6/16/15 Offensive Artwork
A few weeks ago, a New York socialite staged a draw Muhammad cartoon contest. She was well within her rights to do so. But it incited violent behavior. Leaving two Islamic fanatics dead.
It may not have been a wise choice to hold this contest. But at least she claimed she did so on principle.
She isn’Â€Â™t the only one claiming principle regarding depictions of Muhammad.
Earlier this year, the New York Times refused to publish a photo of a historical statue of Muhammad. The statute sat atop a century-old New York courthouse alongside statutes of other historical figures, such as Confucius and Moses. A typical person would consider it tasteful. The paper stated it wouldnâ€™t publish the photo as it may be deemed offensive to Muslims.
Then just the other day the paper had no reservations about publishing a photo of a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung.
By its actions, the New York Times doesn’Â€Â™t have any principles about not publishing religious images that some may find offensive. Publishing anti Semitic artwork — with a swastika — and a dung-encrusted Virgin Mary suggests the paper finds offensive Jewish and Christian artwork to be fair game.
You can follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter at @BehindTheHead.
You can follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkHyman.
Join us on our Facebook page.