As protests rage, Muhammad satires keep coming
Pakistani Muslim demonstrators burn a U.S. flag during a protest against an anti-Islam film in Quetta on September 20, 2012.
/ BANARAS KHAN/AFP/GettyImages(CBS News) German satire magazine "Titanic" announced intentions on Thursday to publish a cover depicting an angry Muslim about to stab former German First Lady Bettina Wulff, and the publisher wouldn't say in an interview with a leading German publication whether or not the Muslim is the prophet Mohammad.
The news comes fresh on the heels of a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, publishing new cartoons of Mohammad amid violent protests in the Muslim world against an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S. by a Coptic Christian immigrant.
Some conservative Muslim clerics insist any depictions of their prophet - satirical or not - are so blasphemous that the person who publishes or creates them deserves to die. A small portion have acted in retribution for those perceived insults, with sometimes deadly consequences.
That can leave publishers with a weighty decision: If potentially Mohammad-mocking material could further inflame tensions with possibly violent consequences, is it fair to question their calls to publish that material?
Most Western countries consider the right to free speech as sacred as some clerics consider their prophet's image sacred. Yet there are limits.
The most famous legal case over free speech in the U.S. was the Supreme Court decision in Schenck v. United States in 1919, in which the case for using a "clear and present danger" concern by the government to shut down free speech was first established. Later, this was amended to take into account the speaker's "intentions," thus making it harder to legally limit speech.
There are no recent successful cases in the West of a legal challenge against the publication of purely satirical images. Even Pope Benedict XVI backed down from a legal challenge against Titanic when they published a cover image depicting the pope soiling himself.
Titanic publisher Leo Fischer said his intentions with the recent publication were in fact not to mock Mohammad, but instead he told the Financial Times he wanted "to warn other poorly made defamatory films" like the one currently being protested in the Muslim world.
He told Der Spiegel: "I consider the view that European Muslims are nothing more than sword-swinging crazies to be racist. I am relying on their understanding -- and on their indifference."
However one interprets the Titanic image, or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, they are legal, so the questions becomes whether or not they're ethically correct.
In France, the reaction has largely been to defend the publication of naked Mohammad cartoons by Charlie Hebdo, but Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius likened the act of doing so to "pouring oil on the fire."
Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnier says the responsibility for any potential ensuing violence over the cartoons are not his fault, but are instead the fault of the people committing the violence. He claims no responsibility for their actions.
"The accusation that we are pouring oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves," Charbonnier said at a recent press gaggle, according to Der Spiegel. "After the publication of this absurd and grotesque film about Muhammad in the U.S., other newspapers have responded to the protests with cover stories. We are doing the same thing, but with drawings. And a drawing has never killed anyone."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Iran hangs alleged U.S., Israeli spies
- North Korea fires short-range missiles for second day
- Photos of the Week 21 Photos
- Two imprisoned over killing Malcolm X's grandson
- Afghanistan to ask India for military aid
- Assad: Syria transition talks are internal matter
- Russia strikes back after expelling alleged U.S. spy
- Plane catches fire on Moscow runway Play Video
>Other signs mourned the killing of Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters.
>But now, the residents are lashing out against Ansar al-Shariah, the main Islamic extremist group in the city.
>"The killing of the ambassador blew up the situation. It was disastrous," said Ayoub al-Shedwi, a young bearded Muslim preacher in Darna who says he has received multiple death threats because has spoken out against militias on a radio show he hosts. "We felt that the revolution is going in vain."
>Leaders of tribes, which are the strongest social force in eastern Libya, have come forward to demand that the militias disband. Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna announced this week that members of their tribes who are militiamen will no longer have their protection in the face of anti-militia protests. That means the tribe will not avenge them if they are killed.
The mind must cope. In that context, venting "for god" certainly feels acceptable and as a way to create some boundaries (red lines) that might be respected.
Religion poisons everything, beginning with childhood.
Showing your true colours again ?
Did you shine your little boots for the Zeig Heil Festival ?
You burn my flag and attack and murder innocent people, you become my enemy. Muslims can no longer hide behind the word "extremism" and say it is just the extremists that are a problem. The scale and scope of the violent protests going on around the world right now is far to large to be considered just a "fringe" element. Clearly the Muslim religion IS a problem. I never accepted that until this week. Good job Muslim protestors, you are convincing every non-Muslim around the world to reject your faith.
You mean you don't have something older than 1844 to give us ?
Where you equating the burning of a flag with performing a sinful intolerable act (Mohammed image, etc)?
Good point. I suppose some people's religion requires they uphold a flag till the end and fight off as necessary anyone who desecrates it. I wonder if some people with that religion will now go and kill because of the flag burning they saw on TV.
In conclusion, if people can't tolerate other's free speech, they are asking that their speech not be tolerated and that violence just the same be returned in kind. Sounds logical to me.
>> The scale and scope of the violent protests going on around the world right now is far to large to be considered just a "fringe" element. ...Clearly the Muslim religion IS a problem.
I would instead say that a combination of anger widespread in some places and some riling up by some spiritual leaders has created these problems. Generally peaceful nations are reacting peacefully (or much more so) and nations where violence has been strong or who identify with those suffering (note the pain going on in Syria today) are more likely to be violent. Of course, a number of spiritual leaders are condemning the violence and many many Muslims in many nations have not done any violent protests or even protests. I mean if a nation has over 50 million people with a majority being Muslims and protests of total much less than 1 million take place, then obviously not everyone is protesting (and not everyone protesting is being violent). [I admit I haven't looked at the numbers so tell me if you disagree.]
Anyway, keep in mind that if you are told that your ticket to salvation and to being a good person on Earth requires that you demonstrate the insult is intolerable, then you will feel guilty if you don't do something. I suspect these demonstrations are a collective venting and that moving forward after analyzing the collective behavior of some, that numerous teachers of the faith will shift to the peaceful side of teachings. So that more people tomorrow will find it acceptable to demonstrate peacefully or use their wits in some other way or feel comfortable allowing the insults to slide off as ignorance etc etc.
Similarly, if a brown person goes in church and kills 6 people, he is a terrorist. If a white man goes in Sikh temple and kills 6, he is just nuts.
Just ask him or just wait.
All religions die of the same disease...being found out. The bright lights of the information age are burning holes in their ridiculous myths.
All of humanity should be ashamed of our acceptance of religious superstition and its elevation to an undeserved status.
It is astounding that otherwise intelligent people allow their lives to be governed by superstitions of primitive tribalists from 2,000 years and longer ago.
Our culture and the world are dominated by these sick cults. They keep humanity in a perpetual state of war; promote ignorance and superstition while accruing wealth, power and sexual gratification from their willing victims.
It is past time for humanity to leave religion to our primitive past.
Religion poisons everything, beginning with childhood.
It's related to the Second Commandment forbidding graven images of all types (KJV). The Qu'ran has a similar verse.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. "
Theirs just happens to include Mohammed, and their extremists just happen to be insane when it comes to the topic.
---------------------
You may change your mind if your life is threatened...
Honestly, it's a 12th-century culture. If you know you're whacking a hornet nest, don't expect pretty results.
Of course I blame the extremists, but I also blame the fools who are surprised when the 'hornets' come after them.
The ideal situation is to find a way to treat the nest so that what come out are not hornets (but little bees) and progress can be made at a much lower risk than if a stick had been used to whack it.