Crossing the Line? Freedom of Speech and Religious Sensibilities Introduction to the Controversy On September 30, 2005, the Danish news- paper Jyllands-Posten printed 12 editorial car- toons, several of which contained caricatures of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. This publica- tion sparked a controversy that began in Den- mark and spanned the globe. The cartoon publications stemmed from an article discuss- ing the difficulty in finding illustrators for a book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. According to the book’s author, cartoonists refused contract out of fear of retaliation from the Muslim community, citing the example of the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch- man, for making the documentary Submission, a film focused upon the position of women in Islam. 1 In addition to the article, nationwide debate 2 discussed the right to freedom of speech and the problems surrounding self- censorship. It was within this context that Flemming Rose, the cultural editor at Jyllands- Posten, asked Danish cartoonists to depict the Prophet Muhammad as they saw him with the underlying purpose to raise the issue of self- censorship and fuel further debate. The car- toons ran alongside an article on free speech and self-censorship. 3 A month after the publication of the 12 cartoons, Danish Imams and 11 ambassadors from Muslim countries petitioned the Danish government asking for its position on and against the cartoons. 4 In October 2005, a number of Danish Muslim orga- nizations filed a complaint with Danish police for violation of Danish blasphemy laws, but the case was discontinued three months later when authorities found no violation of law. In the weeks and months that followed, Muslim coun- tries, organizations, and individuals instituted an international boycott of Danish goods, called for an apology from the Danish govern- ment, and united in protest. The protests inten- sified when reprints of the cartoons appeared in many other countries; 5 this led to unrest around the world, particularly in Islamic coun- tries, and many deaths. 6 To this end, few main- stream American newspapers published the cartoons, weighing and assessing the fallout from covering the developing story; although several student-run campus newspapers did reprint the cartoons ~see Healy 2007, in this symposium!. This paper stems from a study that I initiated in an undergraduate research methods course as a means to help students practice survey design skills and gain knowledge collecting survey data through experiential learning. As the car- toon controversy approached its zenith in the early part of 2006, I assisted my students in the design of a survey instrument with the purpose of investigating public sentiment in and around metropolitan Washington, D.C. in response to the violence and protests following the cartoon publications. The study aimed to seek greater understanding of the social significance, the reaction to protest, ideas of censorship, and the political significance of this event. In particular, the study set out to find answers to the follow- ing questions: 1! What were the sentiments and responses of Washingtonians regarding the printing of the cartoons? And 2! What was the impact of religious affiliation to these responses? Scholarly Understanding of the Events These particular cartoons, like others, are intriguing political discourse that reflects cul- tural and social beliefs. The media has a long history of transmitting political discourse in the United States. The first example of a U.S. po- litical cartoon conveying a strong message was Benjamin Franklin’s 1754 sketch of a severed snake with the caption “Join, or Die” ~each of the eight segments represented colonies, with the head representing a united New England; Figure 1!. Since most people were illiterate at by S. Suzan J. Harkness, University of the District of Columbia Mohamed Magid, University of the District of Columbia Jameka Roberts, University of the District of Columbia Michael Richardson, University of the District of Columbia Figure 1 Image courtesy of the Library of Congress. PSOnline www.apsanet.org DOI: 10.1017/S1049096507070436 1 PSC 40~2! 07043 104 03019007 7:57 am Page :1