Editor,
Of all the rights that we as citizens of the United States have, the right not to be offended is not among them.
This is for good reason - just about everything offends someone in some fashion. Such a right would restrict every other right we have.
Why, then, we are assigning this right to a large group of people - most of whom live outside of the United States, and are not citizens - is unknown to me. The inability to reprint cartoons because they are offensive is a degradation of our civil liberties.
If we follow this concept to its full extent, rock 'n' roll should never have been allowed to exist because it was considered offensive by many Christian groups. Or perhaps Rosa Parks should never have sat in the front row of that bus because it was offensive to white supremacists. There was even a risk of violence in the latter case, just like there is with the cartoons today.
I find it interesting that the printing of threats from the extremist part of the Muslim religion are communicated through the press, even though death threats are not protected by the First Amendment.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
But the offensive cartoons, meanwhile, which are constitutionally protected, are blocked. Some even claim just writing what was contained in the cartoons will communicate the message just as effectively, and without offending anyone.
This is true to some extent - just as it is true that a bus will still take you to where you are going, regardless of whether you are allowed to ride in the front of the bus.
Erik Bacon
Daily Lobo reader
