Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shin Pad
I'm all for freedom of the press, but, there has to be some common sense to it. Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World? Just because you CAN do print something like this, doesn't mean you should. I know a lot of publications (the WS is a good example), would never have printed these, other than to make a point of the fact that freedom of the press wasn't called into question (and the fact that it has become such a hot issue).
It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene. It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?
Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.
|
Certainly that is at the heart of the issue. However, I was talking to my mom last night and when this came up she said she was glad she'd finally be able to see the images for herself so she can understand what all the fuss is about. The images are central to the story yet so many Canadians haven't seen them. The argument being made is they are available on the web - but someone like my mom simply isn't web savvy enough to find them. She relies on two things for her news - TV and Newspapers...both visual mediums - yet she has to this point been unable to see the cartoons for herself.
Edit - you can also tell the story of the auto accident without showing the picture. But can this story be told without showing the source of all the outrage - e.g. the cartoons in question?