Oregon Media Insiders

since most young journalists have a frame of reference that is shorter than their noses, you may want to consider Jonothan Swift, who wrote a famous essay adovcating the consumption of young children for dinner.
my position on the cartoons is, and always will be, f--k em, if you can't take a joke!!

They need to lighten up. They think their religion and views are the only ones that should be respected. In their country they can do whatever they want, er, actually, whatever they are allowed to do, which isn't much. If they can't lighten up, they can go home where they seem to prefer conditions.

They don't seem to care about anyone elses religious views and feelings, along with people who live here. Free speech is just that.... free.

You say that you should not use vile language against their prophet. But then again you let anyone use vile language against other peoples God, Jesus, whoever. And you laugh about it and encourage it.

What makes their "word/person" better than any other?

Sure, the column was silly and juvenile. But Christ (sorry!). If you can't be silly and juvenile at your college newspaper, all is lost.

What's potentially worse than the original "offense" is that they're now "vetting material" through a student group. Way to be the "independent media!" Remind me not to hire anyone from the Barometer.

"They think their religion and views are the only ones that should be respected."

Yeah? Who is "they"? All Muslims? You really think you've described their beliefs with that nifty little sentence?

"In their country they can do whatever they want, er, actually, whatever they are allowed to do, which isn't much."

Oh, "their country" now? Which one is that? Islamoland? Guess it's a highly regulated place, huh?

"What makes their "word/person" better than any other?"

Or yours?

Interesting responses to Barnhart's comments. Unfortunately common sense is as scarce among much of our college-age children as it is in those living in other parts of the world. As a not so proud member of the baby boom generation I apologize to the rest of the universe for inflicting the "we do it because we can do it" mentality on everyone living along with those who passed on, severely disappointed in our self-centered stupidity.

9:19 made a general statement. As you Leykis followers should understand, general does not mean all. there are exceptions.

The complainers can go back to whatever country they came from. Muslims are not all from one country. But the radical ones think the same. Note, I did not say all Muslims.

9:19 did not say anything about his/her own religion. Just made a general statement about religions.

That is the problem with education in this country. People don't care about spelling and grammar and word usage because they obviously can't understand what they read and see only what they want to see based on their own prejudices.

If one can assume that the muslim's speak with one voice then they can voice their objection in print after the article which they claim is offensive, but for which there is no one around to actually bring a libel suit. Their challenge would then be to fight amongst themselves as to what should be their unified, if indeed it is unified, response.

1) The idea that the founder of Islam was a pedophile isn't new. Instead of quashing free speech I'd be more inclined to chide them for being unoriginal. He took little girls for wives. Everybody knows that, including the Muslims, so we can move on.

2) All religions are based fairy tales taken way too seriously. Those of us who know that are used to being told we can't say these things but it doesn't make it right.

3)..and most salient, the very essence of free speech is the ability to say things that are unpopular. The "freedom" to say what everyone wants to hear is NOT free speech: you can do that in every country in the world including the most repressive of Islamic theocracies. Again, that is NOT free speech.

If you cannot say or write things that will make people angry, then you do not have freedom of speech - and that's a fact, like it or not.

If you make statements such as, "It was amazing to me that they were allowed to publish this kind of stuff," you are demonstrating that you do not believe in free speech, but instead you believe in censored speech that is tailored to avoid offense. That's certainly the "free speech" standard of every repressive theocracy and dictatorship in the world, but America should try to be better than that.

If someone wants to be outraged and perhaps threaten violence because of what someone else says - THEY are the ones with the problem, not the person expressing an opinion.

Well thought out, that is.

Y'all see Al Qaeda is AGAINST silly little cartoons but they really enjoy beheading little boys and girls playing soccer in their schoolyard.

Then, the kids that are left get to play soccer with the dead kid's skull, like in Cambodia.

No wonder the world's biggest religion hasn't a clue... since they have translated, what, 18 books, since the Renaissance?

Does that include "Islam for Idiots"?

At least the last post started by distinguishing between Al Qaeda and all of the Islam world, but ended with the same ignorant generalization.

Those of us who have lived in Muslim countries find this kind of name-calling depressing, because it simply confirms the fears of moderate Muslims who wonder if every American thinks every Muslim is a terrorist.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but at the moment, all terrorists seem to be Muslim.

"What does that mean", you ask?

That means that its up to the Muslims, *especially those in our own country* to counter-rally. to protest the burning of embassies, the beheadings of aid workers, attrocious acts.

Sorry, but we aren't seeing this sort of activity. Silence=complicity, in the eyes of most Americans. We like to see demonstrations. We LIKE to see that folks are up in arms about something. Staying silent (or mostly so in the case of 9/11), just comes across as acceptance and perhaps support.

Sorry, but I have a VERY hard time throwing support behind folks that stay silent while IEDs explode among civilians, while aid workers are beheaded, while embassies are burned to the ground.

I find this to be most disturbing:

"now the Barometer is vetting material through a Muslim student group."

WTF? Do we now vett all material through the relevant special interest groups?

Does that mean when we write an article on the Guv, we have to let his folks vett this as well?

How about when we write articles about the Russian Mafia? Johnathan Nicolas?

I have zero problem with fact-checking, or even getting a groups' input, but holy cow!

Poppycock. F 'em!

I gotta get an account.