On the other hand, some feel reproducing the images is essential to telling the story behind this horrible crime. Fair enough.
But one argument for showing the images needs addressing: that those who choose not to do so are acting out of cowardice. Dan Gardner puts it like this:
@Bigcitylib2 Yes. I am. I was in the thick of newsrooms in the 2005 debate and that fear is exactly what underlay all the rationalizations.OK, so lets just respond by noting that any journalist who actually fears retaliation here, in Canada, is smoking something. And anyone who is publishing because they think it makes them braver than their non-publishing fellows should really get over themselves.
— Dan Gardner (@dgardner) January 8, 2015
Similarly, if any news making decisions in 2005 were actually driven by fear of retaliation, than those people must have started believing the nonsense in their own papers. And no when Ezra Levant published the cartoons back then he was not being "brave"; the only practical effect of his acts was to increase the amount of hate speech directed towards Calgary area mosques.
And of course the effects of republishing these cartoons will most likely be similar. Already we have Christie Blatchford praising a deranged lunatic:
The day Charlie Hebdo was attacked, I had a story in the paper about an Ontario man named Eric Brazau being jailed another year for, at least in part, spouting off on a Toronto subway train about the Qur’an and Islam.
Yeah, Blatch, the other part of the reason he's serving time is for criminal harassment. But in the wake of the shootings lets make these type of folks feel justified, shall we?