Analyst Weblog
« Airline Wars - Qantas and Virgin Blue battle it out online | Rise of Online Music Retail - Singapore »
The political furore over the publication of 12 cartoons linking the Islam prophet, Muhammad to terrorism in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, prompted Internet users worldwide to seek out the images for their own viewing. Several Australian newspapers, including The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and West Australian however reserved the decision not to publish the offending cartoons, in light of the recent Cronulla race riot tensions. Users then went online for other sources that would.
Hitwise data shows that searches for 'mohammed cartoons', 'muslim cartoons', 'muhammad cartoons' and 'danish cartoons' (search variations listed in order of popularity) spiked dramatically week ending February 4, 2006. The blog of political commentator, Tim Blair (www.timblair.net) overtook the blogs of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on February 6, 2006 after he published the cartoons on February 5. Interestingly, timblair.net received website traffic on the search term, 'blasphemy'.
While the Australian Government had issued warnings to the mainstream media to exercise editorial responsibility, the Internet has complicated the balance between free speech and protection of religious sensitivities.
The control of information flow through Citizen Media becomes near impossible, where the spread of unsanctioned editorial has the potential to inflame population tensions, now on a global level, as we've witnessed with these cartoons.


Posted by Sandra Hanchard at 10:59 AM
|
(2)
|
(0)
TrackBack URL:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/135.
Thanks for your comment, Chris. I'd like to refer to a recent quote by former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, in The Age:
"Freedom of speech has never meant the right to say anything, no matter how offensive to some other race, group or religion ... I believe they (the cartoons) have to be put in the total context of the war on terror. Very few things are absolute and freedom of expression is not absolute.
We should be trying to make it harder for extremists to recruit, but we are making it easier by "doing things that are stupid", he says.
Posted by Sandra Hanchard | February 11, 2006 07:56 PM
There is no 'balance between free speech and protection of religious sensitivities'. Either there's free speech, or there is none. Free, by definition, means free.
Posted by Chris Zaharias | February 11, 2006 11:41 AM