Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons


In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, in what was deemed to be a derogatory light. These cartoons included, among others, the portrayal of Muhammad's turban as a fused bomb, highlighting the pervasive western view that religion - specifically Islam and its teachings - is the sole cause for terrorism and is responsible for the terrorist attacks in recent years.

The cartoons were reprinted in London, the US and in two Australian newspapers as a mark of solidarity with the Danish newspaper, espousing the right to free speech within democratic societies. The cartoons were also marked for inclusion in an upcoming Yale University Press publication; 'Cartoons That Shook the World', but were later removed under the threat of non-publication for the book.


The 12 original cartoons that sparkled the controversy

The Aftermath


Around the world the Muhammad cartoons became the focus of violent reactions and a wave of anti-Danish sentiment throughout the Islamic world. Many Muslims took part in protests around the world including Denmark, England and Pakistan. In more violent reactions riots took place and the Danish embassy in Beirut, Lebanon was set on fire. A consumer boycott took place in a number of Islamic countries, most notably in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, a boycott which brought a range of economic setbacks to a number of Danish companies including the loss of millions of dollars in profit as well as temporary lay-offs of staff (adapted from Wikipedia article
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy).

The anger and fury among Muslims spreads, and they want revenge for the controversial cartoons. Some of the radicals even claim that God is sacred, and those who drew the cartoons should deserve the cutting of their hands. "Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah shouted. Some kind of like terrorism. One protester shouted to a journalist, "We are not terrorists, we are not anarchists, but we are against those people who blaspheme Islam."

Protests continue against Muhammad cartoons
Protests continue against Muhammad cartoons


Later Developments


On March 15 2006, Denmark’s Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to charge against Jyllands-Posten due to three reasons. First, it was claimed that neither the cartoons nor the text accompanied in the cartoons violated sections 140 and 266b of the Criminal Code aimed at protecting religious feelings against mockery and scorn. ‘The face of Muhammad’, legally speaking, was neither blasphemous nor discriminatory. Second, the director claimed ‘a direct and informal form of debate is not unusual in Denmark’. Jyllands-Posten’s work, under his interpretation, was not to provoke for the sake of provocation but to prompt a healthy debate on freedom of expression in regard to religion and religious feelings.

Quite a few people including Muslims and non – Muslims, including the UN, however, did think that the ‘The Face of Muhammad’ was part of a defamatory and discriminatory campaign directed exclusively against Islam and Muslims. On 13 February 2006, The UN Special Reporter on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance found the cartoon issue one of the most severe examples of hatred for Islam, adding that the Danish government in its initial handling of the matter revealed ‘the trivialisation of Islamophobia at the political level’ (Jensen 2006, p.1-2).

Marianne Jelved, one of the leaders of the opposition in Denmark, severely criticized the handling of the crisis by the Danish government, calling the Prime Minister ‘dangerous’ and a risk to national security, due to the alliance with the neo-nationalist Danish People’s Party, his arrogant refusal to listen to criticism and a dangerous black-and-white view as to who are friends and foes. An equally severe criticism came from the business community. They linked the crisis to failed integration, a failure partly due to the Islamophobic and discriminatory discourse and policy of both the government and its parliamentary base, the Danish People’s Party (Adapted from Jensen 2006, p.2).


Rules Governing Images and Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad

In analysing the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons, it is worthwhile to examine the rules concerning the images and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. In doing so, it will help provide a clearer understanding of the limits and boundaries of Islamic sensitivity to the issue. According to the 2006 BBC article "[[http://Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad|Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad]]", Islam, in a similar vein to Judaism and Christianity, prohibits the practice of idolatry - the worship of inanimate objects. However there are no explicit prohibitions on depictions of Muhammad in the Koran. The only possible reference to such an issue comes in chapter 42, verse 11, where it states: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him." This is seen as implying that humans are unable to represent or replicate Allah's beauty and grandeur, and that any attempt to do so is seen as insulting. This is also believed to apply to Muhammad. However, more relevant and explicit is Islamic tradition or Hadith, which expressly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

Thus it is clear that in the case of the Muhammad cartoons that it violates Islamic rules. This leads to the question: given the clarity of these rules, why did Jyllands-Posten choose to commission and publish the cartoons? In my opinion, the cartoons seem to be a deliberate commentary on religious sensitivity and the uproar that ensued perhaps proved their point to an extent. Nevertheless, given the relatively well known rules governing images of Muhammad, publishing the cartoons seem to be a gratuitous and unnecessary attempt at pushing the limits. The publishers ought to have known (and probably did) know that it would generate controversy.

In a pluralistic society, one has to accept that differences and cultural disparities exist. Publishing the cartoons while being aware of that it could incite violence can either be interpreted as a direct challenge to pluralism or simply as an irresponsible act. The net result of the cartoons was more 'harm' to the world in general. Yes, it did trigger an interesting debate, but it also led to the deaths of more than a hundred people.

Self-censorship


In the light of the discrepancies, whose fault is it? The terrorists restrains the freedom of speech or the free speech leads to terrorists? So far, religious faith is involved. Whether non-Muslims should conform to the taboo of Muslim world? In my opinion, the faith of different religions should be respected. Codes and regulations are desperately needed to seek a balance point. And the way to deal with the blaspheme should be condemned. So before the publication of any controversial issues, have a second thought and consider self-censorship.

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear or deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors.(cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship)

In authoritarian countries, artists may cancel material that their government may find controversial for fear of sanction by their governments. In capitalist countries, self-censorship can also occur, particularly to meet the needs of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may avoid topics that will annoy advertisers or a parent company in order to protect their livelihood. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, editors recognised their right to show the cartoons, but they reasoned that since Muslims would consider publication of the cartoons offensive, good judgment dictated they should not be published. Critics considered the decision dangerous self-censorship. Some charged that the stated explanation for not showing the cartoons was actually a rationalisation, as the real reason was fear of violent reprisal from radical Islamists. (Drachman & Langran) Complicating this issue further, was the fact that the Danish cartoons could be found all over the Internet. Should the U.S. media have shown the cartoons?

It could be reasonably expected by society that the cartoonists themselves would "think before they act" and consider the effects (both negative and positive) that their images would have upon various sectors of society (and society as a whole), primarily the Islamic citizenry. The cartoons were first published as an act of minor rebellion against a number of self-censorship cases that pre-dated the cartoons themselves, explained in an article published in a Danish periodical entitled Politiken. Self-censorship fears spread due to a number of attacks on Danish citizens who had allegedly defamed Islam, including nothing more than a reading of the Qu'ran to non-Islamic students. Totalitarian extremists, of whatever religion or sect, invariably put faith first and freedom nowhere. Censorship, including insidious self-censorship, is then the order of the day, which is followed closely by violence. (Markham & Lohr) In a society where religious orthodoxy rules, there is no freedom of religion. Incidentally, the violence provoked by the Danish cartoons was deliberately stirred up by Islamic extremists publishing exaggerated versions of them in Muslim countries, up to four months after the originals were published.

The cartoonists contracted with the drawing of the cartoons published their works based on the following rationale as written in the Washington Post:
The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point:We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

The artists in this case did have a point insofar as the integration of Muslim society into their already pluralistic democracy, but failed to note that particular rules and taboos of Islam - such as any depiction of the prophet Muhammad - that are considered blasphemous or sacrilegious. This was a particularly important notion that was overlooked as it is generally well-known and accepted that the other religions mentioned - Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism - do not have an aversion to representations of their specific deities and the artists should have perhaps considered this fact before making the decision to publish the cartoons.

In essence, the publishing of these cartoons bring into effect the questions of liberty versus harm.The most controversial debate is that 'should the publishers try to make the society aware of the growing influence of competing beliefs, thereby sparking potential riots and harm for the sake of press freedom?'. “Hate speech” is defined as speech that “enacts hatred, not just a psychological dislike for another human being, but a manifestation of prejudice; systematic and institutionalised marginalisation” (Gelber 2007 p.16). The cartoons in this case would probably be “hate speech” as they have been frequently criticised as being defamatory and discriminatory directed “exclusively against Islam and Muslims” (Jensen 2006 p.2). It is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Muhammad, but all the prophets of Islam. The portrayal of Muhammad's turban as a fused bomb highlights the pervasive western view that Islam and its teachings are the sole cause of terrorism. For those reasons, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just the radicals, as a transgression against something sacred and a provocation.

Making the public to react emotionally to those publications would only serve to nurture more extremists instead of appeasing the problem. The most probable impression felt by Muslims is that they would think the West is against Islam and the West is destroying their values by not accepting what they stand for. It could be argued that this incident is a matter of responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or rights. In any society, there is an understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not to provoke others. From this perspective, whether publishing these cartoons and starting a debate on free speech from emotional grounds are the right way to "integrate the Muslims into the community" is something that merits serious consideration.


Liberty vs Harm: Another Perspective


It is reasonable to consider that publishing the Muhammad cartoons would create a furor amongst the Islamic population in Denmark and later, the world, so this act begs the question: although freedom of speech was espoused as a defense for publishing these cartoons, was it perhaps in violation of individual freedoms from harm?

From another perspective, how do we know if these cartoons were not a reaction themselves to a harm? It is true that the vast majority of terrorist bombings are, and are depicted to be from Muslim, Islamic origins, which under no circumstances give the excuse to directly blame Muslim teachings and Islamic origins as the sole cause of terrorist bombings but does begin to make people question whether religion and cultural identity play a role in judging such events. It almost seems as though religion plays a key role in the separation of people. Maybe the problem simply does not lie within the religious origins of certain people, but simply with the assumption that religious origins plays a role. In addition to this, to what extent of our views and actions are our religions defined by? Perhaps someone could even argue that the cartoons were not an 'attack' on Muslim culture, but rather a part of western culture itself.

Censoring such publications of people's religious opinions would be to suppress people's views on religion, and ultimately, their religious views. This would be to prevent people from speaking their personal belief and from past events, suppressing people's opinions usually does not help prevent violence, it rather just creates an ongoing ball of suppressed outrage which eventually builds up to the point where it blows up. Religion is an extremely sensitive topic when dealing with the general public, and so it should be. Some people are prepared to put their religion ahead of their life as we have seen, which they have every right to, if it is for their own personal belief. Maybe the reaction to these cartoons was not because they themselves were the sole cause, maybe there really is a far greater underlying cause which was triggered by these cartoons. Biased publications are printed in newspapers and spoken on the news every day, but we do not torment these. These images may be offensive, however, the individual has a choice on whether they choose to take the cartoons offensive or not. How they react also plays a role in their overall identity.

The Existence of Liberty, Press freedom


As educators and citizens of society anything involving the public interest should be made readily available and accessible, thereby not censored. The reason being, if something were to happen, such as a terror attack and people were not warned of the slight danger or threats made through certain forums, then there would be uproar in the public sphere. People would then say how did the Government or certain public figureheads not act responsibly in making the information concerning the public interest readily available. If we take the example of the Mohammad cartoons, on one hand withholding the cartoons from being distributed in the newspapers can be seen as socially responsible as this protects any potential violence so we think. However these cartoons being rejected as free press could in fact invoke violence as their views have not been publicly heard and therefore be considered socially irresponsible. If people's beliefs and speech have limits, then why have terms such as free speech, press freedom and liberty come about if they don't exist in the true sense of the word? The point is that we can't control how everyone reacts to certain political views, we are all different, there is always going to be points of difference and conflict, that's how the world works. Allowing liberty and press freedom to exist can be more good than bad as there are no limits and all is heard, but neglecting this can cause disruption to a democratic regime and can incite potentially more harm as well.

Free Press versus Social Responsibility


As a result of the controversy surrounding the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers, several media broadcasters and newspapers here in Australia, took a strong stance against publicizing the original images. This decision clearly raises questions of free press and social responsibility decisions made by media organisations for what material can be broadcast. However, by withholding these explicit images from the public, were the principles of free press undermined? Or were these broadcasters adequately upholding their duty of social responsibility?

There seems to be this overlap between social responsibility and free press. The political issues such as the Muhammad cartoons are one's beliefs and all controversial issues or beliefs are meant to be brought to public attention, in order for free press to be enacted. It is these types of issues that need to be brought to a public domain, as we live in a society of free speech and therefore access to press freedom must be made available. However, this idea of offending society and potentially causing danger to society as a result of these cartoons becomes a social responsibility to protect society. By having press freedom this would mean that certain competing political agendas are going to spark extra volume to the specific area or belief, as more people are susceptible and aware of the issue at hand. So by more people knowing about these issues, the more chance there is of certain followers to enact and involve themselves in creating potential harm. Are we trying to make society aware of the growing influence of competing beliefs, thereby sparking potential riots and harm to society, all in the name of press freedom?

The decision of the foreign press including Australian newspapers to not publish the cartoons was a logical decision in the sense that it protects society from not being exposed to potential violence and acts of harm. The fact that there are links to the Mohammad cartoons, therefore not censored, suggests a democratic society in the sense that we are able to access the cartoons if we want. Although there is limited press freedom surrounding the cartoons, which goes against the confines of a democratic society, the mere fact of still being able to access free information on ones own merits or free will, suggests a balance between free press and social responsibility. If these cartoons were censored, ( that being no links provided) then there would have been a complete abolishment of freedom of information.

Muhammad Cartoons in Australia


Only two newspapers in Australia have published the Muhammed cartoons and the purpose was primarily to defend a democratic society's right to free speech - a mark of solidarity with Jyllands-Posten. The remainder of newspapers that did not publish the cartoons cited their actions as an act of responsibility rather than censorship. The cartoons have not been officially censored but within the newspaper offices, it was decided that the cartoons could reasonably be considered offensive. Within Australia all adults have the right to see, hear and read what they wish but the media has a right to protect people from "exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive" or "that incites violence". By refusing to publish the cartoons, the media undertook their responsibility to those who would reasonably be offended by the cartoons but evaded accusations of censorship by providing links to the cartoons for those who wished to see firsthand what had so inflamed tensions.

The Sydney Morning Herald's response
An Editorial, 'Caricature of a Freedom' published in Sydney Morning Herald on February 7, 2006 were one of many found across various Australian newspapers expressing their viewpoint over the controversy. It stated that the Herald would not publish the cartoons in an attempt to reduce racial tension and violence against Muslims, reinforced by the comment 'Sydney does not need to be reminded of the Cronulla riots' (SMH, 7 February 2006). Further, it was argued that freedom of speech needed to be 'reinforced and promoted', however it was still necessary to have 'proper limits' because of the possibility of inciting future hatred or violence. Therefore, the idea of free press versus social responsibility is reiterated here, and tied in with the liberty limiting principle, the Harm Principle. As a result, stricter regulations on the Internet through an updated national media code and anti-vilification laws were effective measures suggested. More importantly, however, overall attention drawn away from the controversial material was encouraged by the newspaper.
(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/SMH.doc)


The ABC's response
In a letter sent to the Executive Producer of Media Watch on February 10, 2006, the Managing Director of the ABC, Russell Balding justified the actions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation . He stated there were several concerns that the ABC had considered and this included;
  • Principles of freedom of expression and the role of media in reporting on a subject that may be offensive
  • The ABC's role as an independent broadcaster
  • The public's interest with reportage or commentary
  • The responsibility to treat the community with respect
  • The welfare of ABC personnel
Balding concluded that ABC's actions were 'responsible and appropriate' and had informed the community with key information therefore shows such as Media Watch were free to comment on the images.
(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/BaldingResp.pdf)

The Seven Network's response
Peter Meakin, the Director of News and Public Affairs for the Seven Network expressed the network's concerns, having stated in a letter on February 10, 2006 to Media Watch, 'We decided not to show the cartoons. Just as we don't go out of our way to offend Christians or Indigenous Australians, we decided not to show images that could inflame a particular group.' He also remarked that the Seven Network had the choice between the right to publish on one hand, then on the other, the exposure of staff and the public to risk. However, in the end the Seven Network felt it had essentially 'played it safe'.
(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/Ch7.jpg)

Muhammad Cartoon Controversy in World Media


Cartoons of Prophet Met With Outrage
Depictions of Muhammad in Scandinavian Papers Provoke Anger, Protest Across Muslim World

Cartoons in Danish and Norwegian newspapers depicting the prophet Muhammad in unflattering poses, including one in which he is portrayed as an apparent terrorist with a bomb in his turban, have triggered outrage among Muslims across the Middle East, sparking protests, economic boycotts and warnings of possible retaliation against the people, companies and countries involved.

The cartoons were published (on 30th September 2005) in a conservative, mass-circulation Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten, and were reprinted three weeks ago in Magazinet, a small evangelical Christian newspaper in Norway. But the reaction has been widespread, and fallout over the images reached new levels Monday, with the European Union backing Denmark in the dispute and warning that a boycott of Danish products -- already being felt by some companies -- would violate World Trade Organization rules...(Anderson 2006, internet)

The cartoons included one of the prophet as a crazed, knife-wielding Bedouin and another of him at the gates of heaven telling suicide bombers: "Stop. Stop. We have run out of virgins!" -- a reference to the belief of some Muslim extremists that male suicide bombers are rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins.

Islamic critics charged that the cartoons were a deliberate provocation and insult to their religion designed to incite hatred and polarize people of different faiths. Defenders of the newspapers and artists said the 12 published cartoons simply were intended to highlight Islam's intolerance.
The controversy has pitted two newspapers championing what they say is the cause of free speech against Islam's prohibition of any artistic depiction of the prophet Muhammad, which is considered blasphemous, no matter how benign. The clash is being fueled by a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in staunchly secular Denmark, where many express frustration that the country's 200,000 Muslim immigrants are resisting assimilation into Danish society...
Norway described the cartoons as "unfortunate and deplorable." Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has refused to apologize. In a recent speech, without mentioning the controversy, he denounced "any expression, action of indication that attempts to demonize groups of people on the basis of the religion or ethnic background." But he added that "freedom of speech is absolute. It is not negotiable."
"The question here is how far do you show sensitivity and self-control over issues without falling into self-censorship," said Medhi Mozaffari, a professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, who defended his government's stance not to apologize. *
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001316.html

Fellow European newspapers including Germany's 'Die Weit', 'France Soir', Italy's 'La Stampa' and Spain's 'El Periodico' published the cartoons in journalistic solidarity.

And so the question in this case study is: Did 'Jyllands-Posten' have the right to publish cartoons which are considered blasphemous by Islamic standards?
As the Danish Prime Minister discussed, it is a matter of exercising free speech, even in the face of threats or violence. Indeed, it is the constant threat of violent reaction that stifles any open discussion about the nature of Islam, rendering it a mystery and breeding fear and even hatred. In comparable circumstances, Jesus Christ is often colloquially depicted in cartoons and other forms of media, even when the 'taking of the Lord's name in vain' is considered a sinful act. But have Christians reacted in such a manner?

Should the other newspapers have followed suit in the publishing of the cartoons, even when they were aware they would be 'fueling the fire'?
This becomes an issue of self-censorship; to document the issue by merely describing the contents of the cartoons is a safer option, however it also endows a religious group with a sword far mightier than a pen.

Recently Jytte Klausen, the author of a new book entitled 'The Cartoons That Shook the World,' (due November 2009) has been forced to remove the Muhammad cartoons from the book prior to publication by Yale University Press because of fears that the resurfacing of the controversial cartoons could spark fresh reactions from the Islamic world. (Jane Mills, http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-storm-as-mohammed-cartoons-edited-out-of-book-20090831-f52k.html)

South Park Response


Popular culture can often be a good litmus test for public sentiment, and thus it is worthwhile making a brief analysis of the South Park episodes "Cartoon Wars", which are a direct response to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. In these episodes, another cartoon "Family Guy" is set to air an episode which features a scene with the Prophet Muhammad. The entire United States goes into a panic with the fear of a terrorist response. In the end, the television network upholds the right to free speech, ignoring the potential risk for reprisal, and airs the episode. The terrorist response is to make a cartoon which depicts Christian figures in obscene situations. It could be interpreted that the message of the show was that there is some degree of irrationality behind the fear of terrorism and that this fear, whether founded or not, should not be allowed to corrupt the protected rights of US citizens.

Quite ironically, the network that airs South Park in both the US and Australia (Comedy Central) refused to air the scene with the prophet Muhammad due to the controversy the Jyllands-Posten cartoons had caused.


Additional Case Study


WWF-Brazil Press Advertisement


This question of free speech vs responsibility can be looked at through an alternate case study of an opposing natue. The Brazilian branch of conservation charity World Wildlife Fund in collaboration with Brazilian advertising and publicity agency DDB, created a Brazilian press ad in late 2008. The ad was initially approved and appeared briefly in local Brazilian press.(Sweney, 2009). The advert depicts a flock of planes heading in the direction of the New York City's, twin towers, with the blurb "The Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.". (Kennedy, 2009) The ad aims to demonstrate the scale of lives lost in the 2004 Asian tsunami with the lives lost at the 9/11 attacks. The WWF-Brazil claim the ad was withdrawn and was not approved for complete circulation. WWF Brazil continue by stating the ad was a mistake, at the hands of few professionals from both parties which have since been let go.(Sweney, 2009) An image of the ad can be seen on the below.
911tsunami-large.jpg


By september 2009 the ad had circulated the internet enflaming controversy and media attention. Lesile Aun, WWF-U.S.A claimed the 'advertisement was never authorised by anyone in their organisation' and 'we condemn the ad and those that produced it [...] we are reviewing our relationship with the international WWF network' (Aun & Roberts, 2009). The US branch of the foundation see it as their responsibility to make sure inappropriate content with their logo, is not released again.


In a press release statement WWF-Brazil stress that this is not a reflection of the organisation and its staff opinion. The question remains should a level of self censorship have been applied, a consideration for community response and effect. It is quite clear that a disposal of responsibility has taken place. The publicity agency DDB has somewhat abused its freedom of speech, sensationalising one set of events, to foster a reaction to a completely separate issue, in this case the terrorism attacks of 9/11 used to highlight the effects of climate change.

Reaction

Is this complete distaste or clever advertising?, and furthermore is their intention wrong?. This highlights questions of liberty verses harm, WWF- Brazil maintain it was not in their interest to distress, harm or disrespect American citizens, their goals have 'nothing to do with acts of terrorism', but rather express a message at their liberal disposal to 'conserve nature and using sustainable natural resources'. In stating this, if the two events are claimed to be unrelated, would there not have been a more tasteful and valid way of conveying this message, one which prevents any harm or offense. As explored above the, could the ad itself be an enactment of free press as a response to harm?. The organisation could have been arguing against the US common stance in speaking for the entire planet on their behalf, also the ad could have been a reaction to the ever increasing greed and consumption of large western countries.

The ad has created a strong divide amongst internet posts and polls (Adweek, 2009). Many agree the ad to be 'insensitive' and 'disgusting', using one disaster to exploit an other. Additional views demonstrate that although the work does offend society, the potential for causing danger to society is not solicited. reviewers believe It foregrounds pressing issues such as the environmental conservation verse material greed and the lack of communication between various branches of the same organisation. (Adweek, 2009)

In this case i believe the message of environmental conservation is some what drowned out by the stark insulting images of acts of terrorism, but what it does provide is social commentary on the state of western culture. The current scale of recognition and social responsibility, is becoming unbalance, in which organisations such as this must resort to controversial images to get their message across.



Documentation:
**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/02/07/LI2006020701366.html**
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4688602.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL20831963

Other

Islamic Reaction to Apple Store in Manhattan: **http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/10/13/muslims-offended-by-apple-store/comment-page-1/**

Works Cited:

Adweek: Nudd, Tim & Gianatasio, Daivid.(1st Sept,2009) "DDB, WWF reeling from fallout over 9/11 ad" Adweek. accessed 16.10.09. http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/09/911-was-nothing-according-to-new-wwf-ad.html
Aun, Leslie & Roberts, Carter.(3rd sept, 2009) "Updated statement WWF Strongly Condemns Brazilian Ad.." WWF US org. accessed 15.10.09 http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem13559.html
Drachman, Edward R. & Langran, Robert (2008) You Decide: Controversial Cases in American Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, U.S. Ch. 6, pp. 79-85
Gelber K. (2007), “Hate Speech in the Australian Legal and Political Landscape”, The Federation Press, Riverwoord, N.S.W.
Jensen T (2006), The Cartoon Crisis Revisited: A Danish Perspective, ARI 65/2006–Análisis
Kennedy, Helen. (2nd Sept,2009). "World Wildlife Fund 'appalled by tasteless 9/11 terror ad". New York Daily. accessed 15.10.09. [[http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/09/02/2009-09-02_wwf_appalled_by_911_terror_ad.html ]]
Markham & Lohr (2009). A World Religions Reader. Wiley Blackwell Publishers Ltd, United Kingdom. Ch. 14, pp. 273-301.
Sweney, Mark. (3rd Sept,2009). "WWF:9/11 ad 'should never have been made'' the Guardian.UK. accessed 16.10.09. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/03/wwf-911-tsunami-a
WWF Brazil.(1st Sept, 2009) "Note of Clarification" Press Release. accessed 16.10.09 . http://www.wwf.org.br/informacoes/english/?21261/Note-of-Clarification
Editorial 'Caricature of a Freedom', Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February, 2006