Except you forgot a few inconvenient facts. The cartoons rejected were said to be uncommissioned, which means the paper did not ask someone to draw them, but they were sent to the paper to be considered for publication. Any paper gets dozens or hundreds of uncommisioned submissions, and very few are published.
The cartoons published in August were commissioned, to accompany an article, so they are in a very different category than uncommisioned political cartoons. Political cartoons are an editorial choice, usually having something to do with a fresh topic and meant to provoke a specific question or comment by the editor. If the cartoon of Mohammad was run as a political cartoon on the editorial page, then we might have a good comparison. If the cartoons of Jesus were timely, well drawn, about a hot topic, and made a statement that the editor wanted to broach, and it wasn't run due to not wanting to offend Christians (and the editor was thinking of them as Christians and not subscribers), then you might have a good comparison. But I think, the way the facts stand, you really have apples and oranges. On 2/7/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yet, The Guardian reported Monday that three years ago, > Jyllands-Posten rejected several cartoons satirizing the resurrection > of Jesus, saying they were not funny and would "provoke an outcry."] > > Case closed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:196275 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
