And now, for something serious.

[oloriel]

MASSIVE EDIT OF DOOM:

I condemn the threatening and attacking of people and the destruction of property over any issue ... yes, Fëa darling, that goes for you, too.
I condemn making an international issue out of a bunch of carricatures in one small paper in one small country unless you count Greenland to the actual landmass, no matter how much they were in bad taste.
People have every right to be offended, but can they please keep their protests peaceful?! After all, with them overreacting like this, even people who would normally agree with their assessment of those cartoons - like me - tend to condemn them.

That said, I condemn intolerance on both sides.

And: I also condemn abusing the Right of Free Speech for senseless provocation. Having the right to say something doesn't mean you have to say it.

(For some weird reason, I now have Thumper from Bambi in my ear. "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." *shakes head*)

But still.
There's a huge amount of acceptable, legal counteractions, and burning embassies is not among them.

There.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/macalla_/]

I second that - wholeheartedly.

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

This whole thing is so... *headdesk*

Did they have the right to print the stuff? Absolutely. Was it a smart, responsible, or well-thought-out thing to do? Not in the least.

*sigh*

[littleshebear.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Free speech doesn't entail an obligation to offend and they MUST have known these cartoons would offend. Equating Muhammad and thereby the whole of Islam with terrorism? Not cool.

I don't sympathise with the people setting fire to embassies and sending out death threats but I can completely understand why people are upset and I completely support peaceful protest. If free speech is so sacrosanct then the offended parties therefore have an equal right to voice their displeasure.

I can support free speech but I cannot bring myself to say I support the publication of these cartoons, I think they're ill-informed, racist bilge.

[satismagic.livejournal.com]

It's in the nature of political caricature to exaggerate and assume a grotesque perspective on political and social problems.

In a consitutional state there are certain procedures that are open to a reader who objects to something printed in a paper, such as demanding counterstatements, or taking legal action.

Destroying property, attacking people, death threats etc are not appropriate actions to voice displeasure. Governments which condone such actions in their territory violate the Declaration of Human Rights.

I just hope that this madness ends soon. :-(

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

True. Absolutely. It's just the violent overreactions to that ill-informed racist bilge that I absolutely condemn. Of course the people who are offended and upset by this have every right to protest peacefully - against the newspaper that printed it. But demanding that the government takes steps against such occurrences is already a tad exaggerated, and violence is certainly wrong...

[http://users.livejournal.com/macalla_/]

I think, your sentence there summs it up perfectly. Would you allow me to quote you?

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

If you like, by all means.

[satismagic.livejournal.com]

Was it a smart, responsible, or well-thought-out thing to do?

Freedom of speech means that within the laws of the country you may say and publish any kind of non-sense. When we get to the point where you can only say, write, publish and post reasonable, well-thought-out things, we are halfway to censorship - because who gets to say what is and what is not reasonable?

I hope this madness stops soon!

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

There are laws, in the United States, about things that have the inteition only to harm, cause death, incite riot, etc. I believe in free speech -- I'll defend homophobes and racists right up there with hippies and all -- but it's like shouting "Fire" in a crewded theater, as the textbook example goes.

Whether this case is like certain American precedents, morally or legally, I don't know enough to say. But I do believe that each of us owns some degree of responsibility for what we do and say.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. It's just... even though it wasn't smart, responsible, or well-thought-out, that's still no reason to burn buildings and hurt people. Those who feel offended by this have every right to take legal steps, have demonstrations (peaceful, that is) or write angry letters to the editor. But severe over-reactions like that? Have me up in arms.

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously. I think not burning things up is more or less a given for reasonable people, really -- and is something I never support.

I'm just tired of people pointing and saying, "completely without provocation." There was provocation, and it was deeply, deeply offensive. Does that justify it? not in the least! But the only real way to solve the problems long-term are for both people to understand -- giving offense where none is needed is a Bad Idea, and then conversely, trying to prove a point that yuo're not bad by burning buildings and hurting people is also a Bad Idea.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course.

[cowboy-r.livejournal.com]

http://kaseido.livejournal.com/206209.html