February 01, 2006
If Ted Rall is an edgy political cartoonist, then so am I. Only I'm actually putting my life on the line over this. Inspired by Draw Mohammed Week (Warning: NSFW) and classic Frank J.
Posted by: Rusty at
06:22 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Tim at February 01, 2006 06:41 PM (5rYy9)
Really though 9 years is too young. Buddha married at 16 to a girl the same age.
Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 07:24 PM (TcoRJ)
He was kind enough to wait until she was 9 to consummate it.
Posted by: Vinnie at February 01, 2006 07:28 PM (f289O)
Although the Danish newspaper apologised, many European newspapers have reprinted the slanderous cartoons. Some have called it solidarity, I call it collective slander. Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between ‘freedom of speech’ and unacceptable slander. At least Great Britain did not jump on the bandwagon like the rest of these losers did.
While supposed ‘freedom of speech’ advocates chant on one side and Muslims argue for an apology on the other, I wonder whether this row would be so popular if it had not centered on Islam. The media has already proven to be islamophobic, and reading comments on this issue at this blog and others will evidence that many backing the newspapers are also against Islam.
As stated by Omar and Aquacool, the inconsistency is that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust there was an uproar and calls for him to retract his “anti-semitic†words. When a photograph that showed American coffins on their way back from Iraq was deemed offensive there was an uproar and the photographer lost her job. In each case action was taken against the so-called transgressor and the world did not come together to reprieve them, chanting freedom of speech and expression as a justification.
The first consistency so far in this issue is that Managing Editor of France Soir, the paper which has reprinted the cartoons, has been sacked. No doubt many will argue this is wrong, when the reality is that this should have been the standard from the outset.
Posted by: jamal at February 01, 2006 07:41 PM (Sq+yy)
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:55 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at February 02, 2006 01:44 AM (maXzk)
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
So it seems that no slander has happened, if you molest children and someone draws a cartoon of it then no slander has happened.
Posted by: dave clarke at February 02, 2006 08:34 AM (V8wjL)
Can we get mosques and the people who lead them to be placed on sex-offender lists?
Posted by: Ernie Oporto at February 02, 2006 02:20 PM (/lpvu)
Posted by: abb3w at February 03, 2006 12:22 PM (7KIjM)
Posted by: vanezza hashmi at June 14, 2006 04:53 PM (lU+Vi)
34 queries taking 0.0967 seconds, 165 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.