You seem to not understand how relationships work?
A friend is someone you have a personal relationship to.
While what Humon has is a professional relationship as a cartoonist to hundreds if not thousands of her readers online. And they obviously don't have a personal relationship to her either.
And regarding the comic you simply seems confused. The point of the Mohammed cartoons weren't that they where published in a newspaper. The world's Arab community aren't angry at newspapers if that's what you thought.
The point was that the papers printed a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed (which isn't allowed in Islam) and that the cartoonist chose to depict him as a terrorist.
So there's no comparison necessary at all there - it's the EXACT same thing as both discussions deal explicitly with what a cartoonist drew and how they chose to draw it. That the cartoon in one case was printed in a newspaper and in the other is published online makes no difference what so ever - the freedom of speech protects both equally.
EDIT:
No, there is no contradiction what so ever.
What you did was to cut your quote of my text short, thereby giving a completely misleading impression to what I actually said.
Now if you did this deliberately or just because you are so very confused as you say I don't know, but let me reiterate then:
"But apparently it's important to defend Danish cartoonist right to draw Mohammed any way they like, but it's not important defend their right to draw anything else then?
Is that the lesson Danish society learned from that incident? Artists right to free speech is only important if it offends Muslims?"
You see the question mark at the end of the sentences there? That means I'm asking you a question.
I'm saying Humon has the right to draw whatever she damn well pleases, and I'm asking you if you don't also agree with that - or if it's only important to defend Danish cartoonists right to draw what they like when they offend Muslims?
Because either you think freedom of speech is absolute and then you defend both the Mohammed cartoons and Humons right to draw whatever she like - or maybe you don't think freedom of speech is important and don't defend those things?
I know what I think and I've said so clearly but as asked you what your position is.
0
@UnknownDane
You seem to not understand how relationships work?
A friend is someone you have a personal relationship to.
While what Humon has is a professional relationship as a cartoonist to hundreds if not thousands of her readers online. And they obviously don't have a personal relationship to her either.
And regarding the comic you simply seems confused. The point of the Mohammed cartoons weren't that they where published in a newspaper. The world's Arab community aren't angry at newspapers if that's what you thought.
The point was that the papers printed a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed (which isn't allowed in Islam) and that the cartoonist chose to depict him as a terrorist.
So there's no comparison necessary at all there - it's the EXACT same thing as both discussions deal explicitly with what a cartoonist drew and how they chose to draw it. That the cartoon in one case was printed in a newspaper and in the other is published online makes no difference what so ever - the freedom of speech protects both equally.
EDIT:
No, there is no contradiction what so ever.
What you did was to cut your quote of my text short, thereby giving a completely misleading impression to what I actually said.
Now if you did this deliberately or just because you are so very confused as you say I don't know, but let me reiterate then:
"But apparently it's important to defend Danish cartoonist right to draw Mohammed any way they like, but it's not important defend their right to draw anything else then?
Is that the lesson Danish society learned from that incident? Artists right to free speech is only important if it offends Muslims?"
You see the question mark at the end of the sentences there? That means I'm asking you a question.
I'm saying Humon has the right to draw whatever she damn well pleases, and I'm asking you if you don't also agree with that - or if it's only important to defend Danish cartoonists right to draw what they like when they offend Muslims?
Because either you think freedom of speech is absolute and then you defend both the Mohammed cartoons and Humons right to draw whatever she like - or maybe you don't think freedom of speech is important and don't defend those things?
I know what I think and I've said so clearly but as asked you what your position is.