Alx
Member
Shouldn't protesting this event, from the standpoint of the world press, mean the republication of the Charile Hedbo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed by media outlets worldwide? An actual "we're not afraid, we stand united, and we won't be censored by terror, your attacks must fail" message?
I admit to not having followed closely enough to know if republication has happened anywhere, but I think I would have noticed if it occurred in the NY Times, WSJ, LA Times, the major papers in Europe, or hell, the cover of the Economist, etc.
No I don't think so. The reaction is about rejection of violence and the right to offend people. It doesn't mean that everybody should be offensive as a reaction.
For example, I'm sure many muslims are offended by the caricatures, but still join the general solidarity because they don't think people should be killed for that, or even silenced. Their message isn't "we want more Mohammed caricatures !" and there's no reason to offend them more.
Publishing caricatures of Mohammed was the trigger/symbol of the events, but we shouldn't make it our goal. I think it's quite respectful of the NYT to decide to censor the caricatures in some photographs for its muslim readership. They have the right to publish them, but they also have the freedom to hide them.