Good 'ol Danes.......

[Ed]

at least they evince some balls.....

Seems they published a series of cartoons showing Mohammad (the prophet, not the cab driver) and the knickers are truely in a knot in some quarters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...4.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/04/ixportal.html

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3362504/
nb. perhaps some Dansih speaker could tell me whats up with the girl with the tongue and the smurf on the same page.....

Of course, my act of posting these puts me, you and the JREF at serious personal risk. Watta religion.

 

[Ed]

Interesting. An episode that clearly puts free speech rights up against "offensive" speech and nary a comment.

 

[WildCat]

Interesting. An episode that clearly puts free speech rights up against "offensive" speech and nary a comment.

Ed, it's only worthy of comment if someone identified as an American "neo-con" produced such things. The Danes aren't going to get a_u_p all a-twitter, after all.

 

[Ed]

More broadly, does free speech trump "feelings"?

 

[Kerberos]

More broadly, does free speech trump "feelings"?

There's no doubt that the drawings were entirely within the boundaries of the law. Of course that doesn't mean that the muslims aren't allowed to be offended and protest, but doing so was basically shooting themselves in the foot. And of course death threats are not an acceptable way of voicing your outrage.

 

[Amapola]

More broadly, does free speech trump "feelings"?

Isn't this actually about control, not feelings? "You can only talk about, and portray, our prophet the way we say - otherwise, you die."

I think this loss of total control over what others think and say is part of the price one pays for free speech.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Egyptians have threatened to severe the cultural links with Denmark. Be still, my heart.

Incidentally, some of the cartoons were pretty funny...

 

[Ed]

The Egyptians have threatened to severe the cultural links with Denmark. Be still, my heart.

Incidentally, some of the cartoons were pretty funny...

Do you have a link? I was only able to find two.

 

[Fengirl]

There's no doubt that the drawings were entirely within the boundaries of the law.

I'm not so sure. Personally, I'd like them to be legal... but there's certainly precedent for the the European Court of Human Rights to decide otherwise.

I say that, because in a 1994 Austrian case, the ECtHR directly answered Ed's question "Does free speech trump (religious) feelings?" The case was brought by a film-maker whose film had been banned because it allegedly disparaged religious ideas. The main question was whether freedom of religion (Article 9) "trumped" freedom of expression (Article 10).

Here's the part of the judgement that chills the blood:

“Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to them. However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines…in the context of religious opinions and beliefs – may legitimately be included an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions which are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights.”

In other words, protecting religious people from having their feelings hurt is sometimes going to be a good enough reason to limit free speech.

The case was Otto Preminger Institute v Austria.

 

[Kerberos]

I'm not so sure. Personally, I'd like them to be legal... but there's certainly precedent for the the European Court of Human Rights to decide otherwise.

I say that, because in a 1994 Austrian case, the ECtHR directly answered Ed's question "Does free speech trump (religious) feelings?" The case was brought by a film-maker whose film had been banned because it allegedly disparaged religious ideas. The main question was whether freedom of religion (Article 9) "trumped" freedom of expression (Article 10).

Here's the part of the judgement that chills the blood:

“Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to them. However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines…in the context of religious opinions and beliefs – may legitimately be included an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions which are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights.”

In other words, protecting religious people from having their feelings hurt is sometimes going to be a good enough reason to limit free speech.

The case was Otto Preminger Institute v Austria.

Well, that just means that if Danish law made the drawings illegal the ECtHR would be OK with it, not that it is illegal under Danish law. Now we have a racism paragraph (Racism is to be understood broadly here covering religion sexual orientation etc.), which if memory serves makes it illegal to promote hatred of other groups, but I haven't heard anybody seriously sugesting that the drawing were illegal under that paragraph. I've heard people say they were tasteless, served no other purpose than to provoke and similar, but not that they were illegal.

 

[Fengirl]

Well, that just means that if Danish law made the drawings illegal the ECtHR would be OK with it, not that it is illegal under Danish law.

Yes. I don't know much (ok, anything ) about Danish domestic law, but I imagine publishers in Denmark do. I doubt they'd have published the cartoons if they were illegal.

The point I'm making is that IF an individual were to bring a case before the ECtHR, challenging Danish law, the basis of the challenge would most likely be breach of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of religion). And the case I referred to gives an indication of how the ECtHR might view such a challenge. The precedent suggests that "insult to religious feelings" MIGHT be seen as sufficient cause to justify a restraint on the publisher's freedom of expression.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying I agree with the ECtHR. I don't. Not a bit. I don't think that "hurt feelings" IN ANY WAY represents a real infringement of religious freedom. But I don't sit on the ECtHR. (Yet.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have a link? I was only able to find two.

Can't find it.

 

[Kerberos]

Can't find it.

I did a short search before Ed asked, and it appears the Jyllands posten has removed the pictures from their home-page. At least from the public part, I think the article said something about it still being in the section that you hav eto pay to acces.

 

[Ed]

I did a short search before Ed asked, and it appears the Jyllands posten has removed the pictures from their home-page. At least from the public part, I think the article said something about it still being in the section that you hav eto pay to acces.

Ironic. Making a profit on the Prophet.

 

[DanishDynamite]

at least they evince some balls.....

At least?

nb. perhaps some Dansih speaker could tell me whats up with the girl with the tongue and the smurf on the same page.....

The smurf's gone but the girl with the tongue headlines a story on research showing that the taste for fatty foods is located on the tongue. (Where else would it be??).

 

[DanishDynamite]

Incidentaly, well done Jyllands-Posten!

 

[Manny]

The smurf's gone but the girl with the tongue headlines a story on research showing that the taste for fatty foods is located on the tongue. (Where else would it be??).

Well, if it turns out the girl is over 18, I can think up something much more interesting that it could be.

 

[Ed]

Incidentaly, well done Jyllands-Posten!

Indeed.

I note how I have not come across even a mention of this in the US press. I suspect that it upsets their delicate sensibilities to even draw attention to such an un-PCish thing. They will protect us.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indeed.

I note how I have not come across even a mention of this in the US press. I suspect that it upsets their delicate sensibilities to even draw attention to such an un-PCish thing. They will protect us.

Isn't it nice to know that there is at least one country on this planet where you are not hampered by these "delicate sensibilities"?

 

[Ed]

Isn't it nice to know that there is at least one country on this planet where you are not hampered by these "delicate sensibilities"?

Or very much of any, as far as I can see. All I have to say is thank God you are a member of the coilition of the willing. And you are great americans. Not quite Hannity levels, but up there.