One wonders if the PID's April 17 letter to the media is a first step towards circumscribing press freedom. The letter stated: "Recently we have noticed that some of the media are publishing or broadcasting dishonest and unprofessional political statements, satirical sketches, cartoons, features, etc, which are creating confusion among the people."

The PID's letter also claimed: "The mass media's role in carrying out the government's ongoing multifaceted reform programs has been praised by all quarters. Because of this positive role, the government is always proactive in maintaining the freedom of the electronic and print media in spite of the country being under a state of emergency."

These statements appear disingenuous. In effect, isn't the government saying: "We like you when you print good things about us and so, keep it that way, or else"?

No democracy can thrive if the media is told what it can broadcast or print. The government's reform initiatives will reach deep if they're allowed to proceed with public participation through media scrutiny. Only the media can eliminate the confusion that is spawned out of rumours, gossip, and telltales -- press censorship, on the other hand, will only compound the confusion.

To suggest that printing cartoons, dishonest and unprofessional political statements, satirical sketches, and so on, is confusing the people is tantamount to insulting their wisdom. This is also inconsistent with the laissez faire paradigm of the free market process.

Newspapers which publish material that lacks professionalism and is contrary to public interests, will automatically find their exit out of the news business. So, let the readers decide what to read and what to believe, instead of the government dictating what to publish--- unless, of course, the interim government may want to have its "own brand of media freedom" to resonate with its "own brand of democracy."

There is no such thing as license to absolute freedom of expression. Newspaper publishers should exercise their own discipline, guided by professionalism. If mistakes creep in, the national press council should be the arbiter of choice to mediate the occurrence -- but curtailing media freedom is a self-defeating measure.

Writing op-ed columns and publishing satirical sketches and cartoons can be complementary, or two completely separate formats of freedom of expression. How does the phrase go: A picture says a thousand words.

Cartoons, as a means of expression, can be understood across national borders, as they permeate through the language barrier said Rana Lurie, an American cartoonist. For Lurie, the act of cartooning as a vehicle of expression was necessary, but not sufficient. He "wanted to take a physical part in the action" and, therefore, interviewed political leaders and elite throughout the world, trying to intrude into and unearth their hidden schemes.

On April 11, a panel of eminent international press cartoonists convened at the French Ministry of Culture to inaugurate the "Cartooning for Peace" exhibit and debate the potential perils of press cartoons in the political realm. Cartoons have a universal reach, and mollifying effects, yet they may also lead to violence and bloodshed (Prophet Muhammad cartoons).

An Algerian cartoonist, Ali Dilem (under trial for 24 cases), discussed a more stereotypical yet well founded vision of press freedom in Muslim countries. He fearlessly spoke out that all Muslim-ruled countries lacked press freedom and were poorly governed.

Danish cartoonist, Carsten Graabaek, argued that cartooning is about what is happening around you, adding that: "freedom of speech is a worldly affair, a secular affair;" and that cartoonists "should be aware of the fine balance between lampooning ... and offending the inner feelings of people."

Ramize Erer, a female cartoonist from Turkey, "epitomized the amazing liberty that we can't even imagine in Muslim countries like Turkey" observed Jean Plantu, the French cartoonist for French newspaper Le Monde since 1972.

One may wonder if the press cartoonists profile themselves as journalists. Maybe Plantu thinks that cartoonists and their work are fulfilling a civic duty, and that their essential goal is to produce "a cartoon that can do good."

Political cartoonist Michel Kichka famously said: "Freedom of expression means spilling ink, not spilling blood." As for Dilem, he wouldn't have published a cartoon if it imperiled the lives of others. He believes: "Nobody deserves to die for a drawing."

Khalil Arafeh, a Palestinian cartoonist, believes that when Hamas and Fatah entered a civil war his cartoons may have helped to end it.

Newspaper editors who expurgate forceful yet undeniable content on the premise that the authorities may come down on them are, in fact, undermining the power of speech and rejoinder of those portrayed in the caricatures. In this Internet age, everybody has the publishing forum to counter in his own defense.

Referring to the PID's instructions to all newspapers not to carry any comment of Sheikh Hasina, Law Adviser Mainul Hosein said: "PID does not do this, but you have to remember that a critical situation is prevailing in the country and fundamental rights do not work at present." Make no mistake, black-out of Hasina's statements only created more gossip mongering.

No one doubts that the fervour with which the interim government has been purging political corruption is unprecedented in our country, which is why it enjoys steadfast public acclaim -- at least until now. Privately, there are whispers of rising fear and anxieties. Then there are people who guardedly wonder why no retired army officers, for instance, are yet to be charged.

Possible violations of human rights are also being insinuated in international forums. All former political leaders, regardless of who they are, should be prosecuted in the country for their culpabilities, for setting a precedent. Any unconstitutional measures against any one (exile) may only elevate them to a position larger than life to their followers.

Subjecting the media to intimidation and censorship to counter the frenzy of innuendos and sensational "exposés" always culminates in counter productive outcomes. The cartoonists' creative expression of "thousands words in a caricature" mustn't be stifled; columnists in op-ed articles mustn't be suppressed. Hamstringing the media will simply generate fear among the people, and put off creative thinking while reinforcing the cascading confusions that the government intended to offset.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics, Eastern Michigan University.