Just an observation here: What is the benefit of any news organization from showing the J-P cartoons? I usually don't agree with much of what NPR says, but one of their commentators made what I thought to be an excellent point about "free speech" vs. "responsible speech" and how while a picture is worth 1000 words, in this case, relying on the 1000 words to describe the cartoon might have been more discreet.

Now, I am not taking the Islamic side on this. I am just asking the question, that once this has been established to have created widespread chaos, what's the benefit of showing the cartoons again?

Many religions have suffered through the exposure of their sacred icons (usually, self-proclaimed sacred -- and again, I'm not judging Islam's case on any merits). Most of them don't go pillaging and burning (another issue). I think it's good form to exercise some self-restraint.

Yes, the Islamists have been offended, and whether or not they are justified in that is debatable (e.g., is Mohammed really that sacred of a figure that they don't draw him) and their response is certainly unjustifiable. But what's the harm in not throwing more gas on the blaze?

What would be our reaction if CNN, while showing footage of another burned Church in Alabama, superimposed a Confederate Flag over the image of the church in the box over the announcer's shoulder? We'd crucify CNN.

CNN's argument about not fanning the flames would carry more weight if they were consistent. For example, they had no such problem with showing the images from Abu Ghraib, not just once, but over and over and over again. And as Glenn pointed out, it is certainly the case that people might think that the images are worse than they really are, because they don't have a chance to see them. For example, how many people in the US realize that at least one of the cartoons was a swipe at the idea of displaying Mohammed as being a PR stunt, and that another was a completely respectful portrayal of Mohammed, and of the cartoonist drawing Mohammed looking fearfully over his shoulder?

Worse yet, CNN has no problem airing images offensive to Christians (the elephant dung-smeared Madonna comes to mind) or Jews (the cartoon of Sharon eating a Palestinian baby, which CNN showed when discussing the controversy over that cartoon a while ago). It's hypocritical and failing to inform.

Also, the church analogy doesn't hold up, because there is no evidence yet of who has been burning the churches or why. If it turns out to be KKK, they will show the churches with Confederate flags: they've done the same or similar before.

Agreed that CNN isn't very consistent on this issue. In this case, I'll praise them for exercising restraint, rather than criticize them for past mistakes.

Plus, it's not like you can't find it on the Internet...