why cartoons of muhammed is freedom of speech??!!!!?
139791
i hate it that they did that cartoon. and i m christian. it s not normal. can t believe it actually happened in a civilised country...:(
223134
I support the right to publish the toons.  But with free speech you need to have respect and restraint.  You should publish something just because you can.  So if the material is disrespectful, or offensive, you need to be sure that's what you want to do...in this case it feels like they just published them to see if they could get a rise out of people. That's wrong.
392759
what a load of crap, \n\nif by disrespect you mean dont call you in the morning then whatever....\n\nI assume that you are muslim and you have a chip on your shoulder because you beleive that people see you as fair game for discrimination......im sorry but that is just not true. Muslims in the UK are extended the same rights as every other person, black, white, asian whatever. If we beleived that it is ok to discriminate, why would Muslim communities be allowed to worship freely in a country which is technically catholic/christian? Or be allowed to exercise their religious beleifs when it comes to cuisine etc.\n\nNow ask yourself this, \n\nWhy would certain aspects of a well integrated and generally accepted community gather on the streets of London only months after a suicide bombing attack dressed as suicide bombers proclaiming death to infadels, protesting about a series of cartoons drawn by a cartoonist from another country, which were never published in the UK. Is this not discriminating against the UK because of our free press?\n\nyou are clearly an ignorant moron, and that is the only thing you should be discriminated against for.
137857
It wasn't a cartoon, they were one panel comics. And I think that the aim was humor. The only reason freedom of the press is brought up is because people are trying to stop them.
180919
The line is drawn between free speech and hate speech.\nThis is a theory developed by freedom of expression supporters which is ment to define what goes and what doesn't.\n\nDefinition varies and many disagree on what goes where (eg: most people would see the Holocaust matter brought under free speech, on certain conditions, while others still want to keep the taboo).\n\nGenerally speaking, free speech embraces things that aren't particulartly aimed at hurting or insulting others and are supported by accepted arguments, facts and proof.\nOn the other hand hate speech are opinions gratuituously spilled just to provoke and insult.\n\nThis doesn't help much and the debate goes on.\nStill most people see the cartoon deal under hate speech because it's not sustainable by arguments (there are many ways to make fun of Islam without resorting to attacking religious principles of non-graphical depiction).\n\nA more fierce debate goes around the Holocaust, where free-speech supporters say that discussions around the events and the number of victims should be allowed and proof needs to be gathered to support supporters and deniers (if the supporters are right, why do they need a law to hide behind if they have strong arguments).
98960
I still don't understand why some people feel that violence is warrented or acceptable as a form of protest.  It was a cartoon, sure it was offensive but isn't a violent reaction more so?  Muslims are always complaining about being painted with a broad brush of being violent.  How is this helping to dispurse that stereotype?
223801
Printing such things about ANY prophet, Islam, Christianity, Jewism..... has got nothing to do with freedom of speech.\nIn Europe even a researcher can't say that my research has led me to the fact that the holocaust might not have taken place, it might be just a story, in France and other parts of Europe, girls can't ware hijab when they go to school, do you see any FREEDOM in this? Freedom of speech is just a tool!!
841944
You're correct.  We accept free speech unless it offends us.  Take for instance the Michael Richards thing. Now the Laugh Factory is putting a ban on the word n*gger.  What happened to free speech?  Then again, that's a private business and he can run it the way he wants.   It's an interesting world, the same people that cry "free speech" are the same that would cry "censor" if the speech is not favorable to them.
95067
The extremist people supporting the extremist reaction by the radical islamics sure don't mind when the islamic papers put out hate filled cartoons against Jews, Christians, the image of Jesus, etc... The extremist islamics are reminding me of the kid in school who loves to make fun of someone else, insult them and call them names. And the minute it is returned, they start bawling like a baby as if they had NEVER done it themselves\n\nHello pot... this is kettle calling... something about the color black\n\nSeriously though... freedom of speech allows for the offensive. Those offended have the right to speak out about it, but not this extremist and violent type of reaction like we have been seeing.
278027
We Muslims do not believe that it is right to have a picture of Allah. Think of it this way: How would /you/ draw /your/ God? No matter how you do it, it would be flawed in one way or another.
280315
i am a pro... freedom of expression that offends others can be done but behind closed doors... the government is restricting certain expressions as there are possiblities that it may offend others around the world and this may have serious consequenses...
588345
You are one brave guy!!! who is disrespect Jesus Christ again, and now with the toiler papers.  But, you wouldn't be soooo brave and dare to print Muhammad on anything let alone toilet paper, because if you did, you would be dead or hiding for your life, even for the idea.\n\nFalse.  \nYou seem ignorant, but you are not that stupid!
342013
I suspect not ... ask Salman Rushdie !\n\nRight or wrong the fall-out from even a small slight on Islam would be massive ... it appears that the Islamic religion is unable to accept any level of parody.  I am not making a racist point here just reminding folks over the furor over a few cartoons.\n\nPeace Out.
372411
The more those people protest about insignificant cartoons the more other people realize that maybe religion (specifically islam) is not worthy of following.  Who wants to follow a prophet that has thin skin.  If you have to believe in a god, wouldn't you want one that has the ability to laugh at himself?
125011
The government may make no law respecting your freedom of speech. (1st Amendment).  No state may make any law depriving you of your freedom of speech (14th Amendment).  The freedom of speech applies to personal speech, political speech and even to a lesser extent, commercial speech.  In general, no prior restraint may be made against your freedom of speech (Times v. Sullivan).  However, the freedom of speech is not absolute.  You may not exercise freedom of speech when to do so would subject the public to danger (for example, you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire).  This is a synopsis of ideas from the Constitution and many Supreme Court cases.\n\nYour exercise of freedom of speech may not interfere with other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many cases have addresssed the use of religious symbols in public places as well as actions of political speech such as burning of the American flag. These cases are not always models of consistency.\n\nSuffice it to say that freedom of speech is well protected but not absolute.\n\n\nIn the context of these cartoons and comments, at least in the USA, you can publish these ideas, even if they are offensive to others.  You are really not addressing the "freedom of speech" as such as much as you are addressing editorial judgment of the press.  While the press is free to say what it wants, it ought to consider the sensibilities of others, especially those who might legitimately take offense to the writings or utterances.
92885
Nothing.  It was an independent private newspaper that published the cartoon.  It would be no different than the United States government doing something over a New York Times editorial.  This is a problem that other governments have that they can't effectively control their populations and that the moderate Muslim leaders have that they can't stop their followers from rioting and killing.
135435
There have been hundreds, thousands of caricatures about god, jesus and the pope.  Do you see christians jumping around waving banners about killing people and going to war over it?  Do we go around burning the flag of the nation this drawing originally was printed in?\n\nYou want disgusting, look at the way these people reacted over a DRAWING for goodness sakes.  Not saying it was right to print the drawing but come on get abit of bloody perspective.  Human freedom of belief?  What about the artists human rights?  I would say that the reaction to the cartoon did more to damage my views of the islamic community then the picture would ever of done.