pageok
pageok
pageok
Journalists Facing Prosecution for Printing Cartoons:

It turns out that the five countries alluded to in the New York Times story on the subject were Jordan and Yemen (which the Times named), and Syria, Algeria, and Indonesia, which for some reason the Times story didn't name. In more recent news, it turns out that India has also arrested a journalist for printing the cartoon. According to the story,

Alok Tomar, editor of Shabdarth, was arrested Wednesday after the government warned the Indian media not to publish anything that hurts the religious sentiments of any community.

I'm still not sure why the Times said there were arrests in five countries, but mentioned only two; I assume it was an editing error. But in any event, this is my attempt to fill that gap.

Jade (mail):
A better reaction to the cartoon debacle by all freedom-loving Western nations would be to publish in every city, every newspaper, every country, the cartoons that the Islamists are wreaking havoc about. While it may have been insensitive to publish them originally,now that the issue has been turned into a reason for bloodshed and threats, we should all stand together across the world to defend freedom of speech.
2.23.2006 8:03pm
BU2L (mail):
not to beat what on this blog is by now a dead horse, but, ditto.
2.23.2006 8:06pm
2L:
The New York Times barely covered what ought to have been a major front-page story. When they finally do run a significant article, the title is "Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim." True enough, I guess, but hardly the big story here.
2.23.2006 8:17pm
AppSocRes (mail):
I can sympathize with the Indian decision. Something like this in that country can set off sectarian violence that may kill tens, if not hundreds of people. In the other countries the censorship is nothing more than naked and extreme religious intolerance (The listed muslim countries, with Algeria and Indonesia wavering exceptions, treat their religious minorities in officially sanctioned ways that make Jim Crow and "lynching justice" seem like enlightened benevolence. Dhimmi is the abhorent law of the land.
2.23.2006 10:18pm
Walk It (mail):
"...we should all stand together across the world to defend freedom of speech."

Is this a petition to free that old man Irving?
2.23.2006 11:33pm
BU2L (mail):
Well, if we only advocated freedom for speech we like, that would really be no freedom at all, would it? I can't speak for Jade, but I bet that 9/10 readers of this blog don't think that Irving should be in jail - just that he is an a$$hole.
2.24.2006 12:07am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Yes Irving is a real jerk, but what about the Italian journalist and author Oriana Fallaci? She faces trial in Italy for her books "The Rage and the Pride" and "The Force of Reason?" It's alleged she had defamed the Muslim religion. She also faces civil suits. "The Rage and the Pride" has been banned in France. Bridget Bardot has been fined four times by French courts for being critical of Islam.
2.24.2006 12:26am
Lev:
1. Maybe someone can explain to me why some of the Supreme Court justices feel that acts of foreign countries have any relevance to interpretation of the US Constitution.

2. Maybe someone can explain to me why the US Press, The Selfstyled Great Defenders Of The First Amendment And Freedom Of The Press are cowering before the brownshirts of Islam.

3. Re:


not to beat what on this blog is by now a dead horse


Some dead horses need to be beaten to death, again and again, because it is too important not to. Although in this case, it is more like trying to kill the Hydra.
2.24.2006 12:39am
Walk It (mail):

"I bet that 9/10 readers of this blog don't think that Irving should be in jail - just that he is an a$$hole."


We should all stand together across the world to defend freedom of speech.
2.24.2006 12:49am
BU2L (mail):
Lev,

The argument advanced in support of using foreign legal principles, when it's made, usually goes along the lines of "controversy X, though within our jurisdiction, will have far-reaching consequences in the international community. Therefore we should be guided by principles of international law."

I would also tell you how I feel about this argument, but I already dropped a near-profanity earlier in this thread, so I'll allow to infer my view from this explanation.
2.24.2006 1:01am
BU2L (mail):
allow [you] to infer

I should really edit first, and then post from now on.
2.24.2006 1:02am
Wintermute (www):
I finally wrote on this mess in "Graven Images," which has the original Brandeis quote, my usual juxtapositional irony, and a link to a compilation of horror cases.

I'm thinking besides the Free Speech Blog Ring, we need a national Free Speech Day, where we all publish the most offensive stuff to all groups we can find, just as a reminder to everybody not to get so uptight. Kind of like Halloween for grownups.
2.24.2006 1:56am
jr:
I have a question for any of the conspirators or a commenter that could know, but is there any reason why any person in the USA could get arrested and convicted for publishing anything in a newspaper(short of a specific or general threat against a person or property which is the only reason that comes to my mind at the moment)?
2.24.2006 10:00am
rationalranting:
fyi, there was an interesting op-ed by Bill Bennett and Dershowitz on the cartoonist flap in yesterday's Washington Post.
2.24.2006 10:03am
Lev:

I have a question for any of the conspirators or a commenter that could know, but is there any reason why any person in the USA could get arrested and convicted for publishing anything in a newspaper(short of a specific or general threat against a person or property which is the only reason that comes to my mind at the moment)?


Yes - at least for denying that the Holocaust took place. Why? Because not doing so will have far-reaching consequences in the international community. Therefore we should be guided by principles of international law."
2.24.2006 11:23pm