Was Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten right to publish cartoons of Muhammad?

  • Freedom to Express

    Simple: Expression is what sows the roots of ideas, debate and knowledge. By permitting a broad freedom to express, we help ignite honest, open and forthright debate. Mockery, satire, slang, imagery, cartoons, film--all serve as components of that wholesome debate. If one does not wish to see supposedly "insulting" content, then do not subscribe or just walk away. Would I choose to insult others? Perhaps not but I will fight wit my life your right to say it.

  • Absoultely they should have.

    All newspapers should never have a religious bias, as no religion deserves a special place in society. Also, its good that they did it. As the world was exposed to the stupidity that Islam is. Seriously, before this how many people knew if you drew a stick figure and called it Muhammad was equivalent to signing your death sentence.

  • Actually, neither right nor wrong

    Cartoonists regularly pillory and expose expose the hypocrisy of their subjects, nothing new there. To publish those cartoons is not a question of right or wrong, but effectively whether you've got the guts. They knew the likely reaction would be an over reaction, but in other spheres of life that would be more of a reason for a newspaper to publish such material.

  • Freedom of speech to all

    All things should be open to debate, humour and criticism. This should include religions and politics. Especially political religious movements like Islam. Nothing changes for better if you can not criticize and make humour out of it. Followers of insulted group never improve and advance without openness and critics. Outside groups feel pinned if they can not criticize and laughs to others

  • Yes of course

    He was he's mocking a fictitious idiotic creature who deserves to be be ridiculed in every possible way . It's a pity about people who get upset at this , let's be honest the character who was mocked is a child molester one of his marriages was to a 6 year old girl and this filthy animal waited till she was 9 before consummating the marriage ( very big of him ) but your not meant to mock him?
    The world is gone mad since when had a filthy animal like this the right not to be mocked ?

  • I think that Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, was right, because I believe in freedom of the press, whether or not I personally support the cartoons.

    There is no doubt that the cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten were in poor taste, but if you support freedom of the press, then you must support all publications, even if you don't personally agree with them. One person's opinion of what should be posted can vary greatly from another person's opinion. The newspaper did nothing illegal and, so, there was nothing wrong with their choice of what to publish.

    Posted by: SpitefulChi
  • There are cartoons of other religious and political significance that have been circulating for years.

    Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" is a prime example of heresy. There are several Jewish comics, Mel Brooks for example, that have had careers poking fun at religion and religious idols. If it is alright to mock some, then it should be alright to mock them all. That is the way of the world.

    Posted by: CowardlyVirgil31
  • The Danish newspaper was right to publish cartoons of Mohammad, because no newspapers should be held hostage to any religion.

    The Danish newspaper should have published those cartoons of Mohammad, because the press should be free to express any views that it chooses to. If the press is not free, and is not able to satirize or speak frankly about issues, then it cannot truly be a free press. The cartoons were meant to satirize particular issues, and so they were right to publish them.

    Posted by: PaleMason
  • Freedom of the press is a critical right, worldwide, and any public figure, historical or not, is not immune.

    The cartoons in question are mild compared to many others that satire public figures. The right of a free press to publish this material certainly overrides any perceived sensitivity by members of a religious faith. The violence of the reaction, by the way, seems to indicate a certain lack of confidence by the members of Islam. If they were secure in their beliefs, such things would not bother them.

    Posted by: laceymarya
  • Newspapers cannot be afraid of publishing controversial material.

    Where does one draw the line about what is offensive or okay to publish? A newspaper's first job is to publish facts, and secondarily, to publish a variety of opinions from its constituency to spark community discussion. Since this was published as a political cartoon, they are justified in publishing it as long as they also publish the dissent.

    Posted by: RedJonas
  • No no no

    I do not think that the cartoons should have been printed because people should have know that in any cartoon people will get offended. Especially with them knowing how offensive the Muslims would take this cartoon as there have been similar incidences like this in the past. I don't think that their printing was an attempt to adjust everyone's culture to Denmark because the whole point of people sending cartoons to the newspaper was to fight media censorship, not to adjust peoples' culture. I think that you should have included the pictures in the assignment because it's really hard to understand what's so bad about them without actually seeing them and also so we can prepare ourselves when we see things offensive to us in the future.

  • Mocking a religion is not right.

    It is very offensive towards muslims so I dont think it is okay.

    Same thing would happen if offensive publications of Jesus were published. Chistians and muslims would be very offended.

  • No.

    "then you must support all publications, even if you don't personally agree with them." <- lol, so wrong. The newspaper has every right to publish such cartoons, but they should exercise jurisdiction over what they publish unless the cartoons were particularly important for some reason.

  • I oppose the publication of cartoons of Muhammad as it is disrespectful to a large religious population.

    Newspapers should still be respectful of all religions, no matter what the political issue. Muhammad's image is considered blasphemous in Islam and it is a slap in the face to Muslims for a paper to depict him in cartoons. It is blatantly disrespectful and biased to publish the cartoons and just shows that the paper does not care about insulting a large religious group.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • Publishing cartoons mocking a religon is not right.

    To avoid conflict it is best to not allow others to make a mockery of one others faith. That being said I would like to correct a few and state the Muhammad (saw) is a Prophet and not a God.

  • No matter what events happened that involved the Islamic religion, people still don't have the right to mock someone's God. It's just not right for ethical, moral and religious reasons. Other than radical Muslims and Wahabists there are good Muslims too

    I agree that there are some groups of Islamic radicals and terrorists, but out of respect for the good Muslims in this world we could resist the need to make a joke out of Muslim religious figures. There are bad Christians too, but then again there are good ones too. So, the bottom line is, when there are a few rotten eggs in the basket we get rid of the few rotten eggs and not the basket.

    Posted by: B3rtFully
  • Publishing the cartoons of Muhammad was not the right thing to do because disrespecting anyone's god is not a professional thing to do.

    If the cartoons were meant to cause controversy, not enough thought was put into the consequences. Nothing good came out of publishing them and to purposely incite anyone to call for your death is nor a reasonable or responsible act. The radical Muslim community does not need any more excuses to act in revenge against the rest of the world.

    Posted by: EveC
  • It is a form of racism.

    You might say that Islam isn't a race, but it still is a form of showing open dislike for another person's religion. Decades ago, we barely respected black rights. Now, Christian, atheist and Jewish ignorance is revealing itself again by poking fun at the leaders of those who deserve to be respected, if not for what they preach then for their achievements. How often do you see african-american racism portrayed so clearly in the media? And if there is any, isn't it condemned? The press is not free, not at all. It yields to the views of the people, otherwise it would go out of business. Consider Rupert Murdoch and his rapidly crumbling empire. Learn this then, the this 'so-called' press that you so admire, it holds little power in the face of justice. In this case, the Danish cartoonist fully expected a lack of protest while he sat safely at home. No large protest was carried out; the Muslim population itself in Denmark is very low. That his why he continues penning his ignorance down on paper with a bare knowledge of what Islam is really like. On the face of it, little people know that the terrorists you hate are never condoned by a population of reasonable Muslims who know they themselves are at threat. So why would they condone them? Learn before you speak.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Contejour says2013-10-11T10:37:12.707
Let's be very clear on what sort of character is getting mockedTraditional sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10] with the exception of al-Tabari who records that she was ten years old.[11] lovely guy worthy of respect ?