Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Media User Journal Entertainment

Where To Find Opus On Sunday 495

Berkeley Breathed has a note up on his site: "Note to Opus readers: The Opus strips for August 26 and September 2 have been withheld from publication by a large number of client newspapers across the country, including Opus' host paper The Washington Post. The strips may be viewed in a large format on their respective dates at"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Where To Find Opus On Sunday

Comments Filter:
  • from Berkeley or the papers, what is there to discuss except conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.

    I guess it's still news... even if it's a little under cooked.

    Anyone have any facts. Not Fox news or Bill O'Riley brand facts but real information?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Here's facts for you.

      The editors of the papers that will not be printing these cartoons are the same ones who regularly criticize the Bush administation, publish disgusting cartoons by Pat Oliphant, don't think twice about publishing information that might be damaging to national security and they do it all because they know they'll end up without a hair on their heads being harmed.

      The editors of these papers regularly run articles informing us how Homeland Security is overreacting, how Islam is misunderst
      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        But here's the deep down, bottom line fact:

        The editors of these papers are not running the cartoons because they're afraid someone will blow up their offices or shoot them or simply cut their fucking heads off and post a video of it on YouTube.

        That seems to me to be a very good reason not to run them?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vidarh ( 309115 )
        Really? Do you have a list of the papers refusing to run it and documentation to back of those claims? Or is it just hot air?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by oyenstikker ( 536040 )
        This is America. They didn't publish it because they were afraid it would result in loss of revenue. If you thing a corporation's actions are based by anything other than money, you are wrong.
      • to yourself.

        Here's facts for you.

        Bullshit. You have no facts. Produce a list of papers which have cut the strip and then you can begin to think around the word, "Fact". Produce non-isolated examples of the kind of liberal bias you are accusing of in those papers, and then you can begin to sell your point.

        Since you can't do any of this, what we really have here is a typical example of Right Wing emotionalism. (The operative emotions being Fear and Hate, which the typical Right-Wing Bush supporter allows
    • A story on the story (Score:4, Informative)

      by faloi ( 738831 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:14AM (#20361541)
      Here ya go []. It looks like, depending on your neck of the woods, editors won't run it because it either has a tasteless sex joke, or because it might offend Muslims.
  • by jesser ( 77961 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @05:01AM (#20360587) Homepage Journal ndex.html []

    The second "censored" strip is dated next Sunday, so I guess it isn't available yet.
    • by earnest murderer ( 888716 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @05:20AM (#20360679)
      So basically the first strip has been banned on context? That because the ideas are presented as satire they're offensive? I mean I understand the sensitivity. That having a corner stone of your religion trotted out and warped into an amusing caricature would be infuriating... But maybe you should review your dogma for things you weren't comfortable with in the first place before buying in.

      It ain't like he's drawing pictures of Mohammed with bombs in his turban.
  • I, for one, don't welcome our Islamic overlords.
  • TF Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @06:26AM (#20360871)
    So may inane links to blogs, why not direct links to the strips?

    So after screwing around at
    Today's strip is here []. And all strips here [].

  • by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul AT prescod DOT net> on Sunday August 26, 2007 @07:45AM (#20361177)
    Western publishers are self-censoring anything remotely offensive to Muslims. This is just evidence that threats, intimidation and terrorism work. Americans will go to any lengths to "fight terrorism" by invading countries basically uninvolved in terror, but given the chance to simply stand up and say: "we won't be intimidated by threats" the press folds like a three legged card table. Grow a pair!
    • by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) * on Sunday August 26, 2007 @10:42AM (#20361995) Homepage Journal
      Yes, it's funny that they have no problems bad-mouthing other groups like Catholics or Jews (i.e., Israel) or Christian Fundamentalists because they know that those folks won't get violent.

      I'm getting a little sick of people who, to quote Dennis Miller, "start strapping bombs on themselves when the pizza toppings are wrong". I'm getting a little sick of hearing about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. And I'm really getting sick of slack-jawed, know-nothing, but ego-inflated press abandoning all their principles at the drop of a turban.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Herbmaster ( 1486 )
      Yes, now that I think about it, Osama bin Laden's publicly stated goals do go something like this:
      1. Get US troops out of Saudi.
      2. Discredit the US in the international community.
      3. Raise the price of oil.
      4. Increase sensitivity of the Western media to Muslim culture.
      Oh wait, I always get this mixed up. Which one involved underpants and which one involved profit? Darn.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Angst Badger ( 8636 )
      It's not just Islam. The press goes out of its way to avoid direct offense to the other major religions as well, often to the point of actively pandering to them. How many times in the past several years has one of the newsweeklies had a cover story on Jesus? And Jesus is news exactly how? How often do we see articles on the "debate" over evolution?

      It's distantly possible that there is some actual fear of terrorism at work, but I suspect that most of the time, the guiding principle is what will best serve t
  • by ibn_khaldun ( 814417 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @08:07AM (#20361249)

    Anyone who thinks that the U.S. media back down from anything offensive to Moslems has clearly never listened to talk radio or read conservative political commentators. These folks would have a great deal of dead air and missing prose if they couldn't offend Moslems in ever more creative ways (suggesting nuking Mecca is a popular one, for example...)

    But meanwhile, I completely agree with much of the previous commentary: this strip is making fun on two individuals, and is not remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons. Most Moslems would find it funny and the rest, well, some people don't find anything funny. And the stereotyping is mild compared to what the strip has done, for example, with New Age hippies, Leisure Suit Larry lounge lizards, penguins, and so forth.

    [Usually not relevant but despite the Slashdot moniker, I'm neither Arab nor Moslem, though I've lived for a while in the Middle East. I just happen to like the theories of the dude [] I've stolen the name from and he's like, sort of dead...]

  • by DigitalSorceress ( 156609 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:03AM (#20361501)
    Anyone remember the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", where the show was making fun of the western reaction, and itself was censored? The irony for me was that they had an episode maybe a year or two before that where Mohammed was clearly shown as one of the super heroes in the "Super Best Friends" episode. There hadn't been a blip back then. What's even funnier is that if you watch South Park reruns, the "Cartoon Wars" episode still has the controversial scene censored, but the "Super Best Friends" has been shown since with no alterations. []

    The Cartoon Wars episode was played uncensored in the UK, and the world failed to end - go figure.
  • by Reluctant Wizard ( 984280 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @01:37PM (#20363369)
    Maybe the editors were concerned about offending nudists or the Amish?

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant