Are American newspapers and TV News organizations being cowardly for not publishing or showing cartoons originally in Charlie Hebdo?

Yes.

Yes. It makes no sense either. Yet they will show pictures and videos of a wounded and unarmed cop being murdered in cold blood. They are more than wimps…they are cowards.

Huffington Post did re-publish all of the cartoons. As did Slate.

Not sure how I feel about that part of the issue. I didn’t feel any patriotic duty to see “The Interview’ either.

It’s difficult to put someone else in danger just to take the high ground. How would you feel pounding you chest and saying you won’t be intimidated and you spouse gets killed as a result. I would have no problem putting my own life on the line for something I believe deeply but I would have a problem putting the lives of others on the line for the same belief.

I give them a pass.

By doing this, the terrorists have called more attention to the cartoons, which is the exact opposite effect they wished to have.
I feel the need to repost some of them on my FB page.

@filmfann I might argue this is exactly what they hoped for as it will now put the cartoon in the faces of many more disenchanted, poor, downtrodden young Muslim men who will become incensed and angry and form more lone wolf IS cells around the world to wreck more havoc more often.

@Cruiser

Agreed. Say what you will about these guys, but they understand marketing and brand promotion.

@Darth_Algar Plus I know we are doing more harm than good showing that shootout footage on every news outlet in the world and again just what IS wants. Huge PR move to show their brothers shooting up a magazine office and then showing in full color the murder of a defenseless Policeman in cold blood AND that they got away with it!

Thanks to all the media coverage their movement is so embolden by this event and sure to breed more of these like rabbits going forward. I have said all along to NOT show these things in the media….NO FOOTAGE EVER! All we should do is have one White House delivered special announcement about what happened and that’s it. Stop giving these terrorist all this free advertising.

@Cruiser – You may be right but I would hate to have the news filtered through the white house. Benghazi comes to mind and I’d rather get the whole story, no matter how bad it is.

There’s no need to show them, anyone with a fuctioning brain can pretty much work out for themselves the content of the images.

Blasphemy: A law to protect an all-powerful, supernatural deity from getting its feelings hurt.

Of course not. Having the right to publish something is not the same as having a responsibility to publish it. The cartoons are very easy to find online. Some of them are extremely offensive. Charlie Hebdo is not a well-respected, witty, intellectual publication; it’s a crude tabloid rag that helps to marginalize minorities in Europe.

The comparison with The Interview is apt. The Interview is a shitty movie that people are seeing in droves out of a misplaced sense of patriotism. Likewise, to parrot “Je Suis Charlie” without ever having read its content is every bit as foolish. By all means, speak out against the murders and against the suppression of free speech. But I wouldn’t fall on any swords for this paper.

Yes, they are too cowardly. They were too cowardly before this incident as well.

@Jaxk Good point as the White House still has yet to admit that was a terrorist attack. Idiots!

@dappled_leaves – I disagree. These are probably the most newsworthy cartoons on the planet, in that they lead to the death of a dozen people.

Why should those of us (not in France) be able to view the cartoons. For a newspaper reporting on the murders not to publish them is simply being cowardly and not doing their job.

You say “some of the are extremely offensive”. Fine, your opinion. Why don’t you allow me the ability to view them for myself and to decide if they are offensive according to MY values?

Maybe Hebdo is a disreputable magazine – again, your opinion. Why am I forced to take your word for it? Why can’t I view the pictures and the magazine and draw my own opinion?

@elbanditoroso “Why should those of us (not in France) be able to view the cartoons.”

You are able. Have you heard of Google?

“Why don’t you allow me the ability to view them for myself and to decide if they are offensive according to MY values?”

You do have that ability. Have you heard of Google?

“Why can’t I view the pictures and the magazine and draw my own opinion?”

You can do that. Have you heard of Google?

@dappled_leaves – is that really your answer? Do you not see a principle here?

No, I don’t. I’ve already said this, above. These papers have the right to publish what they want – and they equally have the right to refrain from publishing what they don’t want to publish. Would you dictate their content? What gives you that right?

If the shootings related to a single cartoon, I could see the importance of providing access to that cartoon. In this case, all they could show are examples of cartoons that could have/will cause offence. I don’t think that’s necessary. People who feel the need to see the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo can access them easily. I can’t be sure the lack of publication of those cartoons relates to fear as much as the shootings being a bigger and more important story than the cartoons that may be used as a justification for the murders.

If they were avoiding publishing the many cartoons cartoonists are producing in protest to the shootings, that would be cowardly.