Freedom's just another word

About those grisly previously-unpublished  photos from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that the Australian media turned up ...

I could have predicted this, or this, or, in particular, this from the woman who led the right-wing ''blogburst'' -- last week's gang posting of the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad all in the name of freedom of expression:

Readers have been e-mailing all day the question the MSM needs to answer:

Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?

We're listening...

She points to this:

No, the MS has not just surrendered to the Islamists, they have emerged as their best allies.

Please, please, phone, email, send letters, cancel subscriptions. Do something to show your displeasure.

So, it's okay to publish material that offends an entire religious group -- and then act as if a (relatively) few fanatics among them represent 1.3 billion people?

And it's okay to publish offensive material if it doesn't make Americans look bad, while pretending it makes the mainstream media look like cowering cowards?

But when long-suppressed evidentiary material of U.S. crimes -- crimes which are making it worse for American troops in Iraq, and make the administration look bad -- is published, suddenly there should be restraint and boycotts?

Hypocrites.

Comments

[Bill-Muskoka]

Let us not forget the irate furor (by the U.S. DoD, Whitehouse, and Pentagon) over the coffin photos coming back from Iraq! remember those. They were deemed 'insensitive'.

[Randall Isaacs]

Yes Bill-Muskoka, they were shown but there were no riots of rampaging Americans and nobody burned down the Washington Post or anyother newspaper that showed it or threatened violence against those who showed the pictures. Sure, the media should show the Abu Ghraib pictures, assuming they are legit just like they should show prison pictures from Iran or from Iraq in Saddam's day. They should also be free to show the cartoons that spurred all the rioting so that people can see what actually caused all this rioting and judge whether the rioting was justified (even though it the rioting was pretty much a calculated effort by the Organization of Islamic Countries concocted in Mecca) based on cartoons that never appeared in any Danish publication.

[Jay Currie]

Er, not the whole right wing Antonia, I think Ezra was right to publish the cartoons and I think the public has a right to see the pics from Abu Ghraib so I linked them here:

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/a-picture-worth/

Of course the Abu Ghraib pictures make Ezra and David Warren and, in my own modest way, my point: it is the duty of the press to print the facts and let people make up their own minds. Good taste has nothing to do with it.

[Ti-Guy]

I think I'm just going to have to stop listening to rightwingers about this. They all sound positively deranged in being able to hold any number of mutually-contradictory beliefs at any given time.

We should have been seeing the images, *all* the images about possible war crimes at Abu Ghraib a long time ago. Had we had that opportunity, no one would be comparing them to the cartoon controversy, since they are completely unrelated issues.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Randall,

True to form...as usual!

I want to show some pics of real war reality.You know where a soldier is holding his, or her, intestines in with their own hands, or by help from a friend. How about the real results of a .50 cal sniper bullet on an enemies head?

Gee, where are all the pics of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims of atomic bombs? Where are the pics of the Kurds dead. Those were published.

So, let's really test the right's position, eh? How about the the pics of such things. Let's include the genital mutilation by rapists? No, too strong? Too offensive?

How about some of the videos of far-right funnymentalist prophets engaged in sex acts?

How about car crash victims? Let's see the reality of the real world. Maybe people will wake-up!

I wanna smell the burning flesh and effects of napalm. Hell, lets pull the stops out till everyone is puking their guts out.

All those things should make for a better world actually. people will lose their Hollywood mentality. They are, after all, real events in real people's lives.

How about murder scene pics? Let's remove all diginity from the media?

Oh, and we can post links to BDSM porn sites so the really enquiring minds can learn all about things like latex, SCAT, etc.

Likewise, I am sure there are thousands of pics, online, of Nazi cartoons about Jews?

How about those Catholics, Hindus, what about the CPC?

Let's see, what have we missed? There is always the Irish, the Poles, how about thr English? How about Canadians?

Let's just take the gloves off and show the world what mankind has evolved too. That okay with you?

I can't post them here though because the application is not setup for it.

How's that sound Randall?

Oh, and don't tell me that would be irresponsible or insensitive...Okay?

But, then those are real life experiences, most often the result of STUPID policies by so-called leaders. They are not editorial cartoons, just cartoons from sick minds who need an avenue to express their xenophobic hatred.

Now, I have not seen the cartoons, nor have I tried to find them. They were insulting to people of a particular faith. Why would I care about the cartoons? I care only about the act and the effect it created.

Hope your contribution to the 'Western Standard' keeps it in business BTW. We need the reference point to remind the masses that the task of western civilization is far from complete!

[Adam in Whitby]

This debate has now officially jumped the shark.

If either side wants to come out of this with even a shred of dignity, might I humbly suggest accepting the proposition that the NEWS press has a right and duty to show images that are generally considered NEWS.

Like pictures of torture from Abu Ghraib.

Like cartoons that cause riots.

Alternately, everyone can maintain their position that "WE are for the free flow of Important Information while THEY are for the scandalizing of decent society."

[Antonia]

Adam in Whitby: I agree. Enough already.

[Jay Currie]

So, Antonia, just so we're clear: by agreeing with Adam in Whitby your position has changed to believing that the news media should have published the cartoons just as they should be publishing the two year old shots from Abu Ghraib.

Good. You have joined the side of the free speech angels and left the morlochs of "good taste" behind. See, blogging does change minds.

[Antonia]

Jay,

I only agree that the debate has now officially jumped the shark. Enough already.

And just for the record, note that I have never really come down hard on side or the other on this one because, to be honest, it is not as simple as too many make it out to be. I am still having trouble with it.

My main problem has been with people who posted the cartoons ostendibly to protect freedom of expression when I suspect that there was another agenda at play.

[arthurdecco]

"My main problem has been with people who posted the cartoons ostensibly to protect freedom of expression when I suspect that there was another agenda at play." posted by Antonia

I couldn't agree more.

[Ti-Guy]

But you're not allowed to speculate about "hidden agendas;" that's the whole point of them being hidden. You're supposed to get caught up in distracting discussions about "freedom of expression" and not notice it is patently a case of freedom to propagandise, which I personally think is anyone's right to do, even if it is unprincipled and dishonest.

I guess my final feeling about this is: if I had had the power to prevent anyone from publishing these cartoons, would I have used it? And the answer is no. I have every right condemn the move as cynical and unprincipled, however and to say that the defense of it under the guise of "freedom of expression" is sophistic.

The Abu Ghraib photos are a different matter altogether. They record actual, real-life events, actual *crimes*, and it is a fundamental principle of journalism that the public has a right to know about that.

[jeff]

"They record actual, real-life events, actual *crimes*, and it is a fundamental principle of journalism that the public has a right to know about that."

Really Thaiguy? How about pictures of rape victims, genital mutilation, car crash victims? These are real life. The public surely must have a right to know about these too, no? Or is the real issue that it's okay if the pictures involve bashing the USof A. Perhaps that is the real issue in all of this...

[Bill-Muskoka]

Defining 'Freedom of expression' anew:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/02/kenya.press/index.html

When the police come in and take all the computers, video tapes, and burn the edition of the newspaper like Kenya has, that is what?