A very popular ethical case in recent years has been that of the portrayal of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Muslim extremists have been known to react 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 repercussions of free expression and whether self-censorship due to terrorism is letting the enemies of free expression win. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 2005, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten printed a series of comics that depicted the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a very negative way, showing him as a suicide bomber and a sex maniac. In response, the newspaper received harsh criticism from the Muslim community, as well as numerous death threats. The newspaper was criticized for being Islamophobic, but maintained its decision not to self-censor due to violent threats. (Anderson, 2006) This paints a very interesting ethical dilemma. Should artists print cartoons they already know will encounter harsh controversy? If news outlets choose not to show depictions of Muhammad, is it showing favoritism towards Islam? I don't think 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, such as South Park. I believe that most Muslims do not think that people should be killed for displaying a depiction of Muhammad, but the reaction of the small number of extremists may cause people to be prejudiced against moderate Muslims. According to Encounting Islam, an organization dedicated to helping Christians understand an Islamic people, only 7% of Muslims support extremist views and terrorism. I believe this controversy is extremely negative for many moderate Muslims, and the mainstream media's hesitancy to show depictions of Muhammad only fuels the fires of extremists. There are not enough extremist Muslims to attack every journalist who portrays Muhammad, but it is understandable that every single journalist is reluctant to put his or her life on the line. (Common Misconceptions about Muslims, 2015) Even if we look at the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, 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 believe that hiding the image of Muhammad that caused controversy could be interpreted as oversimplifying a story or failing to clearly identify the source. At the same time, the SPJ Code of Ethics also tells us to “minimize harm” and “balance the public's need for information against potential harm or inconvenience.” Showing those images could potentially harm someone, especially journalists and artists. It is difficult to make an ethical appeal when the media must be as transparent as possible with the public, while at the same time minimizing harm and not causing further controversy. (SPJ Code of Ethics, 2014) A very famous and prominent example of this controversy came to light in 2010 when South Park, a satirical dark humor cartoon, aired its 200th episode. In the episode, creators Matt.