File talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png/Archive 2

Untitled
all chirstion are illegels and blody basters--marum was raperest and esa was bornha ha ha ha

all Christians are illegels basters harami kutay di olad Why are these pictures featured in wikipedia in spite of the copyright issues that have arisen for the papers that have published them? Genereally wikipedia is pretty strict about not using copyrighted material, so why should this be an exception? 213.100.138.53 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) --Tom
 * This use of this image is allowed under the fair use clause of US copyright law. We can use it here to show people what the controversy is about.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * More precisely, the editor who added the tag has asserted that, if it came to it in court, its use would be defensible as fair use. Fair use is a defence, not a licence. -Splash talk 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Halo, I agree that the discussion has gotten a bit off-topic. But really, how can you discuss whether or not the image of Mohammed should stay on Wikipedia and not talk about free expression, Islam, and what to do when cultural values clash?

I'm certain you would post in reproducable, downloadable form any cartoon that lampooned Bush or Blair or Jesus or fundamental Christians. Let's see what the embassy burning is about rather than hide out of fear or false "tolerance". I don't see much tolerance on the part of Islam for Western Civilization and I see a lot of tolerance in the Middle East for terrorists who use Mohammed and Allah and Islam as justification for beheading innocent civilians and blowing up men, women and children on buses and in markets. Thus...the stinging biting truth behind the satire evident in the cartoons.

Why is the image so small? God I hate when Wikipedians upload an image this small. Diafel 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the right to free speech and free expression.