A very popular ethical case in recent years has been the question of the representation of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. It is common knowledge that Muslim extremists have reacted violently to depictions of Muhammad, attacking and killing artists and threatening to do much worse. There is an interesting conversation in this issue, where we can examine the implications of free speech and whether self-censorship due to terrorism allows the enemies of free speech to win. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay In 2005, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten printed a series of comic strips depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a very negative way, the showing himself as a suicide bomber and sex maniac. In response, the newspaper received strong criticism from the Muslim community, in addition to numerous death threats. The newspaper has been criticized for being Islamophobic, but it has maintained its decision not to self-censor due to violent threats. (Anderson, 2006) This presents a very interesting ethical dilemma. Should artists print cartoons that they already know will spark controversy? Is it evidence of favoritism toward Islam that news agencies choose not to show depictions of Muhammad? I don't believe there is an easy answer to this question. I don't think artists should be offensive for the sake of being offensive, but sometimes important social messages can be embedded in something perceived as offensive, like South Park. I believe that most Muslims do not think that people should be killed for showing a depiction of Muhammad, but the negative reactions of the small number of extremists can give rise to prejudice against moderate Muslims. According to Encountering Islam, an organization dedicated to helping Christians understand and embrace Islamic people, only seven percent of Muslims support extremist views and terrorism. I think this controversy is extremely harmful to many moderate Muslims, and that the mainstream media's hesitation to show depictions of Muhammad only fuels the fire of extremists. There are not enough Muslim extremists to attack every journalist who describes Muhammad, but it is understandable that any journalist would be reluctant to risk their life. (Common Misconceptions About Muslims, 2015) Even if we look at the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, the right decision is still not entirely clear. The Code of Ethics states that we must seek and report the truth, “clearly identify sources” and “provide context.” Be especially careful not to misrepresent or oversimplify when promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story. I think hiding the controversial image of Muhammad could be interpreted as oversimplifying a story or failing to clearly identify the source. At the same time, the SPJ Code of Ethics also asks us to “minimize harm” and “balance the public’s need for information with potential harm or discomfort.” Showing these images could potentially harm someone, including journalists and artists. It is difficult to make an ethical choice when the media must be as transparent as possible to the public, while minimizing harm and not provoking further controversy. (SPJ Code of Ethics, 2014) A very famous and striking example of this controversy is..