LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Free Speech in the US, unless we scare the Muslims? Jerry Fallwell & Company are fair game for the Washington Post, but not Islam:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294779,00.html

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

The installment did not appear in the Post's print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.

The Washington Post Writers Group syndicates "Opus," and the Post is the cartoon's home newspaper. The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.

Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.

Below is the comic in question that was yanked from last Sunday's newspaper for fear of upsetting the Muslims. Are all the left-leaning friends among up in arms over free-speech? Where is the outrage?

I'm confused. Are the publication decisions of a private newspaper really issues of free speech? Or did they somehow prevent the strip from being run or seen anywhere in the country?

Everyone in the world is OK to make fun of: Jesus, Buddha, any of the Hindu gods...but an image of a muslim woman? HOW DARE YOU!??!1!!!!one!!!!!lolz!!!!

Hey mark your calendar...I think this is the first time anyone Muslim has remotely stood up for an Islamic female. I think it's coincidence though.

(cue complaining about the price of tea in china)

LaxRef wrote:I'm confused. Are the publication decisions of a private newspaper really issues of free speech?

You are correct LaxRef. The first amendment only mentions the government in regards to allowing free speech. The Post, as a private enterprise, can make editiorial decisions as they see fit. It raises a few points.

A. There is clearly a double standard here. Not even a debate any more. You can put a crufix in a jar of urine and put the Star of David in a pile of Cow Dung - but god forbid if someone publishes a cartoon that might offend Islam.

B. I respond emotionally every time I read the opinion page in my local newspaper. Does that mean they won't run things that won't offend me?

LaxRef wrote:Or did they somehow prevent the strip from being run or seen anywhere in the country?

The comic did not run in several other newspapers around the country. Not sure how that all worked, but I assume the one larger company owns the Post plus several other newspapers from around the country.

Cartoon did appear in the MPLS Star/Tribune and Pioneer Press. I've heard no complaints in the media as of now.

Rob

Perhaps it is simply not a very good cartoon?

I'm more emotionally curious why something like this story took two months to report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/ ... index.html

One could say that it's not staying silent about free speech, but rather the public buying into the administration's (and policiticians in general) spouting off about how the terrorists are going to attack us here, and so we need to go to war with Iraq and Iran.

We've basically turned into a nation of wimps, scared at any little bump in the night. That's the real indication that terror works, when you get things like people being arrested for sprinkling flour for a running trail, people willing to have their conversations recorded, etc.. People in middle America think they're going to be the next target for a muslim attack and vote in a Washington insider pretending to be a jet fighter cowboy you'd like to have a beer with (vs other Washington insiders), whereas the homicide rate is around 17,000 per year according to wikipedia.

Why aren't the ports secure? What have politicians done to truly make us safe besides create a color-coded chart and suggest we buy duct-tape and saran-wrap? All the while more than 3,000 of our fellow men and women are now dead fighting in another country's civil war.

What are you going to do about it? What exactly is there to do about it? And I seriously doubt you're going to see much change in any direction if any of the front-runners get elected in the coming election on either side.

Oaks for pres!

Oaks/Jarrell '08

Adam Gamradt wrote:Perhaps it is simply not a very good cartoon?

I'm more emotionally curious why something like this story took two months to report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/ ... index.html

Pls start another thread on that one Adam.

Berkeley Breathed's comics are syndicated in hundreds of newspapers nationwide. The cartoon wasn't cancelled because it isn't any good. Last week's weekly comic was selectively sensored due to a fear of negative reaction from Islamists. (The religion that is so peaceful, they will kill or bomb you to prove it.)

My point is that if you are truly for free speech and uncensored media, at least be consistent.

"(The religion that is so peaceful, they will kill or bomb you to prove it.)"

Sometimes I wonder about you Sonny.

Several individual outlets decided not to run the cartoon, and that's well within their authority. Rob has already shown the cartoon ran in the Star Tribune, one of the so called liberal media outlets.

The decision to not publish the story about waiting to publish a story on yet another sexual miscreant political servant who claims to fight for traditional family values is relevant to the discussion of censorship and\or selective reporting. But it is your forum, so you're allowed to set the rules about what we can and can't discuss, and where we can discuss it, even if you miss out on the irony involved in such an exercise.

You can claim censorship, have a debate about it, and even attempt to limit my input, but I certainly won't participate further when you choose to take things beyond the limits of reason, as you have with the above quote.

Although I find it amusing that, years ago, in the Bloom Couny strip, Breathed broached the same topic of censorship in comic strips

all i know is we would leave one helluva campaign trail.
pillage and burn....
Jarrell
aka BJ

Maybe we should all become comfortable with the simple fact that the whole world is crazy; full of crazy people who would kill without giving it a second thought.

Adam Gamradt wrote:Several individual outlets decided not to run the cartoon, and that's well within their authority. Rob has already shown the cartoon ran in the Star Tribune, one of the so called liberal media outlets.

The decision to not publish the story about waiting to publish a story on yet another sexual miscreant political servant who claims to fight for traditional family values is relevant to the discussion of censorship and\or selective reporting. But it is your forum, so you're allowed to set the rules about what we can and can't discuss, and where we can discuss it, even if you miss out on the irony involved in such an exercise.

You can claim censorship, have a debate about it, and even attempt to limit my input, but I certainly won't participate further when you choose to take things beyond the limits of reason, as you have with the above quote.

All I'm saying is don't move the goalposts on me Adam. I don't know how or why the Craig story didn't get reported when it originally happened. But I don't think that is relevant to the points I've raised above.

If it helps, I for one am disappointed that they would choose to not run that comic -hardly offensive in my mind.
I just saw a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a woman in a burkah - it was hilarious! I watched the credits to see who played the woman - it was Moon Unit Zappa.