WTF? Did we just FORGET ABOUT our Bill Of Rights?
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion...


(hehe... I started a thread...)

we won!! we won!!! in yr face freedam of speach!

I'm just inordinately pissed about this.

Scuse me.

That was a stupid fucking move.

I'm sorry, did you have the impression this administration was pro bill of rights?

How is it that Europe is so right on this, and we are so wrong? When did that happen?

Not that I don't think the whole issue over this cartoon is ridiculous, but what does Washington condemning Danish cartoons have to do with the bill of rights?

To my knowledge, the American press isn't running these cartoons. You have to look on the internet for them. The Associate Press refuses to distribute them. Even Russia has said they'll be running them as a statement of free speech.

well isn't that the associated press' right?

I mean if you don't wanna run them, it's not like you have to. Because you know maybe they don't wanna offend American muslims, you know because the comics are pretty tasteless.

but hey if you wanna call people not wanting to run offensive comics for the sake of their own safety, or for the fact that they don't wanna offend someone; cowards, that's pretty valid too.

Freedom includes the freedom to not run them too, I suppose. BUT IS THIS REALLY A MATTER OF CHOICE?

Re: WTF? Did we just FORGET ABOUT our Bill Of Rights?
 

Words to pay close attention to: "condemned," "siding," "freedom."

I figure "religion" is implied, so I left it out because I didn't want anybody to think I was pissed off because of my own personal religious beliefs, or how those might exist in contrast to Dubya's. This isn't a freedom of religious expression thing for me. The problem is: we had no reason to side with anybody, much less condemn anything that may or may not represent a supposedly core principle of the freedom we are currently sacrificing SO MUCH for at this particular point in time.

That this incredibly powerful artistic statement came at such a moment from Europe and not America is incredible. That we would condemn it is pathetic.

If we are not with them, we are against them.

Figure it out.

Furthermore, whether you believe the media is mostly slanted to the left or to the right, most of us can easily agree the un-biased truth is pretty damn hard to find in the Western media.

At least to some degree...

Most of our news are statements of position to some degree. Why the fuck are we taking any position anywhere close to condemnation on this? OFFICIALLY?! Why is our media taking the same damn stupid position as our administration right now? On this?

I think the fact that people are acting like petulant children and rioting over these cartoons is proof enough that this is NEWS. So, isn't it the media's obligation to report on this, present the cartoons to us, and let us decide how we feel?

Let me get this straight-- Coffins with dead American soldiers are essential to a free press, yet we can't reprint cartoons that make fun of religion? Please.

Maybe they were banking on Leftists kowtowing to Islamic insanity would give the administration a new precedence for promoting religious dogmas.

This might be pointing out the obvious, but it'd be pretty stupid for the US government to favor an abstract principle over the really quite important political goal of appearing friendly to Islam. It's not like anyone is seriously hurt by the US 'condemning' something that some Danish cartoonist did. A few words that were left out of that little line that I think might be important: 'coerced', 'prohibited', 'American newspapers'. 'Siding', 'condemned' 'freedom' and 'respect' pretty much don't mean anything but the US doing something nominally politically clever.

That being said, I personally think these muslims burning danish embassies and generally being pissed off about a cartoon is fucking stupid, it is pretty much a reflection of their contemptably slavish religious fundamentalism. But that's not a politically correct thing to be seen to think, so I suppose it wouldn't be correct for politicians to express an opinion like that.