Danish Newspaper Editor in his own words (muslim cartoons)

[Pike]

CHILDISH. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE THAT THE PUBLISHER WROTE EXPLAINING HIS POSITION. IT IS THE BEST DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH ON THE ISSUE:
http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/Feb%2006/why.htm

 

[TCBF]

Pike,

You need a hooby, laddie:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/postal/3.asp

Tom

 

[Gramps]

A provocation just for the sake of provocation. 

Hmmmm, sounds like a few posts that pike has left here.

 

[Guy. E]

Pike,

You need a hooby, laddie:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/postal/3.asp

Tom

How do you know pike is a she? Pike seems to be sporting the blank profile.

 

[vonGarvin]

How do you know pike is a she? Pike seems to be sporting the blank profile.

Note that the previous poster said "laddie" not "lady"  ;D

 

[Guy. E]

Then how infact do we know if Pike is a Laddie, Lassie or something in betwean?

 

[MountainRunner]

Pike, thanks for posting that. 

 

[Pike]

Ok anyway..... are we gonna have a discussion about this?

I think that article gives a great defence of free speech by asking the central question, should we abandon our values in order not to offend some?  Controversy is the nature of free speech. Christians, muslims, hindu's and even atheists have all been offended by free speech. Because one group happens to riot in the streets about it why should we stop?

if you havent read the article I suggest you all do.

and stick to the discussion, some of you are just childish

 

[Slim]

Ok anyway..... are we gonna have a discussion about this?

I think that article gives a great defence of free speech by asking the central question, should we abandon our values in order not to offend some?  Controversy is the nature of free speech. Christians, muslims, hindu's and even atheists have all been offended by free speech. Because one group happens to riot in the streets about it why should we stop?

if you havent read the article I suggest you all do.

and stick to the discussion, some of you are just childish

Pike

First and last warning.

In the short time you've been here you have managed to incite the wrath of almost the whole site.

Stop trolling your crap or you will be gone and will not come back.

 

[TCBF]

"Stop trolling your crap or you will be gone and will not come back."

Let's give 'ol Pike here a while to get to know us, first.  She may be trainable.

Tom

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't think she is coming back. 

 

[Chimo]

Pike

First and last warning.

In the short time you've been here you have managed to incite the wrath of almost the whole site.

Stop trolling your crap or you will be gone and will not come back.

I feel Pike offers an opposing view. Why should it be discarded out of hand and threatened with censure? The benefit of a forum is to offer a full spectrum of an argument. If you disagree with a point offer an reasoned argument and be prepared to be countered. Just because a point is contrary to a position of many does not mean it is not justified.

 

[kcdist]

Chimo,

What rubs me, and I suspect many, the wrong way, is the manner in which Pike has conducted himself in this Forum.

Many join the Forum, observe for awhile, respond to a topic or two, perhaps ask a question or three, and then work their way up to starting a new topic.

What Pike has done is to join the Forum, and immediately initiate a number of contentious topics that provided direct quotes and links from his own website. He then had the gall to mostly disappear, without providing adequate backup or substantiation for his initial posts.

I don't believe Pike had any intention of contributing to the level of debate in this Forum, but was instead simply trying to boost the visit count to his own website. My speculation is that perhaps he is trying to sell advertising on his site, and this is one method to boost his visit count.

I truly would welcome a number of new, articulate posters with informed, intelligent and completely opposite views to mine. Pike would not fit in that category.

 

[Pike]

1) I am a woman
2) I am a busy person. Im part owner of a business, Im a Univeristy student, I work two jobs and I run a webpage. I simply dont have time to come here every hour and tend to you all.
3) Thanks Chimo, I will take your advice and post differently
4) Im not nessesarily trying to inflate hits on my website, BUT the articles I do post on my website I believe are very informative and need to be read. Im not trying to sell advertising space, i dont care about that.

Anyway back to the TOPIC

Like I said, I dont believe in self censorship in order to refrain from offending people. Therefore I think those cartoons were ok. What I do NOT believe in was the RE-printing of them. Honestly, it was totally for self interest (of the newspaper). As someone who runs a website and gets a lot of traffic I believe that it was not nessesary to post those cartoons even though i have them. They were published originally, much was said about them, apoligies were made etc. There was no need to constantly re print them

 

[FastEddy]

1) I am a woman
2) I am a busy person. Im part owner of a business, Im a Univeristy student, I work two jobs and I run a webpage. I simply dont have time to come here every hour and tend to you all.
3) Thanks Chimo, I will take your advice and post differently
4) Im not nessesarily trying to inflate hits on my website, BUT the articles I do post on my website I believe are very informative and need to be read. Im not trying to sell advertising space, i dont care about that.

Anyway back to the TOPIC

Like I said, I dont believe in self censorship in order to refrain from offending people. Therefore I think those cartoons were ok. What I do NOT believe in was the RE-printing of them. Honestly, it was totally for self interest (of the newspaper). As someone who runs a website and gets a lot of traffic I believe that it was not nessesary to post those cartoons even though i have them. They were published originally, much was said about them, apoligies were made etc. There was no need to constantly re print them

Thanks for the up-date on your person.

P.S. whats your Major.

Cheers.

 

[casing]

Like I said, I dont believe in self censorship in order to refrain from offending people. Therefore I think those cartoons were ok. What I do NOT believe in was the RE-printing of them. Honestly, it was totally for self interest (of the newspaper). As someone who runs a website and gets a lot of traffic I believe that it was not nessesary to post those cartoons even though i have them. They were published originally, much was said about them, apoligies were made etc. There was no need to constantly re print them

Well, after viewing your posts and visiting your website, I didn't think I would see eye to eye with you on much at all.  However, I do happen to agree with you in this instance.  I believe the cartoons were re-published just because of the media attention that action would obviously garner.  I do not agree with the Muslim community's over-the-top reaction to the cartoons, but I do believe that re-publishing the cartoons--knowing what the reaction would be--was irresponsible.