Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Some who have called for a reprinting of the cartoons--Tucker Carlson, for example--take a position that is forensic, not idealistic. Mr. Carlson said on his TV show: "[You] can't really understand what caused the outrage, you can't really understand the story itself, unless you know what's in the pictures, can you?" So a reproduction of the offending material, by his reasoning, would not be so much an affirmation of values as a straightforward act of information-conveyance, a way of giving readers or viewers the tools with which to tackle the fuss.
I have more time for this argument than for the one based on the imperative of ideals. But it is weakened by the fact that (a) the cartoons are already widely available on the Internet for those who wish to see them; and (b) there exists a way of conveying to readers the nature of the cartoons--i.e., by description--that informs sufficiently without giving offense to those Muslims among us who believe that graphic depiction of their main man (peace be upon him) is anathema. There is also the question of taste: Deciding against the cartoons is not unlike a refusal to publish anti-Semitic drawings or dodgy caricatures of black people--or of Koreans eating pups.

To the free-speech absolutists in the blogosphere, I say that making this episode the test of our Western manhood is not the right way to go--for a number of reasons. To start with, some points should be obvious: Every right--and here, specifically, the right of free speech--is not a duty; nor does discretion or good taste or a desire to be constructive amount to a spit in the eye of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech and imagery is sacrosanct; but it is not compulsory.

The First Amendment means that you can, but do not have to, exercise the freest lawful speech. It means that you are responsible for your speech, not the authorities. The absence of legal restrictions also means that institutional dispensers of speech--such as newspapers and TV channels--need to exercise their freedom wisely.

What does that wisdom involve in the current situation? The U.S. is fighting a propaganda war against bin Ladenism. Why hand our foes a gratuitous tactical advantage? Why not collectively deprive the enemy of a detonator?--not because we are forced to; not even because we agree with or respect the rioters' values; but because we want to make it easier for moderates in the Muslim world (our allies) to take on the obscurantists.

Acting responsibly also means knowing when discretion is the better part of valor. What do we gain by printing the cartoons? We are, by now, fully aware of the bomb in the turban. (These being Danish cartoons, the humor is on the heavy side.) What we gain by not printing them is the implied public declaration to Muslims in general, and to the Islamist provocateurs in particular, that the U.S. can unify behind a crucial purpose when need demands--even in the small gestures.
Muslims already know that we have free speech. So the idea that the cartoons should be published in the American press to make a point strikes me as both pedantic and theatrical. There is no need to display one's devotion to freedom in this gaudy way. We have the freedom and the will to publish the Abu Ghraib pictures--in effect, to take a hit for free speech. And this time, with the cartoons, we have largely chosen not to. The enemy will know that we will not always step onto the landmines he lays for us.

• So Michelle, should these photos be shown?
• First they come for the chicken
• Ignoranimals
• Stoking the cartoon wars (or, playing dirty with Denmark)
• The public's right to know
• Shoes dropping everywhere
• Karl Rove Blacklist Entry No. (unknown)
• Bush's head-hunter hunts heads
• Mideast mischief
• A triple-double ... standard