That is the cartoon that you've been reading about. Massive protests, death threats, and even an embassy has to be closed, due to the outrage that cartoon has caused amongst Muslims.

Right now there is a lot of discussion regarding Freedom of the Press, in regards to this little "faux pas".

While Reporters Without Borders defended the media's "right to make fun", many newspapers argued free speech was not an excuse for gratuitous insults.

"Newspapers are not obliged to republish offensive material merely because it is controversial," wrote Britain's Guardian.

I agree absolutely and wholeheartedly that the media has the right to "make fun", and that controvesry isn't necessarily news. However, as your father always told you, with freedom comes responsiblity, and that has somehow been completely ignored in this debate.

I was of the belief that editorial cartoons were supposed to be funny. Not "wow-that-pissed-off-a-lot-of-people-funny", but more along the lines of "it's-funny-'cause-it's-true". Editorial cartoons are published in the Editorial section of newspapers, along with other well thought-out and researched opinions, and letters to the editor. Newspaper editors, of course, will screen out any articles that are not relevant to the news of the day, poorly written, or inaccurate. These are what they call "editorial guidelines" in the business.

So the question I asked myself was, "Who the hell would print an editorial comment that accused 1.3 billion Muslims world-wide of being terrorists"? And further, why wasn't this cartoon held to the same standards they would hold any other editorial contributor?

The Danish paper that published the cartoon, was pretty irresponsible. The French paper that published some other cartoons, was being just plain malicious, and dangerous. France was paralyzed this summer by Muslim youth who felt disenfranchised in their society. Is this newspaper doing anything OTHER than trying to fan the flames of violence? And not to a point either, thats the catch. The cartoon is a baseless statement of hatred, and nothing more. It's not humourous, insightful, or informative. It's defamatory, crass, insulting, and a lie.

It would appear that papers in Europe are taking up the wrong-cause. This story explains how there are actually papers today that are publishing the drawing to show SUPPORT FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Freedom of the press was intended to protect the masses from the disinformation of the few. Now it seems this fundamental freedom has been so contorted, that it is being used in an almost inverted fashion: to protect the right of the few to slander the many.


"Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano (1951) is a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine. It caused an equally massive uproar back in the day, because it is equally blasphemous.

Christians don't like seeing Jesus soaked in urine. Muslims don't like Muhammed being called a terrorist. Both would be pretty obvious to any clear-thinking member of the human race.

There is a subtle difference between Piss Christ and "Bomb-Head-Muhammed", though. When Serrano put his crucifix into that jar of urine, he did so because of the VISUAL EFFECT that the urine had on the crucifix. It's art - it's supposed to be enjoyed for it's pleasing aesthetic qualities - the urine gives the crucifix the visual effect of floating in blood. It's not intended to make a statement, but simply to be enjoyed (or ignored if you so choose).

"Bomb-Head-Muhammed" on the otherhand, is NOT art. When the "artist" who drew that cartoon added the bomb to Muhammed's head, it wasn't for visual effect, it was intended to make a statement - a statement about Muslims, and Islam. It was printed in a newspaper, not put in a frame and hung on a wall. And that is the subtle difference between Bomb-Head-Muhammed and Piss Christ. The intent, and the venue - in these two situations - are drastically different.

In the long run however, this incident simply will further my belief that Dilbert by Scott Adams is the only cartoon worth reading. Will his tie ever hang straight?