Is it surprising that the Guardian joins the growing list of those newspapers who refuse to reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons? But that’s what I would have expected given that rag’s repeated failure to condemn the religious nature of Islamic terrorism. And, in an unsigned editorial in yesterday’s Comment is Free, the paper gives an unconvincing explanation for its decision not to show those cartoons. The reason: because those reprints would chance the “voice” of the Guardian and “alter their editorial values.” Cry me a river! Here are the paper’s weasel words:
In social media, the call has been loud – and aimed at several British newspapers, including this one – to take a stand by publishing the very images that made Charlie Hebdo a target. For the most vociferous, republishing a sample of the magazine’s usual fare, which the Guardian has already done, is not enough: they insist that true defenders of free speech would reprint Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of the prophet Muhammad, especially the crudest, most scatological examples.
That case is straightforward. Since these are the images the gunmen wanted to stop, the surviving free press is obliged to deny the killers that victory. No other gesture can show that we refuse to be cowed by their crime. By repeating Charlie Hebdo’s action, we would demonstrate our resistance to the edict the terrorists sought to enforce on pain of death. We show that Charlie Hebdo was not alone.
There is an appealing simplicity to that stance, but it rests on faulty logic. The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.
Each and every publication has a different purpose and ethos. Charlie Hebdo is not the Guardian or the New York Times, nor is it the Daily Mail or Private Eye. The animating intention behind its work was to satirise and provoke in a distinctive voice, one that would not sit easily in other publications. Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice.
You can’t get more disingenuous than that. Really—”forced to speak in a different voice”? How about this: those cartoons were news, for they are what sparked the terrorist attacks. Readers want and need to see them, if only to see what kind of relatively innocent stuff sets off these murderous Muslims. Without them, one can only guess what the terrorists considered offensive. Reprinting them is not endorsing their content; reprinting them is an act of news. The only reason you wouldn’t do that, as a newspaper, is if you’re afraid of the consequences.
And that—as well as their long-standing sympathy for Islam—is really why the Guardian has taken this stand. (To be fair, they’re donating 10,000 pounds to Charlie Hebdo.) Like the Telegraph and the BBC, the Guardian is simply afraid of the consequences of showing the cartoons. They don’t want to be attacked by enraged Muslim thugs.
It goes without saying that this decision is exactly what the terrorists want: to stop criticism of Islam. The Guardian will give ten thousand pounds to another magazine that satirizes Islam, but it doesn’t have the guts to show even one cartoon that brought on the carnage at Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian is reprehensible, and their “explanation” convinces no one.
Apropos of that, here’s today’s Bad Reporter strip by Don Asmussen; no comment needed:
h/t: jsp, Natalie
A few thoughts:
If the media can suggest that mayors and protestors [from New York a few weeks ago] “caused” police to be assassinated by lunatics and have blood on their hands, they should have no problem in understanding that “cartoonists” likewise can incite violence.
If no cartoon is subject to limitation and if they should be aired freely why are so many networks refusing to run that which they embrace as free speech?
When a group has repeatedly reacted violently in the past, notwithstanding having no basis in fact or law or justification to do so, to that which they have repeatedly suggested is blasphemous and which they vowed retaliation over, can anyone actually claim surprise.
[Remember: This is not an excuse for the event]
I do think there is a difference.
Vengeance for murder is a tiny bit more sane than vengeance for a cartoon. And there were suggestions that the killing(s) by police were murder. Actually, more than suggestions.
I’m not saying it’s justified, but it is a bit more understandable.
When a group has repeatedly reacted violently in the past…
What ‘group’ is that? All these terrorists are crazed lone-wolf-types not supported or motivated by any community or belief system, don’cha know…
sub
shame
Here is the only honest explanation for not publishing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons and it is from Jylland-posten: “We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, that is the explanation why we do not reprint the cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo’s,” Jyllands-Posten said. “We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation.”
sub
I can understand that they’re a bit cautious given the history, but at the same time they’re missing an opportunity to share the load, so to speak.
They’re doing the thing they’re complaining others did back when they where under fire.
But then again, it is possible that they’ve been in touch with the intelligence service regarding specific threats.
Charlie Hebdo was fire-bombed for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
The lack of solidarity is shitty.
If all the newspapers do it, can they really firebomb every single one? And would not such acts cause consternation if people view their newspapers (not just the minority ones) as being under attack (literally)?
That, if I understand it, is the main point of Je suis Charlie. It’s “I’m Spartacus!”, with a bit of “No, I’m Brian, and so’s my wife!”
There will presumably be further attacks, but individuals achieve relative safety by flocking together, and a big enough flock (or swarm) makes things very difficult for predators.
http://p1cdn01.thewrap.com/images/2015/01/Charle-Hebdo-2.jpg
. . . and probably bow to their insurance companies as well.
I really do not think you can demand heroism from anybody except yourself. You can, though, demand honesty. Guardian was dishonest in their explanation why they refused to republish the cartoons. Jylland-Posten was honest.
I wonder if those reading the sources that are not showing the cartoons, understand how non-graphic they are. I wonder if in their minds, they have this picture of some pornographic, blood smeared, truly awful depiction of the figurehead of Islam. To truly understand the absurdity of what was done, you need to see for yourself what was drawn.
I doubt this: OF COURSE those papers have seen the cartoons. Who hasn’t?
I think Markham was wondering about the public – the readership of a publication that chose not to run the cartoons.
I was thinking more of the customers of those media organizations not choosing to show the cartoons. Reading some of the adjectives they are using to describe the cartoons without actually showing them may present a false picture of what the cartoons actually show.
Well, Jerry said in the OP: “Readers want and need to see them, if only to see what kind of relatively innocent stuff sets off these murderous Muslims. Without them, one can only guess what the terrorists considered offensive.”
I made the same point myself in a comment on another page.
They are pretty innocuous in secular terms.
/@
It doesn’t matter what the cartoons actually show, to a radical Muslim ANY depiction (whether innocuous or not) of Muhammed is blasphemous and therefore punishable by death (also any depiction of natural forms is as well but we don’t see people being murdered for drawing life scenes – perhaps the untouchability of said mammalian hominid is to blame?).
Here’s a link to the cartoons that some people find offensive. I think Jerry should post all of them on his website and not just the least offensive ones.
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
I think if you review the past few day’s postings you’ll find Jerry has done so already.
Where?
If you look back a couple of days in the website history… bingo.
Sorry. No BINGO. The most offensive cartoons aren’t there.
It gets better!? Got a link…?
b&
Then put a link to them on your site, Larry. We’d all like to see your copy of the dirty pictures you found in dad’t dresser.
Look at the link I posted above. Let’s see ALL of the cartoons on this website and let’s see you calling for American newspapers to publish the most vile cartoons.
Oh, BTW, stop being childish.
Ah — I somehow had managed to overlook your earlier post to the Gawker article with not just covers but the contents. Personally, I had thought it was just the covers that the cowards were so afraid of, but I now see that there’s even more salacious stuff between the covers.
This pretty much captures the spirit:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–0hoIoox_–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/hndhv3h8gp7x98ku8e7s.jpg
Professor Ceiling Cat is, of course, free to remove that link, but I’d be a bit surprised if he did. Especially considering that it’s nothing more than a page out of an NC-17 French version of Mad Magazine.
And, really? Criticizing Jerry for publishing the images that the major news outlets are explicitly censoring but failing to dig up even more? What’s he suppose to do — scan and host all the back issues? Just the cover alone was enough for a fatwa. Or maybe you want him to tattoo some of these on his forehead…?
Cheers,
b&
There are no images there that I haven’t yet seen. Offensive? Sure. So, what’s your point? That Charlie Hebdo brought it on itself? That offensive cartoons justify murder? That Islam must not be mocked? Those are childish positions.
And, yes, American newspapers should publish them. Otherwise readers are left uninformed about a significant part of the story.
But more to the point, Anerican newspapers and TV have refused to publish ANY cartoon images of “The Prophet”. It isn’t just the most offensive images that are censored.
My point is that the most offensive cartoons haven’t been posted on this website but the owner says it’s cowardly for major newspapers not to publish them.
Try and keep up.
I’ll allow our host to speak for himself.
If you think American newspapers and American TV networks are going to publish the most offensive cartoons then you are incredibly stupid or incredibly naive. Possibly both. And if they don’t publish THOSE cartoons but publish the least offensive ones then they are misleading the public about why average Muslims might be upset and that’s worse than not showing any cartoons.
Erm…I think you’re missing a pretty big piece of the puzzle.
The cowards are killing people for drawing pictures of Muhammad, most especially the magazine covers a minority of the press is publishing. The salacious cartoons between the covers are icing on the cake for them, so to speak, but just the covers themselves are reason enough for the cowards to pull out their guns and their bombs.
As such, I’m personally fine with major news outlets just showing the less-salacious covers. Sure, it’d be fantastic if they showed the whole thing, perhaps even with the dangly bits pixellated out…but it’s the covers that’re the important part of the story.
If the cowards will kill over the covers, of course they’d kill over the contents. But the covers themselves are offensive only to cowards who fear ridicule, and that’s the real story, here.
Were it the case that the cowards were fine with the covers but what really set them off were the salacious cartoons, you’d have a point, and it’d be those that would need to be shown — again, even if that meant pixellating selected portions of the child-raping Profit’s anatomy. But that’s not the case.
Hell, even this is enough to send the cowards into an apoplectic rage:
Cheers,
b&
Hmmm…that was supposed to be an ASCII stick figure. Ah, well…I tried….
b&
P.S. A bit of searching suggests that this emoticon is supposed to represent the childfucker in chief: (((:~{> b&
Re Prof. Moran
If you think American newspapers and American TV networks are going to publish the most offensive cartoons then you are incredibly stupid or incredibly naive. Possibly both. And if they don’t publish THOSE cartoons but publish the least offensive ones then they are misleading the public about why average Muslims might be upset and that’s worse than not showing any cartoons.
I agree that US newspapers aren’t noted for their intestinal fortitude. Are Canadian newspapers printing the offensive cartoons that the professor is referring to?
No. As far as I know not even the Quebec newspapers published the most offensive cartoons. I wouldn’t expect them to. I don’t expect that any newspaper in the UK would publish them either.
The point, which somehow you refuse to acknowledge, Larry, is that American newspapers* will publish NO depiction of Mohammad. None. Because they don’t want to offend a Muslim reader (translation: they fear being fire-bombed).
They have no problem publishing photos of Piss Christ. They have no problem publishing endlessly offensive slurs on atheists. But, of course, Catholics and atheists rarely kill people in reaction to being offended.
*With the apparent exception of the Washington Post which. in a fit of responsibility, seems to have changed policy.
I’m not refusing to acknowledge that. I’m simply pointing out that some of the arguments being used are rather silly. If it’s important to show why Muslims are upset then you would need to publish the most offensive cartoons but not even most bloggers go that far.
I’ve also seen comments on this thread that seem to imply that the cartoons aren’t all that offensive. That’s because they haven’t seen the offensive ones.
Either you are hiding behind the word “some” or you’re being obtuse. You only need to publish ONE image of “the prophet” (PBUH) to offend the people who enforce this prohibition with guns and bombs.
This one will do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#mediaviewer/File:Muhammad_1514.jpg
Damn. HTML fail. Let me try again.
Somehow this is all not working. But look for historic images of Mohammad and you’ll find enough to offend Islamists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#mediaviewer/File:Muhammad_1514.jpg
Again, you seem to be mistraken on the facts.
Muslims are offended by any depiction of Muhammad. Even a stick figure with the name next to it.
Or, for that matter, even a freakin’ child’s teddy bear upon whom the child bestows the name.
When ultimate insult is taken by a stick figure, nothing is added by fleshing the figure out, giving it genitalia, and putting it in compromising positions. What is there to add to ultimate insult? I’ll kill you for this stick figure, and I’ll be super-duper-extra-special mad at you when I kill you for this lascivious cartoon?
I agree that the press should ideally show all the cartoons, but the NC-17 ones aren’t the real story. The real story is that the “tame” images were all the excuse the cowards wanted to grab their guns, and failing to show even those images is granting them all the Danegeld they could ever possibly ask for.
b&
Even if it were the most vile thing one could imagine, so what?
Precisely.
There are a great many offensive and vile images out there – including the images of the carnage caused by the Paris killers.
Most of us can get by ignoring them.
A case in point (very NSFW):
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
The above linked image is quite shocking, but as the accompanying text says:
“Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”
That, along with the headline “No One Murdered Because Of This Image” says it all really.
That image was published in September 2012.
An excellent reminder of what this is all about.
The bit I find objectionable is the “appealing simplicity … faulty logic.” If they had instead endorsed the stance other outlets have taken and simply said they choose a different way, it would still be lame but less so. I think they are trying to say they are just as brave for not publishing as are outlets who do so, and that resisting the pressure to publish is somehow an equivalent exercise of free speech. The second part is true as far as it goes – the way they put it is obnoxious and self-congratulatory. This is not the time for self-congratulation.
The Guardian showed pictures of the murder scene. So does murder fit their “voice” but humor doesn’t?
Apparently. If the editors really believe that simply showing an offensive cartoon would mean they “echo and amplify” its message, I would like to hear how they distinguish and justify showing the results of the terrorists’ message in response to the cartoon. I’m sure their answer would be a fridge-worthy jumble of doublespeak and sophistry!
The Guardian is the second leading Israel bashing news outlet in the UK (second only to the BBC). I’m only surprised that it hasn’t blamed the attack on Israel.
You’ve calmed down a bit now, mate? 🙂
Oh my, now I’m confused. Is The Guardian being asked to add a new section to their regular newspaper titled something like “Provoking Satire,” sandwiched perhaps in between the Art section and the Want Ads?
No? Then they should drop that stupid appeal to the “faulty logic” of those who think news should be reported as news.
Is the Guardian actually implying they are taking a stand for free speech by not giving in to the the loud call on social media for them to republish the images?
Yeah. Because they are courageous advocates for freedom of expression.
Really, the editors at the Guardian are the heroes of this whole situation if you think about it. With the French police a distant second.
Yeah. Because they are courageous advocates for freedom of expression.
Sacré bleu! Déjà vu!
sub
“It goes without saying that this decision is exactly what the terrorists want: to stop criticism of Islam. “
I’m not yet convinced that was the only result the terrorists were looking for,
No doubt they were enraged by the publication of the cartoons and wanted such “defamations” of their profit stopped.
But if they were smart, and they seemed to be, then they would also realize that they were in a “heads we win, tails we win” situation.
If the reaction of the press was to cower from showing the cartoons – that’s one objective met. But if things went the opposite way and the press made some display of solidarity, many printing the cartoons, that would not doubt inflame the passions and sense of and insult among the wider Muslim community, both in the east and in the west. Then the terrorist side gets to also say “See how the West disrespects us, defaming The Prophet? See how they are against Islam??!!!”
So they can curry more favor and converts to the cause.
Plus, of course, they get the virgins either way.
Nice “Just So” story.
I don’t get why they can’t show the cartoons under the guise of context. “This is what people killed over” isn’t that hard of a justification.
Yes. Showing the cartoons eliminates any sympathy (among reasonable people) for the terrorists: “This is what people killed over” can result in “that’s what people got killed</em over?!"
It’s hard to admit to being intimidated and harder to admit to being a coward. Kind of like an Islamic Terrorist who shoots unarmed people. Never see them admitting what they actually are.
If you don’t have the cuts to give the news you should find another line of work. The Guardian may be getting more like Fox which is not news at all. It’s a position.
That’s good…
Stop giving us your position, just give us the news!
It is only a matter of time before Western newspapers start placing “PBUH” after each mention of Mohammed.
Which is very ironic considering that he waged wars of genocide in order to establish his religion. And all the people he killed:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
Another point: notice how all the people he executed also mocked him with Words?
Don’t worry, as soon as the terrorists start demanding it, the media will be sure to comply.
Ha! YES! I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, including before this Paris massacre. Indeed, for a while now I’ve been taking to ironically saying “Peace be upon him” after saying the prophet’s name. People who know me get that I’m taking the piss out of this ridiculous cultural state of affairs we find ourselves in; people who don’t know me either get confused or think I’m mocking Islam(!)
“Piss be upon him”? It is the “religion of piss” after all? Or am I mishearing things?
/@
I’m going to hear this every time I hear the original. In fact said quickly peace sounds like piss.
Piss be upon him.
That’s good.
I thought this bit about the NYT Editor feeling a tad bit… touchy… about the topic was interesting: http://bit.ly/1yMeoPV
Seems like a nerve was struck.
This is true.
However, if you’re going to report that the cowards shouted, “Allahu Akbar,” as they murdered their victims, are you not echoing and amplifying their judgements by repeating their words?
And if you’re going to do that, but not reprint the perceived insult which prompted the response of bullet-punctuated cries of, “Allahu Akbar,” are you not making even more emphatic your allegiance with the terrorists? Because, at that point, you’ve stepped far beyond the bounds of merely reporting the facts on the ground and into the territory of silencing the voices of the one side whilst amplifying the voices of the other.
Oh — and I’m not in the slightest offended by the image below, but I do take great offense at the call, “Allahu Akbar.” For me, it’s right up there with some bedsheet-hooded thug shouting, “Die, nigger!” as he throws a rope over a tree branch. But I have no problem with the Guardian and others printing that vile obscenity in their reporting, if and only if they also fairly report the last message of the victims.
https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/momo1web.jpg
Cheers,
b&
It is strange too, is it not, that printing a depiction of the prophet is deemed to cause too much pain to the delicate sensibilities of the average peaceful Muslim, but repeating the the attacker’s blasphemous invocation of those same peaceful Muslims god’s name during, and as justification for, slaughtering innocents is not.
Strange indeed are these delicate sensibilities.
French TV posted a video of the terrorists explaining their motives, surely caving into the publicity that they crave and possibly inciting others to copy cat?
The Guardian also, no doubt, would have been frightened of physical reprisals against their staff if they had printed the cartoon(but in that case why not just admit it?). But I do feel that in the case of the Guardian that is not the main reason. The Guardian positions itself as a left-wing newspaper – and for some reason, in Britain criticism of anything to do with Islam has come to be interpreted as right-wing. Something to do with the invasion of Iraq, maybe; or a perception that Muslim countries are generally poorer and more disadvantaged than non-Muslim ones; or a fear of being thought racist; or because left-wing thought in the UK currently identifies with the Palestinian cause and is therefore instinctively pro-Muslim… Whatever the exact mix of reasons, the point is that the Guardian just wouldn’t want to do anything that might be perceived as anti-Muslim.
I do think there’s something contemptible about this way of reporting – clinging so closely to an agenda that you can’t report anything that doesn’t fit it. It’s just not honest. I used to read the Guardian, but I don’t any more.
The future of satirical cartoons should be of two types.
1) A 3D stereogram. That way Islamists will first need to go cross-eyed to see the image, then get outraged and then kill the cartoonists.
or
2) A connect the dots type. That way they first have to connect the dots to draw the image, then get outraged and then kill the cartoonists, which happens to also be themselves.
lolz.
Pusillanimous capitulation will soon become a commonplace literary device. Why didn’t the author mention something/anything about the subject matter he/she was supposed to be writing about? Oh, he/she was employing clever usage of pusillanimous capitulation.
Just ask Hypatia what happens next.
Here’s an excellent essay by Kenan Malik, who also notes a few of the articles that Jerry pointed to here (eg., Donoghue).
https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/
“Had journalists and artists and political activists taken a more robust view on free speech over the past 20 years then we may never have come to this. Instead, they have helped create a new culture of self-censorship….”
“To accept that certain things cannot be said is to accept that certain forms of power can’t be challenged.”
“To ridicule religion and to defend free expression is not to attack minority communities. On the contrary: without doing both it is impossible to defend the freedoms of Muslims or of any one else.”
Possibly because of the attention paid to the attacks in France, an even worse recent attack by Boko Haram is not getting much attention. Hundreds or more appear to have been massacred recently.
Yes, it’s hard to imagine a massacre flying under the radar, but that one sure did. The perpetrators must be so disappointed.
The degree to which religious people hold images such as these in revile still far exceeds the shock of the images themselves. Honestly, I find that cartoon hilarious on multiple levels, but you are right. Most people who are offended will ignore it and move on; or, possibly pound out a letter to the editor or comment on Onion’s Facebook page. Good for them, and I repeat, so what? So fucking what?
It seems that, willy nilly and insidiously, we are becoming subject to Islamic blasphemy laws.
I have heard it said that nobody with a sense of humour ever founded a religion. It’s like life is really seri-ass. Personally, a humourless life is not worth living.
Reblogged this on The Doggerelizer and commented:
Sums my thoughts up precisely.
Thanks for this. I’ve reblogged this post and also written a similar one myself:
https://doggerelizer.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/je-suis-charlie-2/
Peace.
Jerry, I think it’s really unfair for you to call the Guardian’s editor cowardly over this.
If you were the editor of a major newspaper, would you have no qualms about blithely republishing these cartoons, and therefore putting the lives of all your staff at risk?
When you decide to republish them, you’re only putting yourself at risk. And the danger that you will suffer repercussions is minimal compared to the danger that a major news outlet like the Guardian would suffer repercussions. The staff at Charlie Hedbo had accepted the risk they put themselves in by being a part of that organisation. The staff at the Guardian have not signed up to the same risk.
Also, if the Guardian wishes not to republish these cartoons because it does not want to offend Muslims, then how is that such an unreasonable position? It’s not the position you take, and I respect that. But it seems a reasonable enough position to hold.
It doesn’t mean that they are failing to support freedom of speech. If the Guardian support the freedom to publish pornography, that doesn’t mean that they have to publish pornography themselves.
Lastly,there is so much animosity towards Muslims right now in Europe — most of whom have nothing to do with Islamic extremism — and I respect the Guardian and other media outlets for not wanting to add further fuel to that fire.
Nightglare, you adressed our host but I would like to offer a reply to your comment. I have asked myself the same question, if I were editor of a newspaper, would I want to publish something if I fear it might put my co-workers at risk? Such thoughts are only natural to have in this kind of circumstance.
But the next thought seems to me to be equally unavoidable: Colleagues from a publication in Europe have been killed in a brutal attack simply in reaction to their publication. This event must be unnecceptable to us all. And especially those of us who have the good fortune to enjoy the protection and freedom of a democratic government, do have the moral duty to stand together strong and send a clear, undithering, unapologetic message to the whole world: We will not dug down to this criminal activity that is in no proportion whatsoever to the alleged offence caused. We will not tolerate terrorists’ attempts at censorship. This image [insert offending cartoon, sorry, I don’t know how, Ben Goren does] is no excuse for murder.
Every newspaper should have done it. Every single one. It is clear that individuals feel afraid, that is why people have to stick together, in this case simply to uphold common sense. We can not expect courage from the dead.
It’s not that I don’t see the point about safety and risk, but it comes at the expense of assigning responsibility to the people who actually commit the deeds. The logic of assigning responsibility to the editor for his staff’s safety is the same as the logic that blames a rape victim for dressing “provocatively” at the time. There is no way of making bad taste in cartoon caricaturing admissible to a partial charge of homicide without effectively saying free speech is not a moral imperative, and a confusion of the three issues of ethics, prudence, and taste will more likely make things worse.
I don’t blame the papers for being nervous about reprisals, but they might at least be honest about their motives, instead of hiding behind what look to me to be excuses.
I’m curious if those who advocate journalistic caution also think that historians should refrain from offending Muslims.
Guardian art writer Jonathan Jones wrote, in a comment below his article:
This is actually very reasonable (cf. my comparison to defensive flocking behaviour above), but whether editorial policy will move in this direction is another question.
In other news, I see that Rupert Murdoch is all for blaming Muslims, and Tony Abbott has spoken out against self-censorship. All of a sudden I have a creepy feeling that there must be something deeply wrong with these positions…
A comment on the Comment is Free post makes an excellent point:
Arguments that ‘phobia’ doesn’t mean ‘fear’ follow immediately, but are stupid.
I can understand the Guardian’s position. I mean, at least they’re consistent in their refusal to publish offensive images that might hurt the delicate sensibilities of the religious:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/sep/28/andres-serrano-piss-christ-new-york