And furthermore...

Submitted by JustMe (United States), Mar 21, 2006 at 15:13

I know this was from 3/10 but I tried to explain with the Johnny and Suzie approach and I never responded to this part of Sarah's comment:

"The Danish Imams were not intentionally being offensive (they were just asking for support) but the newspapers and journalists were. Freedom of expression for the press, but not for the Imams. Why??" --Submitted by Sarah, Mar 10, 2006 at 19:05


Does this sound backasswards to anyone else? 'The imams were not intentionally being offensive? Just asking for support? No freedom of expression for the imams?' Hold on. They absolutely were being offensive. In fact, when it didn't offend enough, they pushed it to the max. That's a lot more than asking for support. They got what they wanted in the end. You say there was no freedom of expression for the imams. How? Nobody condemned the imams. They freely expressed themselves with the cartoons they drew of their own prophet. Even in the article presented earlier, there was nothing but criticism for everyone except the imams and the rioters. Where was their freedom of speech denied? It seems the imams and the rioters had plenty of freedom of expression. They drew obscene cartoons with no consequences for inciting violence. The rioters freely expressed themselves in the streets and without regard to human lives, once again, with no consequences. But it's the newspaper that you feel must pay and should not have the freedom of speech.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".