There should be no restraint on freedom of expression in media
Randy Petersen stated in his Jan. 10 column headlined "Freedom of expression comes with a fine line" that "newspapers are urging each other to stand up to the threat of censorship; they are also noting some restraint." Petersen also cites Washington Post and New York Times editorials.
This is baloney. There should be no restraint. Appeasement is not a solution to radical Islamic terror. They are not interested in peaceful coexistence; they want our elimination.
The French have had an official policy of appeasement. Appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and based on Jan. 7 and Jan. 8 event, it didn't work for the French.
The American media has also maintained a posture of appeasement. The New York Times, who called for restraint, would not publish the cartoons offensive to Islam but had no problem publishing pictures of Jesus in vats of urine or encased in excrement.
Even after the attacks some media outlets published the blurred picture of Mohamed from the Charlie Hebdo cartoon while including the other half of the picture, which is offensive to Jews. The reality is much of the media is cowed by fear of the radical Islamists. They publish things offensive to other religions because there will be no consequences. Cowardly. There should never be restraint on speech, especially since the Jihadists need no provocation to slaughter the innocent.