< Previous page

Yes: "Whether we agree with the decision by Danish papers to print the cartoons, the issue now is whether the Arab and Islamic sword is mightier than the pen. Please demonstrate that it is not." John Stump, Cary.

No: "The paper would not feel obliged to print graphic racist or hate graffiti, obscene photos or other visual imagery that was offensive and incendiary, unless there was no possible way to describe it in print, or unless the details of the image itself were somehow newsworthy." Rita Thissen, Chapel Hill.

Yes: "(M)aking people comfortable is not the job of the press; it is to inform the readers and let them deal with the information on their own. You should deal with your readers as intelligent, objective adults, even if some of them do not always act that way." Karl Anderson, Durham

No: "If the N&O's purpose is to unfairly perpetuate stereotypes and deliberately inflame relations with a group that has a militant wing with a history of violence and a chip on its shoulder, then go right ahead and publish the cartoons. Maybe you'd like to poke at some rattlesnakes and take a whack at a hornet's nest while you're at it." Michael Silverstein, Cary.

Yes: "The N&O doesn't seem to care whether Dwane Powell's cartoons are offensive to some people, so what's the big deal about this?" Reg Jordan, Raleigh.

I agree with the majority of our panel. I've seen the cartoons. They're amateurish and clumsy, calculated to offend. Their news value is not enough to justify deliberately thumbing our nose at our Muslim (or non-Muslim) readers.

And newspapers don't exercise their free speech rights just to prove that they can. We also have a trust bond with our readers, and irresponsible publication violates that bond.

< Previous page

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.