Charlie Hebdo Massacre

New York Times: Shout Loudly Enough, and We Will Succumb to Your Heckler's Veto

Why will the Paper of Record publish a condom-Pope but not a Mohammed statue? Catholics aren't loud (or scary) enough.


In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre this January, The New York Times, despite having had a good nine years to figure out how to decide whether to reprint Mohammed images that are used as justification for Islamist murder, elected predictably not to re-publish the most newsworthy cartoon of the year, and then sprinkled self-congratulation onto its self-censorship in the form of this ludicrous claim from Editor Dean Baquet:

We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult.

That assertion was amply disproven within hours of its utterance, and in fact was pre-disproven by The Times' own decision just days earlier to not publish file photographs of a non-satirical statue of Mohammed that stood atop a Manhatttan Appellate Division Courthouse without incident for a half-century. If the Paper of Record was being honest about its "standard," Baquet would have said "We're more worried about the angry Muslims, sorry!"

Well, the Times has now basically admitted that very sentiment, albeit with typically pompous, obfuscatory verbiage. The paper's latest display of free-speech fecklessness begins with this image, published Monday:

Pope Prophylacto I. ||| New York Times
New York Times

Yep, that's Pope Benedict XVI, made out of condoms.

After the ensuing outrage, Standards Editor Philip B. Corbett issued a remarkable statement essentially codifying the Heckler's Veto into the Times' styleguide:

There's no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this. We really don't want to gratuitously offend anyone's deeply held beliefs. That said, it's probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone. We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them.

I don't think these situations — the Milwaukee [condom-Pope] artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there's no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn't seem to be any comparable level of outrage.

Bolding mine, to highlight the precise terms of the capitulation.

So if you gin up a sufficient "level of outrage" (which, in the Danish cartoon example Corbett cites, includes the murder of more than 200 people), then we will prioritize your ideas about prior restraint. If, on the other hand, you are modern enough to eschew deadly rioting at the sight of contemporary or historical images demonstrating an intentional racist/collectivist animus against Jews, Japs, blacks or whoever else, then your editorial preferences are basically irrelevant. This is a perfect illustration of the Heckler's Veto, which you can read all about in the Reason archives here.

All the file photo that's unfit to print! |||

To be fair to Corbett, he wasn't specifically referring here to the decision not to reprint the file photo of the Mohammed statue. To be even more fair, any intellectually honest "standards editor" would have, since that's the paper's operational standard, high-fallutin' concerns about "significant artwork" and "primary intent" be damned. Recall the NYT's own formulation in its article about the Mohammed courthouse statue in Manhattan:

[I]n 1955 […] the statue was finally removed out of deference to Muslims, to whom depictions of the prophet are an affront.

(For the same reason, The New York Times has chosen not to publish photographs of the statue with this article.)

Because "depictions of the prophet are an affront" to Muslims, the Times reasons (inaccurately, as any trip to the U.S. Supreme Court could confirm), the paper will not even show a historical photograph of a significant artwork whose primary intent was to honor Islam's prophet. All because a minority of contemporary Muslims have sporadically used a minority of available Mohammed representations to commit murder.

Contra Corbett, this does represent a "simple, unwavering formula," just not one that reflects well on the news judgment and editorial spine of the nation's allegedly premier newspaper. The deal goes like this: If you drive the death count high enough, the paper will capitulate to your publishing demands.

Such cowardice, if widespread enough, threatens us all, particularly those who live the most bravely. As I wrote on the awful day of January 7,

If more of us were brave, and refused to yield to the bomber's veto, and maybe reacted to these eternally recurring moments not by, say, deleting all your previously published Muhammad images, as the Associated Press is reportedly doing today, but rather by routinely posting newsworthy images in service both to readers and the commitment to a diverse and diffuse marketplace of speech, then just maybe Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have stuck out so much like a sore thumb. It's harder, and ultimately less rewarding to the fanatical mind, to hit a thousand small targets than one large one.

NEXT: Jim Webb Enters the Presidential Race

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I don’t think these situations ? the Milwaukee [condom-Pope] artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures ? are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS).”

    “I don’t think these situations ? the various Muhammad caricatures and the Milwaukee [condom-Pope] artwork ? are really equivalent. For one thing, museum officials might disagree, but many people clearly consider these caricatures to be significant artwork. Also, there’s no indication that their primary intent is to offend or blaspheme (the artists and the many people say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about freedom of speech).”

    1. Islam is above social questions. No other religions are.

      1. You’re not suggesting we punch down, do you!?

        1. You’re not suggesting we punch down, do you!?

          It’s almost as though they justify their inconsistencies by claiming that the victim groups they stand for, are beneath them. That sort of contempt wrapped in admiration is on display here in this article that was posted to the A.M. links this morning. *derp warning*

      2. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but if New York prosecutors can ? with the strong backing and approval of the New York Times as well as most of the “First Amendment” community ? tell the difference between humorous satire that’s “just for fun” and inappropriately deadpan satire that crosses the line into rank criminality because it was allegedly written not merely to cause “momentary discomfort or embarrassment,” but to “harm a reputation,” then surely the distinguished editors of the Times can tell the difference between satire and “gratuitous insult.” See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

        1. P.s. I hear some uninformed “free speech” voices saying, “shout loudly enough, and we here in America will prosecute. This is a great tool for suppressing unwanted academic criticism. Heck, it’s even more convincing than the heckler’s veto.” These people are simply unwilling to face the fact that distinctions have to be made, that not only the Times, but the entire nation has to have “standards,” and that no one should engage in any kind of triggering speech that we really don’t like and think that action will not be taken to suppress it.

    2. I heard from a Muslim man I am acquainted with that the reason they don’t want any images of Muhammad displayed is because he was a homosexual pedophile who liked to wear panty hose, dresses and makeup. I’m just saying. (Gosh, I sure hope I didn’t offend anyone. Please don’t kill me!)

  2. Wouldn’t it be great if the NYT was just honest enough to say “we don’t post Muhammed stuff because we are scared they are going to bomb us or shoot us or behead us but we will post stuff insulting Judaism or Christianity because they won’t do anything about it.”?

    Then they would have to admit that Islamic terrorism is clearly a greater threat than their fantasies about Right Wing Militia Hate Groups, and shit that ain’t happening.

    1. More importantly they’d have to concede that Muslims aren’t the perfect victims of white male Anglo-Saxon super-bigotry. Or maybe they’d be conceding that Islamic culture is just tad bit barbaric, owing to it’s wanton use and support of violence by practitioners. They might even be forced to concede that the reason Islamic countries are so utterly fucked up might have something to do with cultural problems, and not the much more favored “Anglo-Saxon super-racist colonialism theory”.

      1. Which is also never gonna happen. We will see Takei apologize to Thomas before that.

        1. Thomas? As in, “Clarence”?

            1. That would be considered racist if it hadn’t come from someone who is incapable of being racist – Hollywood lefty minority gay.

    2. That was my exact first thought. I would have more respect for them if they did that.

      1. How about – “We’d publish the cartoons but we know for a fact our stupid Government is spending so much of its time and money tracking phone calls from Grandmas to their Grandchildren at Christmas they don’t have time to actual track people who might actually do some harm. Consequently if we publish them our staff, whom we actually care about, might be killed just doing their jobs. And, that isn’t acceptable to us. Get back to us when the government actually does its job properly.”

    3. Tman — I think it would be better if Judaism or Christianity DID do something about it (cowards that they are).

  3. mumble mumble punching down mumble

  4. You Catholics need to get your shit together. This is a sign of disrespect. You gonna take that? Hmmmm?

    1. Is it a sign of disrespect? I mean, these condoms won’t be used to thwart the will of God after all.

      1. I don’t know about you, but I agree with the Church. My seed is too extremely precious (and, dare I say, somewhat coveted) to be denied to the world by something that isn’t even environmentally friendly.

        1. I daresay SugarFree does not deny the world *his* essence.

          1. It flows in the streets and floats on the wind. It is the mountain, the forest and the mighty bear. I fling it at the sun so that it will return as sticky meteors of searing love.

    2. Looks like the pope is mightier than the condoms to me.

      An anti-pope collage made out of tiny pictures of popes might piss me off.

      1. What about a condom made of Popes?

        1. “Hold on, I have to put on my Johnny Hat.”

    3. *tosses flaming sword in front of Eddie*
      Gee how’d that get there?

      1. I think most people here get the point – the NYT chickens out re the Mohammad (PB&J) pictures.

        I could spend time defending the Church’s teaching on condoms, but instead I’ll just note that, yes, the Benedict condom-picture is offensive to faithful Catholics. Also, the claim that they’re just trying to raise AIDS awareness and not be offensive…if anyone believe *that,* then have a great bargain for you. There’s this bridge in Brooklyn which just went on the market…

        1. Look, all you “artists,” I understand that you want to be transgressive and everything by insulting religions that won’t retaliate by violence, but, please, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Don’t express shock that people are insulted by…your deliberate insults.

          Maybe we can do the same to you. Perhaps a picture of atheistic artists burning in the fires of Hell. When challenged, we can answer, “oh we didn’t mean any offense, we’re just trying to raise awareness of the blah blah.”

          1. PS – I would never condone such a picture, I’m just making a point.

            1. Why not? Depicting atheist burning in hell doesn’t offend me. I’d be surprised if it bother many atheist.

              1. It would offend *me* because such speculation is generally off-limits to the faithful, even when it comes to Judas and [Godwin edit].

              2. I’m an atheist and I wouldn’t give a shit about such a picture either. Then again, I’ve been hanging around extremist sites like this one and absorbing radical ideas like “if a piece of art offends you, don’t look at it”.

        2. So if we make a picture of Mohammed out of condoms to fight aids will they print it? I’d say Mohammed condoms could kick the bejesus out of Pope condoms.

    4. Catholics had their shit together for a thousand years, imprisoning, torturing, and killing huge numbers of people who disagreed with them. The violence and genocides of Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, make modern Islamic extremism look like child’s play.

      Let’s all hope we can heap the same kind of scorn on Islam when it has been castrated and defanged, like we have done with the Catholic church.

  5. Notice how they never post disparaging photos of Goldwater or Spooner.

    They fear the woodchipper most of all.

  6. NYT: all the consensus that’s fit to print.

  7. Such bravery. Such integrity. Is it any surprise they are the world standard in journalism?

    1. I’ll admit that I don’t think the issue is bravery vs. cowardice. I think the NYT and their ilk loathe with a passion any cultural heritage of the west while they view approvingly any cultural practices rooted outside the West.

      It’s white guilt with a dash of Stockholm Syndrome.

      1. So your saying they wouldn’t publish an art work of a life-size tepee made out of cans of spray paint and baggies?

        1. The NYT refused to publish pictures of Mohammed because they are craven cowards.

          They published a picture of Pope Benedict made out of condoms because they are hateful bigots.

          It’s no more complicated than that.

  8. Of course, the NYT in its craven absurdity also neglects to consider that the image that whose desecration sparks violent turmoil is the one that absolutely needs to be mercilessly mocked while the image whose desecration sparks only mild complaints does not.

    And another nail in the coffin of postmodern art and its bullshit pretenses to avant-garde or edgy expression. Western postmodern art is just historical guilt writ large and lacks the temerity to insult the vastly inferior cultures and traditions that litter this rock.

    1. The law of cultural dominance is enforced with guns.

      If prog rags like the NYT get their way, they’ll go back to publishing Mohammed cartoons just as soon as the second amendment is repealed.

      1. Well, joke’s on them. You think a repeal of the 2nd is going to stop jihadis from getting their hands on an AK?

        1. Hey, it might stop *mentally-ill* jihadis!

        2. But the progs will have to learn that the hard way because they believe that a no guns law will mean no guns.

          It works in Chicago and Detroit, and Baltimore, and Compton.

          Right ?

      2. I doubt it’s even fear of retaliation that unpins this, as indicated elsewhere here by PZ. That merely gives them the plausible excuse of a heckler’s veto where the reality is that they find every religious tradition within the west deplorable and worthy of castigation while every religious tradition outside the west is noble and beautiful and an example of the better parts of humanity reaching for a deeper purpose in life unlike us vile evil materialistic and vulgar pasty-skins.

        1. every religious tradition within the west

          Are you talking about the West’s actual religious tradition (i.e., heathenism/paganism) or the one they lifted from the Levant?

          1. Jesus is an American, commie.

            1. American Jesus, stay away from me
              American Jesus, son let me be
              Don’t come hangin’ from my cross
              I don’t wanna show you who’s boss

              I got more important things to do
              Than spend my time growin’ old with you
              Now Jesus, I said stay away
              American Jesus, listen what I say

                1. I always get weird looks when hauling a cross along Figueroa.

              1. Nice. 😀

          2. Obviously I’m aware of the origins of Christianity/Catholicism, but its historical practice is primarily a Western one. So much so that when one mentions the term Christendom, it evokes almost exclusively images of medieval Western Europe.

            If I were a Catholic who was highly offended by this, I would troll the NYT by pointing out something they’re apparently oblivious to: Catholicism is largely a dead letter in the countries of Western Europe and its only major holdouts in this world are the noble third world of South America and Africa. Therefore, the NYT is racist and dislikes people darker than themselves. QED

            1. The only thing you’re going to get out of that are op-eds asking why there hasn’t been a Black pope yet.

              1. That’s next.

                IIRC the latest conclave there was a rumor that one of the African bishops was a front runner for the nod. But the majority of practicing Catholics in the world today are in Central and South America, so they had to go that route.

                Interestingly enough, the week after the new pope was chosen I was golfing with a septuagenarian Irish priest who had spent the past 40 years in South America. He referred to Pope Francis as a fascist. This Irishman was a liberation theologist to the core. I joked with him that I kept slicing my tee shots because I needed to balance out his far left views.

                1. I was golfing with a septuagenarian Irish priest who had spent the past 40 years in South America

                  That has to be the start of a joke….it just has to be.

                  Seriously though, isn’t golf the game of the bourgeoisie?

                  1. In his defense, it was a muni course. But yes, it was an eerie experience. It was also on April 20th 2012 so I was considerably baked. He claimed they transferred him up here because they needed a priest who was fluent in Spanish for the congregation he would be heading to. I did wonder if his transfer was rooted in other reasons…. proclivities if you will. Though I doubt they’d send him to the States were that the case.

                    1. Scratch that, is was 2013. But it was on 4/20.

          3. Are you talking about the West’s actual religious tradition (i.e., heathenism/paganism)

            If only we’d stayed on that route. I wonder if millions of people wouldn’t have perished in Abrahamic religious wars. Indo-European religion was rather cosmopolitan by the time the Christians were martyring themselves.

            1. Yes, yes, that’s it, those Christians were just voluntarily self-immolating and jumping into those lions’ mouths just to show those cosmopolitan Indo-Europeans!

              1. Yes, yes, that’s it, those Christians were just voluntarily self-immolating and jumping into those lions’ mouths just to show those cosmopolitan Indo-Europeans!

                If you’ll recall, the martyred early Christians in question were rather tenacious in their unwillingness to pretend not to be Christians or to half-heartedly renounce their faith, at least in public, to spare themselves death. As the story goes anyhow.

                1. And pagans never warred amongst themselves or murdered those of other faiths. Absent the Abrahamic faiths, just as much blood would have been spilled.

                  1. I don’t think you realize how catastrophic the religious wars like that which afflicted Germany and France really were. The scope of the conflict involved every man, woman and child as potential combatants. Entire German towns and cities were unpeopled and in excess of a generation lived under wartime famine conditions. In terms of the proportion of the population that was killed and displaced, the second world war is hardly even comparable. Germany lost about 40% of it’s population by war’s end.

                    And no actually, there were never any pagan religious wars of that scale and scope. The Anglo-Saxons and the Norse weren’t exactly fighting over the issue of whether their chief deity’s name was Woden or Odin. Nor were they murdering babies because they were born into a rival faith who thought Cronos’ son was the essence of his father or some such vague nonsense.

                    1. Hmmmm. There is evidence that the Norse and Danes did specifically target churches and monasteries, partially because that is where the money was at, but also because they felt Christianity was a threat to their religion. There is also evidence that earlier Germanic tribes such as the Anglo-Saxons and Franks did target Christian churches in the conquest of Romano-Celtic societies in England and France. The sagas tell us about Danes crucifying Christians to see if they would rise again. Also, there weren’t the religious wars on that scope partially because the Pagan Germanic tribes tended to be much more independent and smaller, they were not full fledged nation states like the Christian and Muslim medieval kingdoms.
                      Also, at least part of the war between the Spartans and the Athenians was over religion. And no matter if Roman conquests were religiously based or not, the subjugated people, who often were sold into slavery or worse, probably could care less.

                    2. Pagan wars of religion, while not completely unknown, are very rare historically because most of those belief systems were not only polytheistic but much less restrictive. Also, regionally there wasn’t a lot of variance between gods, so somebody from central modern-day Germany familiar with Wotan would recognize Odin as essentially the same. Besides, the Abrahamic idea of one god who rules over everything and who you’re supposed to worship because he said so and not expect anything in return is very different from typical pagan cosmologies. You made offerings or said prayers to specific gods for specific favors or to avoid specific hardships, and if someone in the neighboring village (or the guy next door) ignored the gods then that was on them.

                      And yeah, like Free says, the Thirty Years War was the most devastating conflict in Europe in terms of loss of life until WWI. The European wars of religion were catastrophic, and while there were political elements the primary conflict was about Protestantism vs Catholicism. There was never anything even remotely like that in the pagan world, for a number of reasons.

        2. The reality is the Progressive Theocracy recognizes it’s true enemy as Freedom, largely embodied in Western civilization, and particularly the Anglosphere, and while Freedom has some life, they’ll give aid and comfort to the enemy of their true enemy.

      3. Wait a minute! The NYT does not have comics/cartoons, does it? That’s why I never bought the paper!

    2. while the image whose desecration sparks only mild complaints does not.

      You’re saying that mockery should serve a utilitarian purpose. Let’s examine that idea.

      Quite apart from the enormous power it has wielded and the widespread bloodshed the Catholic church has caused in the past, the fact is that in the West, many people still view the Pope as an authority on morality and believe he is a “good person”. Public disrespect and mockery of the Pope will hopefully disabuse people of those erroneous beliefs, and they seem to be quite effective at it.

      On the other hand, I doubt many non-Muslim Americans have any respect for Islamic clerics, so mockery of Islam or its figures is unlikely to change their minds. And Muslims are not going to be swayed by it either because they are going to view such mockery as simple xenophobia, something that doesn’t get them to change their minds.

      Mockery is a good tool for people who want to oppose Catholicism, it simply isn’t effective for people who want to oppose Islam.

  9. Is it just physical cowardice, though? I don’t think if, say, new-day Tilly leads a mercenary band that targets the NYT and WaPo offices that all of a sudden journalists will discover respect for Catholicism. Rather, they’ll stand on the pile of corpses to grandstand like usual.

    And that is probably that. Regardless of any risk, Islam is above criticism among the right-thinking people in a way Christianity is not because Muslims are Designated Victim Class. Judaism only gets invoked when you need to bash Christians, or Israel, and Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism aren’t even treated as religions.

    1. I see you’ve stolen the thoughts from my brain and posted them four minutes ahead of me.

      I demand recompense.

      1. Agree with both of you. There are a few leftists on record as being scared to mock Islam (Sarah Silverman for one). But a Charlie Hebdo-style slaughter at the Times would lead to outraged demands for silencing of right-wing “hate” groups and massive gun control. They would not stop printing images which disparaged Christianity.

    2. You are correct, but NYT is only admitting to cowardice.

    3. Islam is above criticism among the right-thinking people in a way Christianity is not because Muslims are Designated Victim Class

      First of all, despite his delusions of grandeur, the Pope does not stand for Christianity.

      Second, there are other motivations at work too. I despise Catholicism and Islam equally. But mocking the Pope is effective in diminishing his authority and respect; mocking Mohammed is not.

      That has less to do with “designated victim classes” (something Catholics have been trying to claim for themselves), and more with the fact that the Pope is alive and that Mohammed is dead; and with the fact that mockery of Catholicism is interpreted as disrespect from the culture that Catholicism is part of, while mockery of Islam is interpreted as simple xenophobia.

  10. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.

    Yeah, that has more to do with the outraged than with the artwork.

  11. Here in Downtown LA, every first Thursday of the month they do an artwalk where passerby walk along the streets passing galleries and aspiring artists and homeless people attempting to peddle their meaningless crap that passes for art in the postmodern post-sanity West.

    If I had any skill for painting/drawing whatsoever, I would go out there with a painting of tranny Mohammad (pretty much just picture that Eurovision winning thing with traditional bedouin garb) for sale to put a mirror in front of these faux transgressives and expose them for the sham they are. As it happens, I may just have to order a few buckets from Home Depot and a few Korans from Amazon and then drink a lot of water the night before.

    1. If I had any skill for painting/drawing whatsoever,

      You could draw a stick figure and label it Mohammad and a lot of people would get all murder and mayhem-y

      1. Since I can’t concealed carry, if they do I’ll politely explain “no no not that mohammad, the guy that is was in my Engineering 101 course at University.”

        1. Speaking of conceal carry, my FL CCL is valid lots of places.

          1. Ohio recognizes every state except Vermont. Such a whore.

  12. “Catholics aren’t loud (or scary) enough.”

    They have been before and likely will be again, once they do the math on the rioters veto.

    Christians and Conservatives are a stodgy, old fashioned bunch, and have yet to get with the program that the Rule of Law is no more. But they’re starting to figure it out.

    1. All it would take is 50,000 pissed off New York area Catholics to cancel their subscriptions to NYT.

  13. The Times does not want to offend anyone who will hit them for it. Which will encourage any group with sufficient passion about a subject to hit them.

    Thanks for doing your part to radicalize the culture, morons.

  14. Cowardice.

    There is, however, a difference between the condom mosaic and the Jyllands Posten cartoons: the cartoons were newsworthy. An uninformed reader had to see thee cartoons to make a judgement regarding the story. The condom mosaic of Pope Benedict would be newsworthy if militant Catholics had bombed an art gallery or something … otherwise it is just a vulgar celebration of anti-Catholic sentiment.

  15. Imma make an art piece. Mohammed toilet tissue.

  16. To show what a courageous, transgressive artist I am, here are some of my forthcoming projects:

    1) “Up yours, Quakers” – showing a guy pissing in George Fox’s mouth

    2) A hilarious depiction of an Amish guy having sex with his horse while he’s riding his buggy.

    3) A drawing of a bunch of disabled people in wheelchairs, with the caption, “some and get me, you thugs, you don’t scare me!”

  17. Typical hypocrisy. “We can’t offer an ‘affront’ to muslims, but we will go out of our way to offer affronts to Chrstians…”.


    No depictions of Muhammed? They have to respect that.

    Killing the unborn is wrong? No respect there.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman? Nope, two men, two women, a man and two women, a man and a goat, your values mean nothing to us but the place to start tearing society down…

  18. Why will the Paper of Record publish a condom-Pope but not a Mohammed statue? Catholics aren’t loud (or scary) enough.

    “We only have respect for those who demonstrate a casual use of the most horrific violence against people who, they feel, wronged them.”

    If that is what it takes for the NYT to respect Catholics, well….

    No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  19. Shorter NYT – we only pick on the kids that don’t fight back.

  20. They needed some sort of sophistry to pretend that the decision wasn’t based on cowardice, since that would make it difficult to preen themselves for their courage every time they mock Christians who won’t shoot back at them.

  21. They’re scared. That’s all there’s to it. The Islamists have a long history of attacking journalists, the NYT knows it. If they were honest, they would come out and say “We might be attacked if we publish anti muslim cartoons” but that would make them look like a bunch of Islamophobes!

    So they have to trot out some tortured language and logic in comparing levels of outrage, in which they admit that they fear some form outrage over another without blaming Islam.

  22. If I type “Muhammad” in Comic Sans, will someone try to kill me?

    1. If you say it three times in a dark room while looking in a mirror he appears behind you. But you can’t see him, of course.

  23. They’re not scared, they just happen to agree with the Islamists.

    There’s nothing the left hates more than a Christian. OTOH, they love everyone who isn’t a religion, no matter how vile their actions are. Enslave women, murder children, kill gays, hey, it’s no big deal as long as it’s no one white (in the Anglo-Saxon sense) or Christian.

    Slavery 150 years ago, still the most important topic ever. Slavery in the modern world, well, it doesn’t matter, because the people doing it aren’t white Christians.

    1. Present day slavery and genocide. Can’t forget the genocide. Why can’t white people be involved in today’s genocide? Yeeeeearrrrghh!! Then we could finally hate that, too.

  24. Who gives a rat’s behind what the effing NY Times has to say on ANY topic?

  25. Christians are taught to forgive offenses. Muslims are told they can kill, if they are offended. Simple as that!

  26. “Such cowardice, if widespread enough, threatens us all, particularly those who live the most bravely.”

    No, such cowardice does not threaten us all, particularly those of us who live most bravely. If you truly feel threatened by the New York Times, you’re not as brave as you think.

  27. I would love to see Pastafarians announce that kittens are sacred and start killing anyone and everyone associated with kitten videos.

  28. Know what’d be a great guerilla art project?

    Make a few hundred round stickers showing a Mohammed charicature, write ‘allahu akbar’ over his head and ‘praise be unto him’ along the bottom.

    Then, go stick them in toilets in bars and clubs.

    Use rubber gloves.

    The art project will be seeing how big this blows up in the media.

  29. When you control the culture as the liberal/socialists have for the last 60+ years, i.e. MSM, academia, unions, television. radio, Hollywood, newsprint, radio, fashion, music, etc., you can do whatever you want.

    Conservatives should have been a lot wiser 60 years ago and they could have control of the culture now. Of course they would have had to get rid of the evangelical/right wing faction of the party but who needs them anyway?

  30. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  31. Let us applaud the honesty of the now-closed Boston Phoenix, the leftist, alternative tabloid, which admitted that it refused to publish the Danish Muhammad cartoons because it feared violent retaliation,…..d-of-pain/

    Invoking personal courage, risk, and the defense of free speech when standing up to the Catholic Church on social issues and the Religious Right is just a “safe pose” for many leftists.

  32. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  33. The new Broadway play, “An Act of God,” with gay actor Jim Parsons even makes a joke about not offending Muslims at the request of the show’s producers.

  34. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.