June 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

« View from the Sidewalk | Main | Game of chance »

Feb 23, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr. Sun

I can't seem to find where EdCone.com is on this issue.

Ed Cone

Which issue?

Mr. Sun

Never mind, that answers my question.

Ed Cone

No, really, there are a number of issues here.

Are you asking if I think these cartoons should be printed by any paper? The answer is yes.

Are you asking if I would print them if I was an editor? My answer is, I don't know, I'm not the editor of a paper, but I think I probably would, although I'd probably do it in some news context and not as a straight-up editorial comment.

I linked to the cartoons from my site, long before the Rhino printed them or the N&R said it would not do so.

Fecund Stench

Good for Willie and John in displaying the courage of their convictions. Unfortunately, this thing may have unintended and quite unforeseen consequences.

PotatoStew

What consequenses do you think it could have that could not have been foreseen?

Mr. Sun

I was obviously referring to the issues you raised while on the fence. You have an uninterrupted record of strong opinions on the proper exercise of editorial judgment in the absence of a W-2 from Landmark Communications, so it's strange to hear that now as some kind of a restraint. Having said that, you're on the record now and I agree. You can make it all very complicated, but it seems like The Rhino is reporting and The N&R is not.

Fecund Stench

Stew, this event has legs and is emblematic of deeper problems on many levels. It may be a defining moment, like your political compass thing.

Ed Cone

I was never on the fence. I linked to the cartoons three weeks ago. That said, I don't think this is uncomplicated, which is why I just asked you, in all seriousness, to which issue you were referring.

Missouri Mule

David Irving, the Holocaust denier, has been sentenced to prison in Austria. He has been deported from several countries. His distortions of history are odious, but should freedom of speech doctrines protect him, too? He has been exposed as an anti-Semite, Nazi sympathizer and liar, but should he be allowed to say what he wishes to? I do not know the motives of the Danish cartoonist, but certainly there has been plenty of evidence since the publication of the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon to show how disturbing this was to a lot of people. You may argue that the two examples are not of equal gravity, and that is true to me but not to many others, but one could argue a double standard: offensively falsifying history is more heinous that offensively publishing an opinion. I can see no justification in republishing the cartoon at this time.

Ed Cone

Much as it pains me to agree with Christopher Hitchens, he was correct in this morning's Wall St. Journal: "The imprisonment of David Irving by the Austrian authorities is a disgrace. It is a state punishment for a crime -- that of expression and argument and publication -- that is not a legal offense in Mr. Irving's country of birth and that could not be an offense under the First Amendment. It is to be hoped, by all those who value the right to dissent, that his appeal against both sentence and conviction will be successful."

David Hoggard

Mr. Sun,

Where do you come down on the issue of 'to publish, or not to publish' the cartoons? I value your opinion....

Mr. Sun

Publish. It's newsworthy. Even JR couldn't put his whole heart into the attempt to claim otherwise, throwing out that "no local interest" angle like chum. It' offensive. Let me be crystal clear on this: I'm willing to have my sensibilities offended, and expect no less of Muslims.

Chewie

When anyone hears when and where the demonstrations will be, it would be great if they would post it here.

me blog

If it is funny..publish.

The comments to this entry are closed.