Should We Publish Those Cartoons Of Muhammad?

“...When it comes to whether American newspapers can publish the cartoons, there’s no question that we can. But should we?...” I’ve been asked, as an editor, if I would have allowed an unflattering cartoon, in caricature, of the Prophet Muhammad to be published within these pages. I have the right to, after all. It says so in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

My answer to the question is no. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution. It has everything to do with dignity and respect and empathy and compassion. It also has to do with the stupidity of the publishers and editors of a Danish newspaper, who, last September — a full five months ago (please remember this; we’ll get back to it) decided they would stand up to a dare from a book publisher about Islam and held a contest of sorts among a few editorial cartoonists. It is supposed that the “winner” of the contest would have his or her caricatures published in the book. So far, it hasn’t gotten to that point, however, because those who would foment violence against the U.S. and all its friends in Europe and elsewhere, decided to use this as a jumping off place to incur violence; a point where they can incite riots — and worse — to make those who do not believe in Muhammad look as bad as possible.

We have all recently seen what is going on in the Muslim world, where organized uprisings have brought destruction to Danish, some French, and even some New Zealand embassies, plus others, because newspapers in their countries dared to publish the offending cartoons. There were even a few American newspapers that printed some of the caricatures. Three editors in a New York paper threatened to quit if their paper didn’t publish the pictures, which the publication previously agreed to do. The editors decided to give up their jobs, rather than sacrifice their Freedom of the Press principles when the photos were pulled at the last minute.

When it comes to whether we — American newspapers — can publish the cartoons, there’s no question that we can. But should we? Should the Danish papers have started this whole thing? Don’t tell me they didn’t know the backlash might bring with it fires and riots and destruction and even murder, especially when they knew those who would bring down our way of life would take the opportunity to denigrate us to their followers? And if they, and those who copied their ways, didn’t know, they should have. One of the first facets of journalism is to know such things. It’s called being a responsible journalist. The pictures clearly depict Muhammad and his followers as terrorists, when we know that to be untrue. Some Muslims are terrorists and want to see our destruction. Most are not. Those are the ones the terrorists themselves would like to covet and bring into their fold. What better way to do that than to say we are behind such provocative cartoons?

Even that’s not the true point, though; not my point. I must be frank and, yes, perhaps somewhat non-secular, if you’ll allow me. I wouldn’t print the pictures simply because they make fun of another’s religion.

It’s that simple. There are times when we must bring the subject to even terms; simple, easy to understand terms: Do Unto Others....etc.

I wouldn’t publish pictures that denigrate any religion. I repeat, any religion.

The point, of course, becomes moot when you think of the time period between when the Danish papers showed the pictures and when the riots started: five months. Seems like that was just about sufficient time for the terrorist factions to communicate (wire tapping notwithstanding) with each other and get those riots going.

Seems as though their kind of religion is also based on simple, easy, self-serving phrases, like Do Unto Others Before They...etc., etc.