Publish the cartoons
The Danish Cartoons of Mohamed brouhaha has me thinking. I don't think we can ignore the elephant in the room. The rioting in response to the publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohamed is an indicator that the original cartoons were spot on. The dark side of the Islamic world responded to the portrayal of themselves as terrorists by...terrorizing.
Meanwhile, Iran's largest newspaper has announced a contest to see who can create the "funniest" cartoon lampooning the holocaust. Radical clerics (no not that one) are calling for the severing of the heads of the cartoonists responsible as well as all the editors of the papers that published the cartoons. Oh joy.
And what about the Danes? The Danes are dissapointed in the the tepid support for free speech from the EU and the United States. No wonder:
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, condemned the decision by some media outlets in Europe to republish the cartoons, calling it “insensitive, disrespectful and wrong”.
Here's the US:
The US State Department called for European media to act more responsibly and not to offend Muslims. Kurtis Cooper, a department spokesman, said “We all respect freedom of the press but . . . inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”
Oh, how I disagree with that approach. There are very few exceptions to absolute rights. We are free to speak, or we are not. We should brook no threats - especially threats from terrorists - here or abroad to our fundamental rights. If we are going to fight for freedom we could at least have the courage of our convictions and come out swinging against exactly the kind of zealotry that resulted in 9.11.
Observe the results of the search for Jesus Bush. I think some of those images are accurate and funny reflections of the Hijacker Bush atop the good ship Christ. You might not agree. You might publish something different and equally thought provoking. Together, we can celebrate our right to do both.
Publish the cartoons. Publish them again. Publish them again.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 4:15 AM |
| 
22 Comments:
I have to agree with the wege... Although newspapers certainly have the right to publish them again and again, whether they should exercise it is a different matter: and the answer to that question is a definite no.
Simply on the basis that the cartoons are poorly drawn, not funny, and make no point, no - there's absolutely no reason to publish them again. Add in the repercussions that would entail, and continuing to publish anywhere would be downright foolish.
Chris is absolutely right.
Its the job of the media to be critical of society, and world is getting smaller and smaller. There is no longer "our society" and "theirs." Only the question of what we rules we adopt for all of us as we move forward.
Its essential to our collective success that we be able to openly critique the merits and drawbacks of all the aspects of society at large.
Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.
You absolutely can publish nudes and other adult content here in the West. You just need to constrain your sales to do it. I'd be willing to bet that NOW finds Playboy reprehensible but they don't get to lynch Hef.
Not only is it essential to challenge these extreamists on Free Speech, we need to challenge them on many more fronts.
-Women's rights
-Seperation of Church and State
-Seperation of powers
-Economic liberty
It has to be clear, that the best of Islam is welcome to join the world, but we are rejecting ALL of Islam.
Better we have this out now than leave it for our children.
-Censored
While Censored probably thinks "come out swinging" means "drop the big one" I clearly do not.
Mark-- The Danish are not part of the racist right. Come. On.
What I am saying is this:
Unequivocally and clearly, stand with the Danes. Stand with Free Speech. Say yes, it was stupid to publish cartoons of your God. So what. You don't get to cut off my head or the head of my friend over it. Burn your own country down if you want to - but that's where it ends.
For their part, the Danes should quit crying in their soup over lost business and stand on principle.
We agree with Chris; in fact, we've said that we think every free paper in the world should run the cartoons along with a picture of Piss Christ and the Bill of Rights.
This sort of behavior is incompatable with secular democracy. It is shameful to see the leaders of said secular democracies taking such a candy ass line regarding the response they have seen. The message should be crystal clear: If you are unable to play along with folks who don't agree with your religious world view, you need to take your ball and go home.
Those cartoons became spot on the moment the first rock was thrown.
cp
"Burn down your own country"
If only that was where it ended. The second half of the 20th century was devoted to the idea of threat containment. Make deals with dictators or what ever it takes to keep them under wraps.
9/11 changed that. It was the end of containment. The world finally got small enough and the individual powerful enough that containment failed. A few determined individuals could strike out and vitally damage the people, economy and well being of the country.
There are two ways to address the failure. Take power from the individuals (for example limit speech) or deal with the long ignored festering underlying causes. Taking power is easy, at least easy to rationalize. (See Norweg's post) But its just another band-aid for what's really wrong.
And what's wrong is going to have to be dealt with. Either now, by all of us, or by or children once Tehran and the rest of the extremists get nukes.
-Censored
along with a picture of Piss Christ and the Bill of Rights. -cp
I'd agree to that, at least. If you're going to piss everyone off, that's fine, but I maintain that pissing people off just for the f--- of it serves no legitimate purpose, even in the context of freedoms.
What about in the context of haveing a free and open discussion about the radicalism of Islam?
How about in the context of art or philosophy of any topic you choose?
Speech is especially protected when it is just for the purpose of pissing people off. The point is freedom. You don't get to choose when and what I get to say.
I'm trying to imagine an American parallel. How about running a cartoon that's blatantly racist toward black people. Especially in 1968, or after the Rodney King verdict. Sure you have the *right* to publish it, but it's sure not a good idea and doesn't further the public good. Quite the contrary.
Here's a letter from a Muslim that brings up some interesting points. Here's an excerpt:
Of course, I have seen in my lifetime many editorial cartoons that I personally found to be offensive and almost all of them were about subjects far removed from Islam. A cartoonist has the right to draw and I have the right to be offended. Generally, nothing more needs to be said or done. However, as a society, we must take into account the sensibilities of others.
The Danish case is particularly interesting because the intention of the newspaper was to stir up controversy. The intention was to offend Muslims. The newspaper set out to provoke and they succeeded. It is strange that having succeeded they and their supporters are so incensed over the reaction. Contrast the Danish publisher’s approach with that of U.S. newspapers. In the U.S., freedom of speech and press is almost absolute. Even so, on a few occasions in recent years when an editorial cartoon has elicited a large critical outcry, in most cases, the newspaper has apologized to offended readers, pointing out that the intention of the artist was to express an opinion, that the freedom to express an opinion is guaranteed and must be protected but that in hindsight it is apparent that the same message could have been conveyed without unnecessarily insulting a significant number of readers.
[...]
Of course, another aspect of the Danish affair is that the cartoons were not published in a vacuum. They were published against the backdrop of widespread anti-Muslim prejudice and of incendiary statements likely to provoke hate against Muslims in Denmark.
Those, like yourself, who speak out in favour of freedom of speech and press should also speak out against the raising tide in Denmark of racial and religious intolerance. The Danish cartoon affair is NOT just a test of basic freedoms, it is a concerted attack on a visible minority and that attack is being waged not only by incendiary cartoonists but also by government officials included the Queen of Denmark herself.
Has anyone actually gone and looked at the cartoons? Half of them are making fun of the editor for running the stuff in the first place. Another one shows a cartoonist covering up his drawing because he doesn't want people to see it (obviously out of fear of speaking out). Another one shows a bunch of armed Muslims running with swords towards the paper and the guy with the paper says something to the effect of "relax, it's just a worthless Dane who wrote this."
The point here is the non-Muslims don't have to adhere to Muslim tradition. Just like non-Christians shouldn't have to worry about completely religious Chrisitian arguments over...oh wait, check that part of the rant....
The real point is that non-Muslims in secular countries have every right to do things like draw cartoons, write books, etc about how they view the Muslim world.
Let's be perfectly frank about these drawings...what exactly do any of you have a problem with? Was it the cartoon that showed Mohammed being used as a reason for violence? How about the one with the second-class women?
I don't think this is about pissing people off. These cartoons aren't out of the mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. They bring up legitimate issues and concerns.
There are countless articles and publications that express these thoughts in the written word. Where are the radical Imams to stoke the fires on those pieces of work?
None of this was blistering or profanity laced. None of it. Those riots are about one thing and one thing only: creating self-censorship.
Sorry, ain't going to happen. Those cartoons weren't racist, they weren't overblown, they expressed perfectly legitmate positions (most of them calling the Danish editor on his PR stunt), and rioters shouldn't be the only ones who dictate the editorial content of such ideas.
I think it is 100% absolute nonsense that the leaders of secular democracies haven't forcefully come out and said that these rioters have no business in reasonable society. Boycott, make your own images, write letters to the editor...whatever...but violence and storming US military bases over a cartoon is insane and everyone should be saying as much.
cp
Are you looking at the same cartoons?
Imagine Jesus with a fat face and a ridiculous looking beard.
Imagine Jesus with a bomb on his head.
Imagine Jesus in a police lineup, or with his tongue sticking out.
Of course they are offensive and racist - the authors themselves said they intended to inflame.
Racist cartoons of African-Americans weren't out of the mainstream in 1950, either. Were they protected speech, like this is? Yes. Should it have been said? NO.
And tell me, just who hasn't said that the rioters have no business in society? That's the same right-wing reactionary argument that was used, and is still used in response to 9/11: when are the Muslims in the US going to condemn it? But the reality is that they have, several times over, in extremely forceful terms, but we just don't want to listen because we as a nation, conscious of it or not, are still racist.
Imagine Jesus as a rap star on the cover of Rolling Stone. (see current magazine cover)
Imagine Jesus riding a nuclear bomb like Slim Pickins
http://www.seatthole.com/images/store/t-shirts/150/what_would_jesus_bomb.gif
Head on over to CNN right now and you can see Bush lightly telling folks to stop the violence. This is what, a week after it broke out? How many newspapers have run editorials or even stories about the biggest news item on the planet right now? We said nothing about just Muslims condeming this...everyone should, most of all our newspapers and public officials (who, the last time we checked, weren't all that Muslim).
The reaction so far has been "quiet down and don't kill our diplomats".
As for the racism in those cartoons...that's nonsense. Jesus was in that police lineup cartoon...along with the news editor holding the lineup card.
We're sure that you can click on the link below and find all of the Jesus-related images you could hope to find (we especially like the pot smoking Jesus).
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=jesus+cartoon
But Jesus and Mohammed themselves are besides the main point. The idea of a religious figure being used as a reason for violence isn't a new idea. Is that an offensive viewpoint? Perhaps, but it's hardly racist by itself...least of all in these cartoons.
Inflaming passions doesn't always mean racism.
cp
Today Bush's simple words ring true:
"We believe in a free press. We also recognize that with freedom comes responsibilities. With freedom comes the responsibility to be thoughtful about others," the president said.
I actually don't care who is behind the cartoons or frankly, whether they are in good taste or not. To me the debate about whether or not they should have been published or not is completely beside the point.
Did the Danish newspapers have the right to publish the cartoons? Yes or no?
Does the New Patriot or any other publication have the right to re-publish them? Yes or no?
Do we have the right to speak out against the war, even as our troops wage it? Yes or no?
A right is an absolute. A right is always legal and appropriate. There are no "Yes, but..."s in rights. Should Cindy Sheehan be able to camp out infront of the Bush's whitehouse and wear a t-shirt to the State of the Union? The answer is yes. Should she? The founders answered that question when they created the American experiment. And for those who don't know the answer, it's yes.
Americans used to know this.
Conversely, does anyone who is offended by the Danish cartoons have the right to cut off the hands of the cartoonists or sever the head of the editor or bomb the newspaper? Do they have the right to threaten said action? Yes or no?
That is the postion from which we should approach this fiasco. If you agree that speech is free then you agree that free speech, in any form the speaker takes the liberty to exercise it, is appropriate.
ps. In any case, this crisis isn't being perpetrated by cartoons for heavens sake. Who do you think is organizing all of those riots? Look at the production values of the signs of the protesters. Read the statements of Syrian and Iranian leaders. Do you think for one second these riots are spontaneous? They are not. The riots are being fueled by and are representative of the policies of either the governments or major political organizations in the countries in which they are taking place.
I hear you, Chris. I'm generally a free speech renegade. But obviously we don't live in a black/white, on/off, world of absolutes. (No matter what the neocons say.) We live in shades of gray.
Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to walk up to a black person and say "get lost nigger"?
I think it's fine if we publish the cartoon here, for example. Alongside Jesus parodies. But this context has very little to do with the original context, where the cartoons were pouring manipulative salts into an open would. (Or gas into the fire...something like that.)
It's reckless to divorce rights from the social responsibities that go along with those rights.
Meanwhile... supportdenmark.com
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why, exactly, the Danish cartoons are like yelling fire in a crowded theatre (without there being a fire I assume) or like dismissing a black person with the n word?
If you can't show respect to Mohammed, you obviously don't respect Jesus because the same rules are going to apply. - Wege
Yes, but not because the same rules apply. The same rules don't apply. Depicting Mohammed in any way whatsoever, with intent to degrade or not, is a huge no-no of Islam. Not so with Jesus in Christianity. That's the big difference.
How I see it, the reason this is analagous to Chuck's examples is that if we accept the principle of true freedom of speech - not the law, now, but the principle - all three things are OK. However, doing all three things would also be acting like a huge dick. It's back to the right as opposed to the decision; the right as opposed to the responsibility.
Chris is spot on.
You can yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is one.
-Censored
Exactly. We're going in circles. Did they have the right to publish them? Yes. Does that automatically mean it was a good idea? No, not necessarily.
Lori and I were talking last night about the Muslim world getting used to this free speech idea. This whole controversy might just be a growing pain we have to go through as a planet with different cultures. I'm just not sure it gets us anywhere, though. The West excercised its right to free speech, the Muslim world responded with violence (I realize it's more complicated than that.) Are we better off now? Did we really learn anything? Are we more polarized?
I guess that's why I keep returning to *how* free speech is exercised. If it's used to be inflammatory and in the face of Muslim beliefs, won't that only serve to fuel their march toward fundamentalism, rejecting Western ideals? And yet we should not cower or be resigned to a dilution of our rights.
Re: fire in a crowded theater.
Obviously, the reason to bring this up is to show that your exercise of free speech can indeed depend on circumstances, and whether it endangers others.
The reason to bring up the "N-word" example is to show that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a good or responsible idea. It's also the closest I can come to imagining how a fundamentalist Muslim might react the cartoons. Jesus is not the right comparison, because he's just as much a part of popular Western culture as Santa Claus and we have a long history of joking about and parodying him.
It does not matter if the West begs for Islamic forgiveness. Islam, by nature, can get upset over whatever and whenever. You have to have the foreknowledge to know exactly what will or will not upset them. That is way beyond my paygrade.
I am so happy that the Danes had the vision to alert Europe of the "elephant in their china shop". These cartoons are a blessing and may save Europe from losing their cultures. Europe wake up..The Islamic reaction is what you needed to see. You have been asleep...Awake!
Post a Comment
<< Home