<nettime> republication of cartoons is not digest [mule, murphy]

[nettime's_ascii_infidel <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not... [4x]
     "Joanne Mule" <mulperf@hotmail.com>
     Murphy <murphy@thing.net>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Joanne Mule" <mulperf@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not... [4x]
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:46:09 -0500

Just wanted to chime in on this one.  While I certainly think the 
Jyllands-Posten owes an apology to all those offended and I applaud them for 
doing so, I don't think that justifies a violent reaction the way that these 
people are doing.  Certainly, a letter to the editor may have done the 
trick, but it may not have made quite as much impact internationally as it 
did.  I can see why they would be frustrated, there are a lot of journalists 
and humourists who skirt potentially offensive content in the name of 
freedom of speech.  I have to question:  Where do you draw the line between 
humor and respect of a culture?  And how does one know when they have 
crossed this line?  What is offensive to one person, may be completely 
hillarious to another.  I certainly think that Jyllands-Posten has learned a 
lesson not to dig up old bones, there is a good reason keep the events of 
the past in perspective.  But if the paper's purpose was to say, "Look, 
history repeats itself!", this was a good illustration.  I would like to 
know how the readers reacted when it was first published, perhaps knowing 
the readers reaction the first time may have stopped them from making the 
same mistake twice.

 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not....
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:38:13 -0500

On Feb 18, 2006, at 9:56 PM, Jody Berland wrote:

> That's true of "freedom," too.  That's exactly my point.  Respect for
> "freedom of speech" on one side, "respect" for religion on the other,
> thugging away at each other with their unequal armies.

You've ignored the fact that my post was about institutional homophobia 
in Moscow. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about living.

murph

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


----- End forwarded message -----

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net