Wednesday, February 08, 2006
'Hate-speech laws are implemented unfairly': When you're behind on a story and/or exhausted all angles, there's always the tried and true let-the-experts-postulate thumb-sucker. ... Did hate-speech tabulators in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan suddenly all notice and react to a litigious imbalance in Europe? ...
Update -- Excellent WSJ article on the genesis of the cartoon controversy. Strange. No mention of hate-speech litigation imbalances in Europe. Lots of mentions of government officials from Middle East countries, though. ... Via Instapundit.
Update II -- A brutally and admirably honest editorial from the Boston Phoenix on why it's not running the cartoons, with Reason No. 1 being: "Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do." Read the whole thing. ... No other U.S. newspaper has been so honest. Good for the Phoenix. ... I don't really care if U.S. newspapers do or don't run the cartoons. If anything, I'm a little alarmed that there are those who are now browbeating newspapers to run the cartoons to counter the anti-freespeech browbeaters. But at least I know where the anti-browbeater browbeaters are coming from: It's bothersome when some U.S. newspapers pontificate about free-speech rights for those criticizing some religions and then flipflop when it comes to other religions. The double-standard is glaring. ...
Update III -- The Times of London on the source of that double-standard: "The Danish cartoon saga has placed the US media in a fantastic pickle over the competing cherished American imperatives of free speech and politically correct self-censorship. ... The approach of the rest was captured by the New York Times in an editorial yesterday, a characteristically pompous and ponderous piece of chin-stroking sanctimony."
Update -- Excellent WSJ article on the genesis of the cartoon controversy. Strange. No mention of hate-speech litigation imbalances in Europe. Lots of mentions of government officials from Middle East countries, though. ... Via Instapundit.
Update II -- A brutally and admirably honest editorial from the Boston Phoenix on why it's not running the cartoons, with Reason No. 1 being: "Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do." Read the whole thing. ... No other U.S. newspaper has been so honest. Good for the Phoenix. ... I don't really care if U.S. newspapers do or don't run the cartoons. If anything, I'm a little alarmed that there are those who are now browbeating newspapers to run the cartoons to counter the anti-freespeech browbeaters. But at least I know where the anti-browbeater browbeaters are coming from: It's bothersome when some U.S. newspapers pontificate about free-speech rights for those criticizing some religions and then flipflop when it comes to other religions. The double-standard is glaring. ...
Update III -- The Times of London on the source of that double-standard: "The Danish cartoon saga has placed the US media in a fantastic pickle over the competing cherished American imperatives of free speech and politically correct self-censorship. ... The approach of the rest was captured by the New York Times in an editorial yesterday, a characteristically pompous and ponderous piece of chin-stroking sanctimony."
