Cartoons, Controversy, Cowardice and Mr. Caffery

The firepoint on Beaumont John Caffery's fuse apparently met the bomb in recent days in regard to the zealous dustup over the Muslim-themed cartoons that have sparked deadly protests worldwide.
Caffery, irked over what he called U.S. newspapers' cowardice in not publishing the cartoons, took matters into his own hands Sunday and erected an impressive 4-by-8-foot sign in his West End front yard. A drawing depicts Muhammad's head, shaped like a bomb with a lighted fuse. Next to it, spelling errors and all, is this message:

For This Cartoon In Danish & Nowegian Newspapers Muslems Worldwide Have Rioted, and Killed and Now Offer $11 Million Reward To Kill The Cartoonist.

Caffery goes on to give his phone number and e-mail address. And his job title: Realtor.
Considering the bloody uproar over the cartoons, Caffery certainly has guts, albeit guts that could use some help from Webster's. (Like all of us could.)
He raises an interesting question over newspapers' decision whether to publish the cartoons. I only know of one newspaper - The Philadelphia Inquirer - that ran a cartoon, doing so Feb. 4. An editorial two days later said the cartoon's publication was "to inform our readers, not to inflame them," according to an Enterprise story today.
Enterprise reporter F.A. Krift, who wrote the Caffery story, received several e-mails today regarding his story.

One reader said:

"I am not in favor of hurting anyone's feelings based on his religion, but giving up our freedom of the press (which was paid for with the lives of many Americans) is the wrong thing to ask in respecting a person's faith. This is not about faith anyway; it's about world power. What Mr. Caffery has done is important in retaining our freedom of expression. Our media has suddenly lost their interest in free expression."

And a second, from Kentucky:

"BRAVO to Mr. Caffery."

And a third:

"I enjoyed reading the article but as usual the Muslim Imam lost the reason for the whole sign. The Imam asked what the point was for putting up something that hurts. Good question, why have we seen video's on the internet of Christians being beheaded, shot or worse? Why do we see professed Muslims' killing innocent men, women, and children in the name of Allah? SO, from what the Imam is saying Christians must do as Muslims' say but Muslins' can do anything hurtful to Christians. Wow, reality, what a concept."

And another, from Wisconsin:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR SIGN. I wrote and wrote to the Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times newspapers for days asking why they would not print the cartoons or at least give their readers the whole story. I was told by the publisher that it "is not considered a matter of free speech." Where do we go from here? Nobody will be able to say anything soon that is not acceptable to an arbitrary judge. The newspapers have no reason to exist if they can't stand up for freedom of speech."

So freedom of speech and newspaper decisions clearly are being called into question.

Sure, The Enterprise could run the cartoons. It has the freedom and corporate permission to do so. It also has the freedom to run a Swastika on Page 1A. Or a big picture of the editor's favorite beer. Or an advertisement for an adult book store. Or just a random multicolored shape with lightning bolts coming out of it.
Editors make tough decisions daily, and the decision regarding the cartoons was one of those once-in-awhile kind of challenges. The public's right to know vs. sensitivity. Free speech vs. good taste.
Like most newspapers other than The Philadelphia Inquirer, we didn't run them. The decision was based on sensitivity, good taste and the fact that they would be published just for the sake of exercising our First Amendment muscles.
Furthermore, all of those images, including the really offensive ones, can be found on the Internet. And if you didn't have Internet access, you wouldn't be reading this blog.
But then along came Mr. Caffery and his sign, and that raised new questions about how to play the photos of his sign. Should we shoot it from the back? Should we crop out the potentially offensive image? Should we run a photo at all?
Ultimately, as luck would have it, a jogger came along and served as an obstruction between camera lens and Muhammad bomb, so we got our king cake and ate it, too.
Nevertheless, the issue underscores the unenviable world of making news decisions as well as illustrates the importance of when to exercise free-press restraint.