QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 29th December 2007, 3:47pm)
Why is it "socially responsible" to give in to pressure? Neutral Point of View requires that one not base editorial decisions on what any religion (majority or minority, persecuted or persecutor) thinks on an issue.
And "hello" (ding, ding, ding, ding, ding) cultural perceptions of "acceptable" range far and wide of that of either Dan Tobias, or the U.S. First Amendment definition. Hence it isn't a matter of suppression of free speech (or free print) but respect for differing cultural norms.
I don't have issue with freedom of expression. But this kind of publication not only upsets Muslims greatly, but it causes many to become violent. And muslims who aren't normally violent, mind you, get upset at this.
Having said that, there's a certain amount of
hypocrisy in the whole muslim cartoon debacle debate. The Danish images were publised by an Egyptian newspaper without comment, uproar or threat to the Egyptian paper But the French, Norwegian and Danish papers that published the images were attacked verbally and threatened physically
For Wikipedia's sake, it was best to take the high road.
ps: on another train of thought, maybe if they publish it, Wikipedia will get a nice solid fatwa from Al-Zawahiri. hmmmmmmm. Maybe Wikipedia SHOULD publish it.This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: