Observers of the national media understand that a certain amount of liberal bias will be in every article that they publish. In recent years, the bias exhibited by the media has been extended to include mocking religion of all sorts as nothing more than rantings of the uneducated masses.
Thus it comes as somewhat of a surprise that one of the nations premier newspapers, the Washington Post, has censored a comic strip because it contained a humorous reference to Islam.
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday’s installment of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
This is the same newspaper that just last week ran the same strip making fun of the recently deceased Jerry Falwell. The same newspaper that infamously featured shock cartoonist Ted Rall before being forced to cancel him after he depicted America as a retarded fool.
The most revealing element of this affair is how the Washington Post made it’s decision to censor this lame cartoon.
Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded “emotionally” to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.
Since when did newspapers decide what to publish based upon the emotions of their staffers? Or is this how they have been operating all along? Is this the reason we are constantly bombarded with negative stories about Iraq and Afghanistan? Because their employees respond “emotionally” to the war?
How far are we willing to allow our country to go down the road of political correctness before we say enough already!?
Or is this simply a reaction by the Post’s editors out of fear? Have they seen too many heads lopped off by Muslims? Do they fear that CAIR will have one of the terrorist organizations that they support target them?
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
20 Responses to “Washington Post: Muslims Off-Limits for Jokes”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
IMHO fear is the driving motivator to not publish anything that might inflame the radicals to burn cars, riot, picket, or murder. We are being held hostage by a radical movement that has learned our weakness and our strength. Plus, the radicals have the ACLU in their pocket. The Danish cartoon began this decline into free speech.
from not into*
I love being ahead of the curve here… look back on Mondays OC I posted about this then
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/08/27/monday-open-comments-25/#comment-194395
And the relevance of this post is? Who on this website reads that pater anyway?
paper
I woke up this morning and asked myself, Self, what can you do today to get gaddy’s attention?
It worked.
Now, tomorrow, perhaps I can think of something that makes gaddy think of a relevant comment. I know it’s a stretch but I can dream.
#5, gadboy it is about censorship. You know stopping someone’s ideas from the public inorder to “protect” others…
Come on, the Washington Post is only worried about offending muslims, but not christains or jews.
I saw it in the Chronicle. Quite a bit of truth to it. No wonder Muslims might be upset!
#9 fink it is amazing how much the truth actually hurts, and you know that in this PC world of ours people cannot be hurt by words..
Why should we even teach
“Sticks and Stones will break my bones,
but words will never never hurt me.”
AZ says:
Yep. I hear she’s going with the Space Madness defense.
All good humor includes a wee bit of truth - or else it wouldn’t be funny!
Being a blonde, I hear plenty of blonde jokes and even tell a few (dozen) So lets rework one of my favorite.
This Iman was going to Disneyland to blow the place up when up ahead he saw a sign that said Disney Land left, so he turned around and went home!
Hows that
Comw on guys - make up a few Muslim jokes too
I disagree, it isn’t about censorship. I still maintain that private newspapers are incapable of suppressing free speech/violating the first amendment. It isn’t like we’re not going to hear about the strip anyway. The paper’s refusal to publish it only gives the strip in question more publicity and ensures that MORE people see it.
It is about politically correct fear of offense of “protected” groups.
jimb, technically you are correct. In practice, we refer to them as the fourth estate. In that light, it is certainly censorship. But legally, yes, I agree with you.
Censorship of a form, probably so. I just don’t buy it when people’s comments are deleted on a blog or a newspaper refuses to run a comic strip one week that their first amendment rights are being violated. Only the government is capable of violating first amendment rights, in most cases.
And some of you actually believe the West is going to win this “war”…think again…as we cut our own throats…
Fear won’t protect us. Please enter your cartoon caricature of Mohammed for judging on the bathroom wall most convenient for you.
17.
You’re right. It is censorship. It is not a violation of the Constitution. Newspapers can suppress all they want to.
The “first amendement” argument is used by people ignorant of the scope of the First Amendment. These are the same people who screamed that radio stations were violating the Dixie Chicks civil rights by boycotting their music or the Aladdin violated the First Amendment for tossing Linda Ronstadt out after her political rant. People making these claims are of two groups: (1) Stupid people who don’t know what they are talking about; and (2) Activists who do know what they are talking about but deliberately lie.