When does one’s right to freely speak about anything turn to a misuse of that right? I’m speaking about the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, which might have been pulled out of circulation by the press, but not from the Internet, and you can see them if you do a little search. <\/p>\n
I would agree that fanning the flames of controversy is stupid if done just for that. But that is where it stops. The original newspaper that published those cartoons could just as simply be labelled as “moronic” and “juvenile” and let it end at that, but the editor didn’t realize that he was playing with fire. And he (and his newspaper) got burned. <\/p>\n
There is no sense trying to reason with fanaticism, that is what makes it fanatic! You don’t poke at a rhino, even though it is your right, you are just dumb to try, because you can not control the rhino any better than you can control the fanatics. This is the real world where the newspaper’s action had and will have consequences that laws cannot affect. The newspaper did not target people in its own borders, or people of similar ideas about rights. They targeted people that live under different rules and laws, where their religion is far more ingrained with their daily lives, and what might seem to us as easily passed over, to them is a grave insult.<\/p>\n
Press is global, especially with the Internet, insulting someone else’s culture that is also known to be on the fanatical side is plain dumb, not to say irresponsible. Even if you want to show them that it is your right to do it, you don’t drop a “bomb” on their heads and say “Get used to it”. It provokes, and that is all it does. It does not encourage conversation, it does not promote good will, it is not done with the best intentions. And when that is the case, it ceases to be your right to do it.<\/p>\n
Some might interpret this as “playing dead while Islam tries to rule the world”. I’m sorry to disagree, but the newspaper’s liberties were not in jeopardy, their homes and families, their country was not in danger. They were not in any threat that the publishing of those cartoons would solve. Even if the newspaper felt they had to fight for something, attacking their religion was a very bad practice, and the newspaper’s “apology” was only half true; we apologize for any hard feelings caused. Then why do it in the first place? Cartoons that offend the western religions or politics or countries are common in the East, but should we think that because we don’t really care, they shouldn’t either? Is this really a case of “You did it so why not us”? Are we that much immature? Or should we stop and think that other people do not think like we do? That their values might be different than ours? Who is superior in their moral standing; the guy that provokes all the time, poking at people’s beliefs, or the guy that sit quietly and only fight when he is actually threatened?<\/p>\n
The press has a right to free speech because it also has an obligation to report the truth, not its view of the truth, not an interpretation, not a spin of it; the actual truth backed up by evidence, testimonies, records. Rights come always with Obligations, there is no other way to maintain the balance. If all we had were rights, then the world would be in anarchy. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When does one’s right to freely speak about anything turn to a misuse of that right? I’m speaking about the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, which might have been pulled out of circulation by the press, but not from the Internet, and you can see them if you do a little search. I would agree … Continue reading Free speech<\/span>