The Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” continues to receive complaints from Muslims around the world after its depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In Syria, the Denmark Embassy was torched by the furious Muslims –followed by an apology from the newspaper. Other countries in Europe however have published the same cartoons and make matter worse in the name of freedom of speech. Just what is freedom of speech, really?
Simon Jenkins of “Times Online” says:
A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.
Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.
Does it mean that the editor has no respect to the freedom of speech?
Every one is entitled to his opinion. The more readers an article has, the more reaction it would get. If it offended one person, the sole reader would protest—and it may not have any impact upon the author. If there were more, however, what would happen? A hundred may demonstrate in front of the newspaper’s office; a thousand may boycott the article; a million may ask the government to ban the entire newspaper; and more may cause violence. Is it wrong? It is absolutely wrong! But it is not a simple task to control those people. It would be much easier to prevent it from happening: pay a respect to others’ belief, that is.
Subhan Ahsan of “Desicritics” wrote:
With the publication of such culturally insensitive cartoons by the Danish newspaper, there is even less peace now in the already fragile world. To many these cartoons may not have been a big deal, and yes I would have agreed with you on this had this Danish Newspaper recognize their stupidity and apologized for the same. But this Danish Agency and the Denmark government chose to ignore the plea of ambassadors of many nations, as if entertaining their few thousand citizens with silly cartoons is more important than the feelings of millions of people that these ambassadors represented.
On the comment, he gave an example for the showcase of the Nazi Swastika symbol. In Germany and many other countries in Europe it is forbidden to show the sign because it may hurt certain community. This unwritten policy is also very much followed by mainstream news agencies, he said. So why not this care for cultural/religious sensitivity be taken for other communities?
Yes Government shouldn’t enforce censorship. But if an event has generated lots of publicity and which could possibly create violence, isn’t its Government’s responsibility to take actions to resolve the matter?
