I still think JP's cultural editor, Flemming Rose, was wrong to publish the cartoons, not because they would likely cause offence, but because publishing them might put the cartoonists' personal safety at risk. I've heard a lot recently about freedom of speech coming with responsibility, it doesn't. But the job of editing a newspaper comes with a lot of responsibilities, and one of them is protecting the people who work for you.
The twelve cartoonists at the centre of the row have reportedly gone into hiding. They may never again be able to go about their normal business without fear of attack. That seems a high price to pay for the sake of a few cartoons.
Vigorously asserting the right to free speech by publishing provocative material whatever the consequences is not a responsible editorial policy. There are a whole host of issues an editor needs to consider before publishing controversial material. Peter Preston covered some of them in Sunday's Observer. (Emphasis added):
There are plenty of good reasons for not publishing those 12 Danish cartoons in Britain. Some are principled, like not giving gratuitous offence to fellow citizens, keeping inter-faith relations on an even keel and not getting tangled up in that BNP judgment.Commentators may lament the fact that the British press has not reprinted the cartoons, but it is hardly surprising: who wants the life of a Danish cartoonist?
Some are pragmatic: not putting your Middle East reporters in jeopardy, not putting sales at risk of boycotts, like the Sun did over Hillsborough, not offending thousands of newsagents who have ways of making you squeak. And some are mistily emotional: European papers are over there, aren't they - so why should papers over here get caught up in their debate, especially when we're 36 hours late joining the party?
