feelings get hurt...or embassies get burned down, as the case may be.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If anything, journalists all over this country should be letting the public decide for themselves what to think of these cartoons. It's kind of understandable for mainstream media to not publish the cartoons, especially when "decide for themselves" could take the form of a nuke' in Manhattan. Free speech is good and all, but the responsibility for the death of a number of people due to a few social retards responding the only way they can is a very hard thing to force upon anyone, even "the brave media". In this case, mainstream media is actually displaying a very clear-sighted recognition of the strings attached to the right to speech, mainly the responsibility that comes with owning up to the things that result from what you say. Yes, they did choose to not say anything at all instead of actually owning up to anything, but that's better than someone claiming freedom so they can dodge accusations of the very fact that what they did was just stupid and offensive. Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them. (My empathy may be partly as a result of the fact that I'm an avid reader of The New York Press, one of the "bad" publications who chose not to run the cartoons, and my indifference to the editors who resigned because they were bad editors anyway.)

Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 10:11 AM (enIP4)

2 To John, I am curious about this line: "Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them." So, are you suggesting that we not have freedom of speech? If that is the case, how do we decide collectively who is not allowed unbridled free speech?

Posted by: Eric Cole at February 10, 2006 07:27 PM (ORKPm)

3 Hmmm ... I think this is another example of: "I believe of freedom of speech, but it should be regulated."

Posted by: Acton at February 11, 2006 01:07 AM (TGk0l)

4 Apparently the decision to publish the cartoons was made by 2 members of the editorial staff, and the rest of the staff is very angry with them. http://tinyurl.com/7fqng

Posted by: Maggie45 at February 14, 2006 11:30 PM (Uq8Np)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
44kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.1398 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.1181 seconds, 190 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.