After reading all week of the violence and destruction in the Middle East, that a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad which had been published in a Danish newspaper and then re-published in [other papers across Europe] has caused, it is beyond me why you would choose to publish John Pritchett's cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a happy face. Not only are you insulting Hawaii's Muslim community, but you show no restraint, no responsibility and just plain bad taste. I truly believe in the freedom of the press but with that also comes responsibility and accountability for that freedom we all cherish.
2-15-06 Angel Colmenares - Honolulu

        By showing a smiley-face Muhammad and thus trivializing both the Muslim prohibition against depicting the prophet and the furor over the Danish cartoon, John Pritchett adds insult to injury. What many seem to have forgotten is that respect for the sensibilities and traditions of others is as important a value in Western culture as is the freedom of expression allowed in a secular society. If we forget that, then, to quote Willam Saroyan in The Skin of Our Teeth, "Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone."
2-15-06 Tom Huff - Honolulu (The Skin of Our Teeth was written by Thorton Wilder)

        Since some of your readers may find last week's cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad dipicted as a smiley face to be degrading, particularly in view of the current controversy, I am curious to hear why Honolulu Weekly chose to print it. Surely you cannot be in trouble in the free speech department, nor can you be unaware that the cartoon may be considered offensive.
        Weather or not the Weekly receives piles of letters on the subject, I wonder if you could say what moved you to make the decision to go ahead with it. And please don't say you didn't see it or you don't interfere with John Pritchett's editorial freedom. Or say it. Go ahead.
2-15-06 Larry Geller - Honolulu

        I loathed John Pritchett's cartoon of Muhammad in the Honolulu Weekly. I didn't loath it because I don't care for a free press or because I think Muslims deserve special consideration or treatment that other minorities do not receive. I loath it because it was bullying and cowardly, and more than anything in this world I loath bullying and cowardice.
        Why was your cartoon bullying and cowardly? Let me start with the obvious reason and then move on to the less obvious one.
        The obvious reason is that it is easy to be the big, tough defender of free speech against the big, bad Muslims when you live on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with only a tiny Muslim population. The cartoon was meant to be deliberately provocative, but to whom? Would you offend native Hawaiian sensibilities with the same gusto? Filipino-American sensibilities? African-American? Jewish? In other words, Mr. Pritchett, I see a lot of talk in your desision and no walk.
        The less obvious reason: Back in Denmark last fall, the cartoons that started this whole mess were not, as defenders have characterized them, simple religious satire, meant to provoke dialogue. They were the equivalent of a minstrel show, calculated to offend and humiliate a minority,
        In other words, pretend this a free speech issue all you like, Mr. Pritchett. It's not.
        The right being asserted here is the right of cartoonists to publish hateful, racist material. I will leave it to others to debate weather you have the right or not.
        But what is very clear to me is that you have chosen to exercise that right upon a group that has little or no institutional power in Hawaii and thus cannot fight back.
        And therefore, Mr. Pritchett, your decision is a bullying and cowardly one.
2-22-06 Joel Harold - Kaimuki

        Freedon of speech includes the right to not say something offensive to others, like trivializing another religion's prophet as a "happy face."
        By analogy, let's see John Pritchett do a cartoon of Jesus, with sort of hippy hair, the same "happy face" and watch the response.
        Neither Muhammad nor Jesus were "Have a Nice Day" types; they reached deeper moral sensibilities. So, Pritchett's and your [newspaper's] freedom of expression, by offending, is someone else's witness to tyranny.
        I am secular, but I was offended by the puerile quality of the cartoon and its failure to take me or the world seriously, so I am a victim also of Pritchett's and the Weekly's taste for stupidity. Sophomores have a hard time taking the world seriously.
        Of course, I was free not to open the paper in the first place.
2-22-06 Paul Nelson - Mokuleia

        I just received my copy of Honolulu Weekly, and of course, I first turned to the letters page since Tom Tomorrow is no longer on the back page. I have to say Joel Harold ("Cartoon was cowardly") and Paul Nelson ("The right to be silent") viewed the John Pritchett smiley-face cartoon differently than me (2/22). I thought it had something to do with, "Hey folks, they were just cartoons (and published about half a year ago at that)."
        I've always thought of Pritchett as an equal opportunity insulter. And if their word usage is correct, I guess I'll have to revise my dictionary: "Bullying and cowardly"? A "victim" of Pritchett's? Hardly.
        I hope these gentlemen probably have never had to experience real cowardice, bullying, guns in their face, threats of bodily harm, simply for saying something their particular audience didn't like.("Jesus probably was a dark-skinned man." "No that ain't right, I've seen his picture.") It is not a particularly poigant, caring and sharing moment.
3-1-06 Jao Ottinger - Makaha Valley

        I'm going to make a wild guess -- Honolulu Weekly has content in every issue, which is offensive to various persons, religious and nonreligious.
        Perhaps the Weekly should shut down so as not to risk offending people.
        P.S. Pritchett's cartoon was witty and cute.
3-1-06 Rebecca Lively - Honolulu