What could go wrong? NYT rationale for determining offensive images 'doesn't seem like a healthy precedent'

As Twitchy reported Monday, the New York Times, which declined to reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its pages, was called out for their double standard on “art” after publishing a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 condoms.

The Times’ explained the decision:

So @nytimes admits it. We publish art offensive to Catholics because they won't kill us. http://t.co/WiHewyLiJ4 pic.twitter.com/nHXGkeCzv2

— IWantNothingHat (@Popehat) July 1, 2015

The standards editor of the New York Times, Philip B. Corbett, responded to accusations of double standards this way [emphasis ours]:

I don’t think these situations — the Milwaukee artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.

Well, at least they admitted it.

@Popehat that doesn't seem like a healthy precedent to set all.

— Shawn (@Shawn_on_Games) July 1, 2015

Recommended

Hypocrite Josh Shapiro Uses Squatter's Rights to Build Himself a Security Barrier on Neighbor's Property

Eric V.

Advertisement

No, it doesn’t.

Terrorists say jump, @nytimes says how high https://t.co/ZbxYtQjI1W

— Emily (@iluv2pekes) July 1, 2015

These are the brave liberals who claim to be in the forefront of individual rights. https://t.co/AhbLu0j77c

— l?l (@laura_lrnzo) July 1, 2015

https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/616248939889717249
https://twitter.com/SlapperBitch/status/616250177704300544
https://twitter.com/WBH_Politics/status/616248148055339008

"Look, all were saying is that the hecklers veto works on a major journalistic entity. No big deal" https://t.co/NbBIH6Qv2e

— I'm A Man Of My (@David_Hatten) July 1, 2015

OLD @NYTimes motto: "We ain't gonna jump when someone tells us to"
NEW @NYTimes motto: "…How high??…"@Popehathttps://t.co/7KxAY74U52

— justturnright (@justturnright) July 1, 2015

Offending the uncivilized is the new punching down, according to the @nytimes. @Popehat @exjon

— a Statement of Fact (@fringeaggressor) July 1, 2015

@Popehat @Yair_Rosenberg @nytimes Good. The difference between Christianity and Islam for everyone to see. They kill, we don't.

— Anjy Lobelia Römelt (@Angelaroemelt) July 1, 2015

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/616247841502142464

@Popehat @exjon @nytimes if tyou threaten to hack off our heads, we'll publish or not what you wish, no head hacking, we'll mock at will

— Rani ~ Science Skeptic ? (@MilitaryRosary) July 1, 2015

@Popehat @nytimes but w. that logic they Shld publish anti Jewish or anti Hindu or anti Rastafarian which they Won't #NYTpantsonfire

— it's all a hoax…relax… (@randOmuos) July 1, 2015

But yet, they'll publish David Brooks. https://t.co/f646koqU8p

— PearlRiverFlow (@PearlRiverFlow) July 1, 2015

This FIFY headline is more appropriate:

"We're not principled, just cowards" would be a better headline for the @nytimes https://t.co/051Ahaurwv

— Noah (@reeb1011) July 1, 2015

Nailed it!