For the record: Another reader posed this question on Ask the Editors, and Steve Smith offers further explanation.

I think that focusing on the cartoons oversimplifies the issue. The cartoons are not the reason for the rioting, they are a catalyst. These people are rioting because they feel that their religion and culture are under assault by the secular West, not (necessarily) because they want to suppress free speech.

To twist the narrative into "Muslims overreact to cartoons," as so many would have it, distorts what is in reality an incredibly complex issue.

I'm with Russ on this one. Posting the cartoons originally (5 mos ago in Denmark) _might_ have been a breach of propriety, but now it's news, not commentary, and it puzzles me that so many news outlets aren't moved by standard journalistic values to more completely cover today's biggest international news topic.

If nothing else, shouldn't your readers be able to see the cartoons if only to judge the propriety, or impropriety, of the international Muslim response that has included killing people?

Ditto to what Ken said.

I've already commented on this over at Daily Briefing, but to re-iterate; posting the cartoons will not gain anybody any perspective on what's going on in the Middle East right now. The reaction to the cartoons is just a symptom of a larger issue, which what the news outlets should concentrate on. Waving the flag and shouting about how wonderfully free we are while printing the cartoons doesn't do anybody any good.

They have great moral courage and integrity. I wish they were in Cal so I could subscribe.

I don't think I'm suggesting the narrative be twisted. In fact, my assumption is that the coverage should be fairly twist-free. Ken, Remi's and Russ' editorializing is an important part of the discussion, but should those opinions be at the heart of whether or not the cartoons are omitted from the coverage?

The decision whether or not to publish should be based on journalism considerations alone, which it was in this case. The editors determined that publishing the cartoons was not necessary to understand their role in the controversy. We make dozens of similar news decisions every day.

My comment is my own opinion of the larger issue and should not be construed as the position of the newspaper regarding whether or not to publish the cartoons.

My point is that focusing on the cartoons is missing the point. The spark could have just as easily been a song, a nightclub joke, or the accidental shooting of a teenager by a police officer. The story is in the pre-existing tension.

As it is, we don't have any reporters in the Middle East, and we don't have the in-house expertise to look closely at the issue, so beyond printing wire dispatches, it isn't really our story. In that sense, throwing the cartoons on the page to make some kind of point would feel all the more gratuitous.

This just off the wire:

SEATTLE (AP) — The Stranger, an alternative weekly newspaper, is publishing the cartoons that have sparked chaos overseas by outraged Muslims who consider them blasphemy.
The goal is to let readers make up their own minds about the drawings, which have stirred violent demonstrations in the Islamic world months after their original publication in Denmark.
“One man’s blasphemy doesn’t override other people’s free-speech rights, their freedom to publish, freedom of thought,” said the Stranger’s editor, Dan Savage, who also writes the blunt, spicy and nationally syndicated advice column “Savage Love.”
The decision frustrates some local Muslims, who consider the cartoons hurtful and offensive. Many U.S. publications have opted not to print the cartoons for that reason, after hearing of the violence overseas.
The Seattle Times, which reported Friday on the Stranger’s decision, has not published the cartoons but provides a link to a reproduction of the Jyllands-Posten page on its Web site. A similar approach is being used by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
...
The Stranger published four cartoons in Thursday’s issue with an article by Bruce Bawer, author of “While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West From Within” and “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity.”
“No Molotov cocktails but the calls have been interesting,” the newspaper’s receptionist, Mike Nipper, said Friday.
“The article we’re running is about how stupid it is to throw violent temper tantrums against freedom of speech,” said Stranger news editor Josh Feit. “We thought it would’ve been stupid for us to do an article condemning those temper tantrums and not run the pictures themselves.”

"If nothing else, shouldn't your readers be able to see the cartoons if only to judge the propriety, or impropriety, of the international Muslim response that has included killing people?"

You can't do that with the descriptions that have been offered? I was able to decide that the reaction was wrong without seeing them. "Muhammad with bomb atop turban." Sure enough, that's what the cartoon is.

Let's say there were an uproar over the window promotion for "The Vagina Monologues" at The Met. If you haven't seen it, the display includes synonyms for "vagina." Yes, even THAT one.

Should the expectation be that the newspaper photograph the display so the offending words can be seen so the reading public can decide whether the fuss is worth it?

Or would you settle for a description that doesn't include spelling out the obscenities?

This is a bit more complicated than freedom of speech. We keep all kinds of offensive material from readers without being accused of cowardice or a lack of devotion to the First Amendment.

I suspect many of the people who want us to print the cartoons would not want a picture of "The Vagina Monologues" display ... or soldiers with gruesome wounds ... or other things we choose not to show.

Publishing something you know to be offensive doesn't help the cause of dialogue and discussion. I'm convinced by a well written piece by Stanley Fish in the Sunday NYTimes (cut and paste link at bottom). I think posting a link to a site that hosts copies of the cartoons would be strong enough, and all that's really needed to satisfy the 'obligation to readers' argument.

If you really want to support 'free speech' as a value, ask for an in-depth report on the underlying causes for the unrest in the middle east: lack of religious government, massive amounts of unemployment, and other social problems. Then publish the reasons that these countries use external issues such as the Danish cartoons or a general hatred of Israel/US, in order to foment dissent against outside issues rather than domestic problems.

Want to take that a step further and really start talking about free speech? Why not put a memorial picture of every troop killed in Iraq in color above the fold every day for at least the next 2000+ days, just like you do in a shorter form on your main website. That would sure be some free speech that, while totally nonpartisan and respectful, would create a dialogue.

Please don't publish offensive cartoons just to protect your right to publish such cartoons. And don't run pictures of lynchings, anti-Christian images, or anything else of the sort. Stick to good news and good coverage and leave the cartoons on the web where everyone can see them anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12fish.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fF%2fFish%2c%20Stanley_rQ3D1Q26nQ3DTopQ252fReferenceQ252fTimesQ2520TopicsQ252fPeopleQ252fFQ252fFishQ252cQ2520Stanley_rQ513D1Q5126nQ513DTopQ51252fReferenceQ51252fTimesQ512520TopicsQ51252fPeopleQ51252fFQ51252fFishQ51252cQ512520Stanley_rQ51513D1Q515126nQ51513DTopQ5151252fReferenceQ5151252fTimesQ51512520TopicsQ5151252fPeopleQ5151252fFQ5151252fFishQ5151252cQ51512520Stanley_rQ5151513D1Q51515126nQ5151513DTopQ515151252fReferenceQ515151252fTimesQ5151512520TopicsQ515151252fPeopleQ515151252fFQ515151252fFishQ515151252cQ5151512520Stanley_rQ515151513D1Q5151515126nQ515151513DTopQ51515151252fReferenceQ51515151252fTimesQ515151512520TopicsQ51515151252fPeopleQ51515151252fFQ51515151252fFishQ51515151252cQ515151512520Stanley_rQ51515151513D1Q515151515126nQ51515151513DTopQ5151515151252fReferenceQ5151515151252fTimesQ51515151512520TopicsQ5151515151252fPeopleQ5151515151252fFQ5151515151252fFishQ5151515151252cQ51515151512520&_r=1&pagewanted=print

I'll agree with Doug. I found the cartoons on wikipedia, a great resource.
My area of disagreement is this: these demonstrations are not Islam's moping because it is being "oppressed by the West." The goal of Islam is to fill and have dominion over the entire world. It would not be absurd to say Islam considers much of Europe now within its dominion. These publications are an affront to the authority Islam claims to have in this region of the world.
These demonstrations are not a "woe is me" pity party, but rather a demonstration to the entire world, muslim and non, of how far Islam's reach extends. I compare it to "doing the wave" at a stadium. If you keep having uprisings, eventually these uprisings will reach all around the stadium, and boo to those who don't participate.
These demonstrations are not a single event but part of a pattern that will probably continue more frequently as Islam continues to infiltrate Western culture.
The West should not "feel sorry for Islam" or apologize for what it has done. It would be like trying to pet a snarling pit bull. There's little to gain and much to lose.

Shall we defend freedom of speech online or submit to Islam?

Russ: Have you posted the cartoons on your own site? If not, why?

I guess he submitted to Islam.

It seems most of you are missing the point, and that is that a very large and vocal part of the Islamic world is now demanding that the West live by Islamic rules – rules that seem to change at the whim of those who seek any excuse whatsoever to decry the West. Since when did the S-R suddenly become comcerned with printing "offensive" material? Was that before or after Jim West was dragged through the mud?

We print "offensive" material all the time, based on a discussion of how important it is to understand the larger story. These discussions don't take place in a vacuum, and drawing parallels from one situation to another becomes problematic because each individual story has its own nuances.

Just curious, though, does someone have a compelling reason to publish the cartoons other than to give a big middle finger to radical Islam?

I can think of a couple of reasons, not the least of which would be to give radical Isalm the "big middle finger" (Somebody needs to from time to time--at least until they decide to join the rest of us in the 21st century.)

First, context. I think people need to see for themselves what's got these guys angry enough to offer rewards in the miilions of dollars for murdering journalists. No offense, but I'm not about to take your word for it.

Second is the courage issue Russ brought up in his original post. What are you afraid of?

Look: When newspapers have no problem offending Christians and Jews but suddenly find the moral high ground when it comes to Muslims, readers are naturally going to be suspicious, "nuances" or not.

The larger issue remains unanswered: Why should the West be expected to live under Islamic law? And to what extent will that continue to happen?

Why should the West be expected to live under Islamic law?

I think you're going to have a hard time making a case that we're living under Islamic law. Our paper is riddled with images of women not wearing headscarves and stories about restaurants serving non-Halal meats. We even have at least two entire columns dedicated to alcoholic beverages.

I'm not sure I'm buying the courage angle, either. It seems like there are a lot more people trying to bully us into publishing the cartoons than there are trying to intimidate us into not publishing them.

I think people need to see for themselves what's got these guys angry enough to offer rewards in the miilions of dollars for murdering journalists.

People aren't going to understand the real reason for the riots and rewards by viewing two cartoons without any context.

And Russ says that people need to see the cartoons so they can "make up their own minds." My question is, "make up their minds about what?"

Certain people in America would love to simplify this issue into one in which a bunch of primitive ( or non-“21st century” types, as mentioned earlier) people are throwing rocks at buildings because someone in Denmark printed a cartoon. But the issue is far more complex and detailed than I think The Spokesman-Review, with its local and regional focus, can even attempt to handle.

It seems that printing the cartoons – just because we can and so there – is more a childish gesture than a meaningful one. I think the real question of “courage” would be if more people in this country educated themselves about a group of people they’re so quick to write off to another century.

I’d be happy to see The Spokesman-Review print the cartoons – along with a 10 part series explaining conflicts between the West and Muslims. But it’s clear just by the tone of arguments in this thread alone that simply printing the cartoons is quickly becoming more a political statement and less an expression of freedom.

Of course we're not living under Islamic law. But the expectation is that we subject ourselves to Islamic rules about what can and cannot be published. Hence the "protests" (read: murder) over the visual depiction of Muhammed. I'd bet money that, if a bunch of Christians went on a murderous rampage over "The Da Vinci Code," you'd have no problems whatsoever reprinting whole chapters of the book.

And call me un-nuanced, but, yeah, I'm "writing off to another century" anyone who murders another over a cartoon--along with anyone who carries a placard reading "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," or "Freedom Go to Hell."

I'm not interested in "bullying" anyone into printing the cartoons. My beef is that the excuses for not doing so just don't track.

The irony here is positively breathtaking.

Anyone who produces an image of Muhammed is an infidel and an enemy of Islam.

vs.

Anyone who refuses to reproduce an image of Muhammed is a coward and an enemy of free speech.

I would respectfully submit that anyone who bends in the face of either of these ultimatums is the real enemy of free speech. We made a decision based on journalistic principles, not on political pressures.

Aaron presents a good point in that he believes it is necessary to view the cartoons to fully understand the outrage. That's certainly a valid argument, and it's one that came up in the original newsroom discussion.

When you're dealing with offensive materials, you have to weigh that concern against the harm they may cause, and that's a decision that's made in the newsroom almost daily. The implication that we "have no problem offending Christians or Jews" is flat-out false. For example, we went to great length discussing whether the word "kids" might be offensive to Mennonites when reporting on the Schrock tragedy last fall.

Can we justify isolating and alienating our community's small Muslim minority by providing this bit of information? Our editors decided that no, we couldn't. Others are free to disagree with that decision, and history may judge us wrong. Honest, thoughtful debate may even cause that decision to be re-evaluated, but that's not up to me.

But this is not "a question of courage." It's not a question of free speech, and it's not a question of bowing to radical religious (or political) elements. It's a question of journalism, and I'm proud to say that arguments framed in any other way aren't going to hold much sway in this newsroom.

Not too long ago, the Spokesman-Review employed Milt Priggee as an editorial cartoonist. Mr. Priggee was rather adept at penning some of the most offensive, anti-Christian stuff around--and, if memory serves, it was defended by the editorial board on the grounds of "free speech." Talk about irony.

Obviously, we're never going to see eye to eye on this. A couple more points, though, before I end my part in this discussion:

When you take it upon yourselves to filter information unduly, you lose relevance in the eyes of your readership. That's what's killing newspapers. I'm a grownup--let me decide what's offensive.

It's not your refusal to publish the pictures that has me curious; it's the faulty reasoning behind the decision. (And, well, the fact that I just don't buy the "journalistic principles" thing.)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my rants--and for being available through this forum.

Highly recommended read today from Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper in which the cartoons were originally published.

I have focused on two issues (well, three):

1. Courage
2. News judgement
3. Freedom of the press

I'll take them in three different comments.

1. Courage

No one likes having their courage impugned (mine was too in the comments or at least there was a hint of hypocrisy).

However, the media itself (not just the blogosphere) is examining the question as to whether Western media are being cowed by fear into self-censorship.

I do not believe this question can be avoided, nor should it be. Islam has used fear over the centuries as a mechanism of power and control (yes, I know so have 'x' and 'y' but they are not at issue in this news story). If S-R or other media are responding to this story fearfully, I would hope we could be honest - as the Boston paper was.

Since Islam is, in fact, threatening Western media (and governments) to exercise criminal as well as self-censorship of speech deemed unacceptable to them, fear and courage are in play.

If we understand Islam, we might judge fear a sensible response.

With respect to myself, it would be gratuitous to print the cartoons in a weblog offering Christian devotional material. I am not covering news stories or making journalistic judgments. There is quite a difference between provocation to no purpose and legitimate press coverage of a vastly important attack on a core value of the West.

That said, I have made statements that would (still might) place me in danger in years to come. For example, Allah is not the God of Jesus Christ nor is Mohammed God's prophet. Christians should respect Muslims; Muslims should respect Christians. What we believe about truth is radically opposed.

(I understand any number of Muslims and Christians will have different viewpoints than mine. We'll all find out in due time.)

I stand by my sadness that S-R does not have the courage to address this issue head-on or print (some) of the cartoons. I still hope you will. I will be very proud of you and Spokane when you do.

... it would be gratuitous to print the cartoons in a weblog offering Christian devotional material.

Some might say that it would likewise be gratuitous to print the cartoons in a newspaper that covers the Inland Northwest, and that has no expertise in Middle Eastern or Danish affairs.

You made a decision not to publish the cartoons on your site based on editorial considerations. So did we.

2. News Judgment

The cartoon crisis is an international story that centers - precisely - around the nature of a particular set of visual artifacts: cartoons.

S-R often describes its journalistic calling as giving readers the facts so they can make their own judgments. In this case, S-R has made a journalistic judgment that prevents readers from making their own judgments.

Why?

The claim is that S-R is not expert enough to get involved in such a complex issue. The same could be said about nearly any international (and many) national issues that are covered repeatedly by S-R.

The only credible reason for not publishing the cartoons is the desire not to give offense to Muslims. Yet, this is precisely the area where readers (not S-R) should make up their own minds.

Christopher Hitchins has what should be (but won't be) the final word on the colossal irony that Islam's criminal (literally) offense against our culture on this issue is finding masochistic support from the victims: us. Bush-bashing aficionados will appreciate the way Hitchins justifiably fisks Karen Hughes on this one.

That (radical) Islam finds material printed in a Western newspaper objectionable does not mean that it was or is, in fact, objectionable.

That Islam has brought threats against Western nations; the Western press; murdered people and is now pressing Europe and the U.N. to pass laws restricting press freedoms because these cartoons are objectionable only makes it more vital that readers decide for themselves whether the material is ... in ... fact ... objectionable.

Let us posit that the cartoons would be judged objectionable by most S-R readers. This is highly apposite to covering this very-much-continuing news story. Let us posit they would not. This is equally apposite.

Islam would find it repulsive if S-R or the West told it what newspapers in Saudi Arabia should or should not print because it offended the West. Actually, they would laugh at the very idea.

(Islam does, contra the imams, print pictures of Mohammed. An Egyptian newspaper printed the cartoons four months ago without riots. The evident disconnect simply underlines even more intensely the same need for readers to make up their own minds.)

The precise issue in play in this news story is not whether Islam finds something objectionable but whether it was, is, or should be objectionable.

By failing to print the cartoons and address this issue editorially, S-R tacitly accepts and promotes the Islamic position (e.g., that the cartoons are objectionable to the extent that they should be suppressed from view).

"Readers will not be permitted to see the cartoons that are the heart of the news story itself."

S-R has self-censored itself in obedience to the imams.

3. Freedom of the press

Even purely as a news story, this one is unique in focusing attention on a core Western value. Radical Islam now insists that Western countries reshape our definition of press freedom to (at a minimum) refuse to publish 'images' of Mohammed and (as a long-term objective) self-censor a wide range of specified and unspecified but TBD offenses.

So, this isn't just a news story about a set of cartoons but a story about threats, intimidation and an attack on our core values. Attack on press freedom has become a key part of the news story itself.

Cover the 'offending newspaper' as you like; also cover the disproportionate and illegitimate attack on press freedom by showing the cartoons and letting readers decide:

"Shall we pass laws to forbid or self-censor the Western freedom to publish cartoons/illustrations like these.

Of course, freedom of the press is not absolute; nor is its exercise uniform even among Western countries (cf fire in crowded theatres).

Granting an oversimplified analogy, the theatre-owners in this case, consistent with their culture, are showing scenes in a movie.

Some in the audience are offended. They threaten to burn down the theatre unless the director is jailed, killed or censored. To make their 'point', they start fires in the theatre. Then they say, what do you expect? The audience was shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Of course, we must start fires in response! (Only the audience wasn't yelling fire; it was watching a movie entirely consistent with its own values).

The director is more than willing to debate, discuss and weigh their objections; even in the teeth of arson. That is a psychological oddity of its own. But this is intolerable to the objectors.

'Free speech' on the screen was already out-of-bounds for them before they chose to be in the French/British/Danish audience. The fact that the director and audience spent centuries building their own culture of liberty and tolerance is an irrelevance. Indeed, Muslims outside the audience (and the culture) do look at the cartoons, precisely to incite more fires. Fires frighten the theatre-owners. The only equation for those offended is a power equation: what must we do to prevail?

Now, those outside the theatre who didn't see the cartoons (oops, movie) think: those movie scenes must have been truly horrible to elicit that response.

Only, those with a vocation to cover news refuse to show them the scenes lest the 'offended' commit more and greater crimes in response. Or perhaps because the situation is too 'complicated' to cover.

In fact, the scenes were far tamer than speech offered about thousands of other subjects. Oh, except for some 'scenes from the movie' that were passed around by these audience members themselves to incite fires; except the scenes weren't in the movie. And so it goes ....

Again, the issue isn't whether my evaluation (or S-R's staff) evaluation of the story is spot-on, let alone expert. The issue is S-R's decision to censor coverage of the very issue at play - the content of the images. So far from preventing arson, it delights the arsonists.

Move on please, nothing to see here - especially not cartoon(s) to which sensible Americans would respond with that multi-century common sense we won at Bunker Hill and Normandy:

"These guys have got to be kidding."

We should be saying that about the imams. I hate to be saying it about S-R.

(Finally, a Muslim profile in courage we may yet imitate in Spokane ... and report.)

You call it fear. I would call it respect for local Muslims who have nothing to do with events in Denmark and the Middle East.

Granted, I wasn't privy to every conversation on the cartoons, but in the ones I observed, fear of retribution never came up. Not once.

This newspaper has written regularly about neo-Nazis, Hells Angels, mobsters and other local terrorists without pulling any punches. Threats and intimidation are nothing new to journalists. Your assertion that we would now all of a sudden cower before imams on the other side of the globe is simply ludicrous.

But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you know something that I and everyone else here in the newsroom apparently doesn't. Who, specifically, are we supposed to be afraid of and what, praytell, do you suppose they'd do to us? Send a nasty email? Threaten violence against our staff?

Russ just made it very clear in his post that one of the reasons the cartoons should be printed, in his opinion, is so that people can see just how stupid it is to "sensible Americans" that someone would protest about a seemingly benign cartoon.

Once again, oversimplification of this issue results in poor comparisons, particularly to the movie theater analogy. Perhaps all the people in the movie theater had been impoverished for years and years and society was gleefully moving on without them. Perhaps the movie they were watching deeply offended one of their core religious principals. Perhaps lighting the theater on fire makes more sense in that light, instead of just assuming that some rag-tag group of people lit a fire because of some silly scene in a movie.

It's becoming increasingly clear that this topic is becoming far less a "conversation," and instead a lecture on how one contributor feels The Spokesman-Review should react to a political point.

I hate to bring this dead horse back to life, but...

By the exact same logic presented by some critics here, we should start publishing soft-core pornography to strike a blow for freedom of speech in Indonesia.

Right?

Oooh, you even italicized exact.

If S-R published soft-porn (I'm not going there), then, yes, definitely.

That is indeed exactly the point in the cartoon controversy.

Newspapers routinely print cartoon commentary that skewers politics and religions and far more boldly than the timid cartoons in the Danish paper.

Playboy in Indonesia absolutely ought to refuse to bow to pressure.

C'mon Ken, you can do better than this.

UPDATE: Assuming this was reported accurately, here is a closer-to-home example of sheer media insanity about Mohammed. S-R would do better considering when-and-where it is going to show some guts on behalf of a core human value rather than making fun of an issue that goes to the heart of journalistic integrity. Ken, why don't you write an editorial that defends press freedoms against the outrageous presumption of the mullahs? You could use the cartoons, the situation in Indonesia and the Comedy Central debacle as illustrations. If it turns out Comeday Central was satirizing the dhimmitude of the press, still better.

If S-R published soft-porn (I'm not going there), then, yes, definitely.

But we don't, even though some European papers, especially British tabloids, do.

Why is that?

Um. Gosh, I don't know. Would you like to have a conversation about that? I'm willing but I think it will grow tedious almost immediately.

Whether British tabloids publish soft porn is entirely irrelevant to Playboy standing up for media freedom, given that Playboy is all-about that.

It is entirely irrelevant to S-R's unwillingness to cover the Danish cartoon controversy and allow readers to judge the issue for themselves by showing the cartoons.

A true analogy would have been covering the Abu Graib controversy without showing any of the photographs of abuse. Gee, I seem to recall S-R considering that 'relevant' so that readers could make up their own minds (and indeed it was).

This must be a slow news day ;-).

The Abu Ghraib photos weren't deliberately designed to offend the core beliefs of an entire religion. They were images of American soldiers on the taxpayers' payroll engaging in allegedly illegal activity.

The reason we don't publish pornography in the newspaper isn't exactly the same reason we don't publish racist materials in the newspaper, but it's nevertheless a standard that's firm and consistent.

What isn't consistent are the conditions under which some critics (not just Russ) would have us toss those standards out the window.

Where is all the the outrage over the Muslim hordes' attempts to suppress Playboy magazine? And where are the calls to publish photos from the Indonesian Playboy so readers can "judge for themselves" whether this reaction is appropriate?

At least we're now discussing something intelligible.

The analogy between Abu Graib and the cartoons was enabling readers to make up their own mind about an issue; not your editorial position about the cartoons. I thought S-R didn't do that when deciding what to print but used objective standards (e.g., setting the facts in front of readers)?

What prevented you from publishing the cartoons in conjunction with the news coverage, coupled to an editorial giving your view of the Danish paper's motives ("deliberately designed to offend")?

I will overlook the larger issue of editorial cartooning in S-R, which, to yahoo readers like we Spokanites, often seems designed to offend core beliefs of entire religions - and yet are published. We will gladly look forward to checking S-R to ensure that this does not happen in your pages; a loss, it seems to me.

As for outrage over the suppression of Playboy, I am outraged.

Are you? That is a serious question.

Are you outraged over Muslim attempts to dictate what S-R (yes, I know, by implication ... so far) may or may not publish?

Are you ready to print cartoons that show Mohammed and/or poke fun at him-or-Islam? If not, why not?

I will overlook the larger issue of editorial cartooning in S-R, which, to yahoo readers like we Spokanites, often seems designed to offend core beliefs of entire religions - and yet are published.

I'd find this argument more compelling if you could provide a more specific example (a description will do).

That is a red herring of almost nil importance to this thread.

You know I am a devout Christian, but I believe it is essential not only that I be allowed to offend you with the gospel but you (e.g., S-R) be allowed to offend me as well.

I can assume then that you were equally outraged over the Playboy matter? And, if validly reported, the self-censorship of the Comedy Channel?

I also assume that S-R opposes all self-censorship of the press to meet the demands of Islamists?

I assume it is repugnant to you that any religion believes that others are bound not to offend them and are arguing, as we speak, for international laws that satisfy their rules for 'outrage'?

I look forward to S-R's brave stand against the latter, in particular. I am sure you will have many opportunities over the coming years; perhaps even opportunities to go to jail for breaking such a law.

I can assume then that you were equally outraged over the Playboy matter?

I'm fairly ambivalent, to be honest. Playboy's a pretty big corporation with highly-paid attorneys and lobbyists that are much smarter than I am. They probably don't need my help.

I do, however, find it interesting that you are able to formulate an opinion on the situation without seeing the actual magazine for yourself.

It's not a question of corporations but of freedom of speech; a value precious to all journalism. Free speech is what needs your 'help'.

It is sad, though not surprising to me by this point that speech matters more to me than to you. S-R is a pretty big corporation too. So?

I notice you chose the softball question.

I suspect the institutional consensus at S-R has already congealed around self-censorship. Fear does that to people. Actually, corporations hate to be sued ... and journalists (understandably) are not keen on death threats.

I have a lot of respect for the few American papers (but there were a few) that admitted candidly they didn't print the cartoons out of fear. But I have greater respect for the papers (all too few) that printed the cartoons because they knew darn well that bravery now, when the stakes are still relatively low, will help us all later.

Each month - cartoons, Playboy, articles about Islam that are displeasing to 'x' mullah, Comedy Channel - the stakes are ratcheted up.

Frog. Water.

Europe is already nearly boiled. They're going to have a harder time with Spokanites. Too bad you aren't going to help.

I'm signing off for now; thanks for the further conversation today.

I suspect the institutional consensus at S-R has already congealed around self-censorship.

You're kind of hyperinflating a minor point. We, like all publications, make decisions every day about what goes into the newspaper and what doesn't. You call it self-censorship, we call it editing. Tomato, tomahto.

We decided that people were smart enough to understand the cartoon controversy without us publishing the actual images.

And as you've just demonstrated, people are also smart enough to understand the Indonesian Playboy controversy without us publishing the centerfold.

And when the Encroaching Muslim Hordes or the newly-reborn free speech absolutists threaten to torch the building, we'll continue to do the same.