The only time anybody ever tried to punch me because of something I created for a newspaper or TV station was over a cartoon.
It was a long, long time ago when I was just starting out as a high school journalist and cartoonist. A quarterback thought my cartoon had dissed his girlfriend. (Okay, it had; but it only kinda looked like her.) He came looking for me.
The most uncomfortable experience I ever had here at KU was over a cartoon. In the late 1970s, a University Daily Kansan cartoonist decided to take exception with what he thought was the local Jewish reaction to a reception featuring Hitler's punchbowl at a museum event. I was Kansan adviser then and it was the only time I know of that the Faculty Senate ever censured the student paper.
Something about cartoons makes the people they offend very angry and very volatile. The aftermath of the Danish political cartoons supports that theory with terrifying clarity.
I am more than willing to take heat for the First Amendment. I am more than willing to defend student journalists who might decide to publish the offending cartoons. I would take a punch for free speech but, when it is my decision to make, I won't ask others to take the punch for me  or even with me.
The reason you won't see the face of The Prophet on the web sites for which I am responsible is overwhelmingly influenced by my concern for my students, my colleagues and my newsroom. People who believe it is right to riot and okay for others to die because religious beliefs have been breeched by a newspaper do not carry much weight in my personal Potter Box.
They do, however, intimidate me.
This is not a good thing for the media, for the faithful, or for the world. But, I have too many years in the trenches to send my troops over the top to face this kind of reaction and danger. May Allah help us all.
I, too, admit that I was scared to put things in my old cartoon for the UDK. Not so much for the audience, since some of the people I addressed I downright loathed, but more for what my boss would say if she read it. Sure, there were sometimes that she didn't understand the humor(More than once I question if she ever even READ the thing), but I felt the regular readers would understand what I was trying to say. What I think I should have done was just draw what I drew. True, I had only myself to look out for and didn't have people behind me that I claimed responsibility for, but I think there comes a time to give people the option to stand with you, if they choose to.
I'm a huge Spider-Man fan; so, with your speech last class, this came in my head: "With great power comes great responsibility." I agree with you. It isn't right or fair to jepordize other people's well-being with your decision. You have a responsibility to educate us, but also keep us safe and your mind was in the right place.
I would like to argue that there are a great many issues that are involved with the recent riots, however free speech and press seem to be the least of them.
The freedoms of speech and press as stated in the constitution merely limit the (Federal) government’s ability to abridge those rights. Now, I feel that we can agree that these ideas are rooted in the belief that no one should be able to censor the expressions of another, however this would be outside of the scope of government’s authority. I think it is incorrect to assume that just because the federal government is unable to do something, someone else can.
For example, although newspapers and TV news provide us with around the world information, it is still nothing more than a capitalist endeavor. Consumers have indirect control over the media via media’s sponsors. The sponsor is looking for the best “fit†for advertising its product, and the media is obliged to accommodate. This idea is not new, and is not even limited to news. When the issue of the cartoon arose, many newspapers, networks, etc (businesses) had to sit down and weigh many factors, which included responsibility, duty, safety, backlash. Many within these groups protested, in some cases resigning, citing their integrity has been compromised or their freedoms have been limited. It has been argued that we are being controlled by fear.
What if corporate sponsors threaten to pull their advertising dollars from a publication that prints such cartoons, making it financially impossible to bring the images to the viewer. Is that a limitation on free speech? You can criticize a business for doing so, but ultimately isn’t it the businesses right to spend its own money? Can you say, then, that a newspaper has the right not to invite controversy that may damage its reputation (and subsequent appeal to consumers)?
It is also very important to note that the riots have far less to do with the cartoons than they appear (Note, this argument may or may not be similar to one that might have appeared in the NYT: I heard Ann Coulter mention it while watching primetime Fox Comed…err…News Channel)
Professor Ronald Francisco teaches an excellent course on protest and revolution in the political science dept., and I highly recommend that anyone interested take this class. When one actually sits down and looks at events such as riots, she can see that there are often 3 things involved – 1) a long period of oppression: this can be in most any form, the idea is that unification is forged among subgroups who might not ordinarily agree with one another (necessity of survival); 2) Inability or unwillingness of any direct authority to act on behalf of the group: this is often exacerbated when the initially peaceful protestors are further oppressed by law enforcement, who use tactics to disperse the crowd (more brutal do to #1); and 3) a spark – this can be anything as long as it is a symbol that represents the oppression.
In this case, the spark was the cartoons. Last year’s riots in France were the result of the deaths (murders?) of 2 minority teens. In 1992 LA’s spark was the Rodney King videotape.
It is not an issue of free speech or press. I do not advocate that anything should be censured for the rest of time. Rather, I argue that when you have angered a raging bull by handling a red cloth, it is unwise to publicize that cloth just because we can. The “great power…responsibility†quote is apt, but I’m more of a Star Trek man, myself: “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing.â€Â