BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Should Muhammad cartoons be reprinted?, in coverage of the recent tragedy
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
Michael Bubré
post Jan 15 2015, 07:39 PM
Post #1
Mr Jade Lauren Williams <333
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 78,850
Member No.: 8,300
Joined: 14-February 09
 


As I should hope you'll all be aware the last week has seen some horrific incidents in France stemming from satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo depicting Muhammad.

It's one thing to comment on whether the cartoons should have been made to begin with - it's a difficult balance between freedom of expression and general respect for Islam (and bearing in mind the cartoons may be offensive, but they come from a publication that is intentionally offensive to all religions and much much more, and in a very exaggerated manner) - but that is not what this thread is about.

I wonder what your opinions are on the republishing of the cartoons in coverage of the incident. The images are quite obviously newsworthy (especially the most recent one published after the tragedy - I won't post it here on the off chance anyone may be offended but it's easy to find with a bit of Google-fu) but do you think newspapers and channels should refrain from showing them on the grounds of preventing offence? I have read that CNN in the USA have set a policy of not showing the cartoons, I'm sure they're probably not alone in this. The BBC website's article on the cover of the new issue includes the image but not at the top of the article, including a warning at the top of the page.

I think the BBC's approach to this is appropriate - the images are newsworthy enough to justify republication but at the same time I don't agree with prominently plastering the images all over the news, as a significant minority of people would be offended by them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HausAlone
post Jan 15 2015, 07:47 PM
Post #2
Henrietta R Hippo
*******
Group: AF Leader
Posts: 28,545
Member No.: 13,007
Joined: 17-February 11
 


The images will most likely go down as sources in future History textbooks in decades to come and so i think reprinting of them is inevitable now.

On whether i think they should, i think it depends on the context. That magazine, as you stated in the OP has depicted many a religion is gruesomely satirical poses (priests having anal sex etc) and while i don't particularly find them funny or useful in any way, the publication should be free to do that, and people should be free to read them. Reprinting them with the intent of causing further offence i wouldn't agree with, but reprinting them to discuss the significance of, or to explore the wider issue of religion and religious extremism, perhaps.

While i wholeheartedly agree with freedom of speech, i also believe we should be free to live without having people offend us deliberately. The two can obviously, as has been shown this past week, not co-exist but the response from the minority that did get offended in this instance, is far more condemning worthy that those that printed the images. I fail to see how anyone can justify ending another's life because they feel wronged - surely that is what the God they believe in would do, should he/she feel it to be unjustifiable. But that's a whole other debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Michael Bubré
post Jan 15 2015, 07:58 PM
Post #3
Mr Jade Lauren Williams <333
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 78,850
Member No.: 8,300
Joined: 14-February 09
 


Reprinting to cause further offence is definitely something I would disagree with - as offensive as the cartoons may be they are not as bad in context as they would be if they were used specifically in a 'Muslims are bad!!1!' publication. That would start to verge on hate speech territory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Liаm
post Jan 15 2015, 08:01 PM
Post #4
Honey I rose up from the dead I do it all the time
********
Group: Entertainment Mod
Posts: 53,248
Member No.: 10,139
Joined: 7-December 09
 


I agree, if its with the intent of raising the awareness or getting people t discuss the wider issues, it's ok to reprint them. But that shouldn't be done willy-nilly, because if these images have already caused offence there isn't really a need to plaster them over media and rile people further. Of course there is such a thing as free speech, but there is such a thing as human decency and there's no need to cause offence to anyone so frequently where it can be avoided.

I can see exactly why Muslims (and others, we were talking about it in sociology and some of the cartoons etc. are racist and god knows what else) would be offended, but there are so many ways to express that in a far better way. Just because somebody has print something against your religion, race or ideology, that cannot come even 1/100th of the way towards justifying the execution of an act that kills anyone over it, let alone 12 people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umi
post Jan 15 2015, 08:17 PM
Post #5
le compromis n'est qu'un synonyme d'échec
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 14,659
Joined: 17-August 11
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think it's important to respect the wish in Islam for pictures of Muhammad to not be created/published, it is at the end of the day an important thing to them. But if a publication is based around offensive satire then I don't really understand the singling out. What is the reasoning to decide "you can offend anyone you want, except Muslims" aside from terror threat?

I feel like if Catholics decided to murder anyone who mocked the church then we'd suddenly see a lot more "sensitivity" to them and it's a bit iffy. Don't limit your sensitivity to one minority only, and don't act sensitive because you fear violence either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Jan 15 2015, 08:22 PM
Post #6
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 23,617
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


It's hard for those of us who are not Muslims to understand just how offensive images of Muhammed are to those of that faith. However, a number of Muslims have tried to explain this over the last week or so and it is obvious that any image of the prophet is offensive to many of them. Therefore, in order not to cause unnecessary offence, they should not be reproduced without careful thought.

The Charlie Hebdo cover has been reproduced in the News and Current Affairs forum. However, I have edited a large gap into the post as well as a warning so that anyone who might be offended can avoid seeing it. For that reason, I think the newspapers and broadcasters are justified in not showing the cover as it is harder for them to be sure that it is not seen by anyone who might be offended. Similarly, if I had a copy of the publication, I would not walk through an area with a high Muslim population waving it about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2017 - 08:21 AM