The Wake

In the past few weeks we all have heard of and possibly seen a series of cartoons published by the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten. The set of 12 cartoons, depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in various scenes was published by the paper on Sept. 30, 2005, after a Danish author complained he could not find an illustrator for his children’s book about the Prophet.

The Copenhagen Post wrote: “Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamentalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.”

Upon viewing them, I found at least four of the cartoons to be overtly offensive towards Muslims (or anyone). The cartoon that has received the most criticism features Muhammad with a lit bomb in his turban. All of the cartoons however, regardless of their intent, are viewed as offensive by Muslims, since all depictions of Muhammad are explicitly prohibited by Islamic tradition.

This situation seems simple: Denmark’s secular government respects press freedom and therefore the paper has the right to publish whatever editorial content they want to, right? I don’t think so.

The press in democratic, secular countries that value freedom of expression should publish everything that it sees fit to fulfill its mission and responsibility to the public; to act as a watchdog over government, to inform the citizenry and to inspire and provoke discussion.

Freedom of the press grants an important institution a great amount of power; but this power requires great responsibility.

The Muhammad cartoon situation is complex. It is a massive train wreck of government, religion, freedom and culture. And I do not see a clear-cut answer to the problem that these cartoons present.

On one hand, it appears that, at least the original publication of the cartoons was an exercise in press freedom. Jyllands-Posten wanted to test the waters; to see if in an environment of change they could print potentially offensive material without being hauled into court and prosecuted (and they weren’t).

On the other hand, it seems that the paper acted with intent to offend an entire portion of the country’s population. Simply creating the image of Muhammad is offensive to Muslims. However, non-Muslims have a hard time understanding this concept. The publication of such images must have a context; readers must develop a better understanding of the religion and culture of Islam before they can pass judgment on them.

Could Jyllands-Posten possibly predict that their cartoons would spark violence in many Muslim countries resulting in the deaths of nearly 150 people or the destruction of Danish embassies in several cities? I doubt it, but they had to understand that the cartoons would be very offensive to some. It is any paper’s responsibility to know their audience, to anticipate possible reactions to their content and to minimize the possible harm that will be caused by publication.

The paper eventually apologized, stating that the cartoons had been taken out of context.

I do not think that anyone will emerge from this debacle a winner. Papers that have reprinted the cartoons have been severely criticized, some fundamentalist Islamic leaders have called for a “Holocaust” cartoon contest as a rebuttal to the Muhammad cartoons, and thousands of Muslims have rose up in violence.

Censoring the press or imposing sanctions for publishing the cartoons is not the answer. But, neither is violence. Acting out violently simply perpetuates the stereotypes that some of the most offensive cartoons depict.

While the international press wielded great power during the past months, demonstrating that they will not be restrained by either government or religion when publishing editorial content, a small and not necessarily representative portion of a growing population of Muslims rose up in violence, demonstrating that they have power as well. However, I don’t agree that either group, waving paper or guns, has acted with responsibility in this situation.

Good journalism is supposed to spark discussion, but all I’ve heard is yelling.

Sarah Bauer is a Voices guest columnist and welcomes comments at .