U.S.: Muhammad Cartoon Controversy Having Little Impact In U.S.

Protestors in Karachi burned the flags of Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland during a rally today (epa) For the past week, Muslims across the world have held protests -- some of them violent and deadly – against the decision by Danish and other European newspapers to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Islam forbids any depiction of its prophet, and protesters say the publication of the cartoons is an insult to their religion and culture. However, as of 7 February, only one major U.S. newspaper -- the "Philadelphia Inquirer" – has followed the European lead and re-published the cartoons, in solidarity with the principle of a free press, The demonstration that followed publication was fairly minor. America's reaction to the controversy couldn't be more different than Europe's.

WASHINGTON, 7 February 206 (RFE/RL) -- Demonstrations by angry Muslims show no sign of abating. From Beirut to Damascus, Kabul to Tehran, European flags have been burned, embassies have been surrounded, and goods have been boycotted.

Nothing of the kind, however, has happened in the United States, home to an estimated 7 million Muslims.

The "Philadelphia Inquirer" published one of the 12 Muhammad cartoons on 3 February, explaining that it wanted its readers to be better informed about the controversy. A mild and brief demonstration by about 20 people urging religious tolerance followed.

The cartoons were first printed last September in the Danish daily newspaper “Jyllands-Posten.” When the controversy eventually erupted, in late January, several other European newspapers rushed to reprint them, saying they wanted to show solidarity with the Danish paper and to assert their right to freedom of expression.

Press Freedom, Press Responsibility

Many Muslim leaders outside the United States have tried to calm the protesters' anger by calling for tolerance of the European free press. In America, the reaction has been much the same.

Esam Omeish is the director of the Muslim American Society. He told reporters in Washington this week that Muslims should not call for censorship of any sort. At the same time, he said the U.S. press should continue to show restraint by not printing the drawings.

"We vehemently stand by the freedom of the press and the freedom of opinion, however we say that with this freedom, there is responsibility in which there must be respect for other religions and the rights of others, and that we are all part of one society,” Omeish said. “We want what's good for the whole society and we do not want to disrespect the rights of one another."

The executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, however, believes it is wrong to print caricatures of holy figures, regardless of what religions they represent.

"Defamation, whether it's in the Jewish community, whether it's in the Christian community, is defamation, any publication of any images like this is inflammatory," Mahdi Bray said yesterday in Washington. "So it doesn't matter who does it. It's wrong."

Self-Censorship Carries Risks

There are problems with such calls for self-censorship, according to Mark Feldstein, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University in Washington. He told RFE/RL that Americans view freedom of the press as absolute.

An exception was codified in a landmark 1919 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the nation's highest tribunal. The court said speech should not be protected if it creates a danger to society, and cited as an example someone "shouting fire in a crowded theater," when there is no fire.

Publishing the "Muhammad cartoons" doesn't endanger society, says Feldstein. He points out that the authors of the U.S. Constitution believed all points of view, whether respectful or offensive, should compete openly so that the public can decide where the truth lies.

Given that Americans are supposed to encourage an open marketplace of ideas and opinions, Feldstein says he is uncomfortable with the fact that only one U.S. newspaper has published the cartoons. He wonders if the rest have been dissuaded by "political correctness.”

"In the past, often there was a great insensitivity to the rights of minorities, and in an attempt to correct that, sometimes the pendulum has swung too far the other way with such an all-inclusive approach that sometimes truth or harsh realities are lost in the process,” he said. “And in this case, I think, some harsh realities are lost."

Feldstein had to conduct an exhaustive search of the Internet to see the cartoons for himself. He says no one should have to work so hard to find such information.

"I think a lot of readers have the same question that I did: 'Here are these riots going on, this must be pretty offensive. What was it that led to these riots?' In a way, there's no real way to judge this without looking at the cartoons yourself, and deciding for yourself.”

He added, “And by not publishing these cartoons, I think, in a way the American media has done a disservice because it doesn't allow the reader to form that judgment for themselves."