The Power of Cartoons

Navigation

User login

Online users

JstPlnOnry
einmaleins
Rick
The Original Yoda
jusbytheclown
Berd
Guglielmo

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

The Power of Cartoons

Submitted by stevenl on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 4:49am.

Here is what The Olympian has stated as policy regarding reprinting the graphics from the Danish cartoon controversy:

"The Olympian will not publish these cartoons because the images are unnecessarily inflammatory and insensitive. The newspaper has published reports on the issue from the news services we subscribe to. Those stories have described the cartoons sufficiently for readers to understand the issues."

So what do OlyBloggers think about this?

stevenl's blog
Login or register to post comments

The Olympian should stop prin

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 7:07am.

The Olympian should stop printing the First Amendment on their opinion page.

EDIT: According to the EU Observer, European vice-commissioner Franco Frattini told Britain's Telegraph "journalists and media chiefs should be aware of their responsibility when exercising their right of freedom of expression, and that they should voluntarily agree to self-regulation in cases where sensitive religious issues are involved."

Full Article

So basically I can't expect the newspaper to cover, say, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code because it's a "case where sensitive religious issues are involved."

I don't know about you but, I don't want my media being white-washed.

Most people are skeptical of mainstream media as it is (whether you believe there's a slant to the left or that it's too controlled by corporate enterprises). The last thing they need to do, especially when they're in competition with the internet where the viewing public is going to find it anyway, is to start backing off of events for fear of not only offending people but because they can't control themselves.

Cartoons are a powerful way t

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 7:44am.

Cartoons are a powerful way to encapsulate issues and ideas in a humorous manner. But the right to free speech doesn't include the right to be a jerk. Just like with the Nazis, we defend their right to speak, but wish they wouldn't say stupid, hateful, ugly things.

What's happening now is not entirely the fault of the cartoonists or their editors. I gather there has also been some funny business with the Danish muslims inlcuding several far more inflamatory cartoons with their report, cartoons that were never published by a Danish newspaper.

Rick: What's happening now is

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 8:37am.

Rick: What's happening now is not entirely the fault of the cartoonists or their editors.

The Fire: I wouldn't put any blame on how people react to a cartoon.

As I mentioned in the other thread about this issue, Kanye West is depicted on the cover of the most recent Rolling Stone as Jesus Christ.

I've yet to see an American embassy burn to the ground because of it.

Thankfully, American Muslims appear to be far more civilized than their counterparts.

It's times like this where I think Kurtz is right.

The thing that strikes me abo

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 9:47am.

The thing that strikes me about this, is that the cartoons were run waaaaay back in August originally. No hub-bub started until a Muslim group re-released them to their base and added other cartoons that were even more inflammatory. It seems like a case of a radical group trying to stir up trouble (Pat Robertson anyone?)

Pat Robertson couldn't even g

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 10:02am.

Pat Robertson couldn't even get the most fundamental group of Christians to start rioting across multiple countries.

This is way out of his league. To be quite honest, I really didn't think this was possible. A cartoon. I don't care what the cartoon had, if you start burning down buildings, cutting trade ties, and incite riots which result in multiple deaths, there's something wrong with you.

I was making a comparison of

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 10:15am.

I was making a comparison of the tactics, not the results.

The problem with this cartoon

Submitted by eelcozy on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 1:25pm.

The problem with this cartoon isn't it's content, but it's LACK of content.

A political cartoon is supposed to make you think. Whether it's more comical or satirical can vary, but they usually have an actual point. Instead, here we have a cartoon that does nothing more than play on a western stereotype of Muslims.

Those who are violently protesting (which, I read somewhere, was mostly due to Muslim profits getting their supporters riled up) are pretty much only confirming the stereotype the article is trying to convey.

You don't see christians killing people when Christ is portrayed in such a way. Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) is a pretty good example.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE To be u

Submitted by thespartantruth on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 11:50pm.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE To be ugly is unproductive. Truth is brutal, but it is not petty. If you feel that you do not want to print offensive material, you have the right to not print. However, this does not get to the moral justification of these cartoons that so have inflamed Muslims. Some are arguing that the violent response to the cartoons is coming from Muslim radicals, and not the moderates. Whatever the case may be, many would agree that there is a radical element in the Muslim community. One characteristic that leaves many Americans uncomfortable about radicalism is its willingess to do whatever it takes. What I have enjoyed so far, is the defense for the cartoons, no matter how vile it may be. The people I have heard, particularly in the media, point to freedom of speech and its virtues. In this camp, some have said that it will help generate debate and a dialogue between Western nations and the Muslim nations. Also, some have pointed to the cartoon and see it as triumphant symbol of liberalism. For these people, speech can be dished and shaped and it is all glorious, no matter the shape and intent of the speech. Another thing is that many are also declaring double standards. Apparently, there is a bar that has already been crossed in terms of expression. Jesus Christ, as a sacred, religious symbol, has certainly been defiled. No doubt such images of Jesus Christ offends Christians and many who also see it as a grave disrespect. The mark difference however is the response. No flag burning Christians storming foreign embassies. Not yet. I wish I could go on, however, let me leave by reminding of us where hate can go. In the Weimar republic, there existed two groups among many. Both of these groups had an agenda that go against today's liberal ideals. The two groups were communism and Nazism. There were a few who became concerned about these two groups. They asked that these two groups be controlled, and some even said they should be eliminated for the sake of order. However, they were not. Their messages were tolerated.

I think that the first amendm

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 02/09/2006 - 11:47pm.

I think that the first amendment only protects our rights to freedom of speech and expression as they relate to political speech.

Printing an inflammatory, derogatory and crude cartoon that debases the Prophet of a major world religion is insensitive, needless and tactless.

How would Christians like to see a cartoon of Jesus getting his head dunked in a dirty toilet?

Your vision of the First Amen

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 5:54am.

Your vision of the First Amendment is extremely narrow, Rob.

The First Amendment was designed to protect, in short, any type of speech and assembly.

For instance, child pornography. The reason this type of "speech" (in the loosest of terms) is unprotected is because one of the parties involved is not a willing participant, thus one person is extending their will onto another person, requiring government intervention.

On the other hand, publications such as Playboy and Hustler are protected because all parties involved have willingly agreed to participate, thus there is no reason for government to intervene.

If indeed the First Amendment only protected "freedom of speech and expression as they relate to political speech," we would all be pretty screwed right about now.

As far as printing an "inflammatory, derogatory and crude cartoon," nowhere are we protected from being offended.

As far as Christians seeing "a cartoon of Jesus getting his head dunked in a dirty toilet," I'm going to say they wouldn't be happy but I doubt the US would stop trading with Islamic countries and, maybe I'm wrong (sarcasm), but I doubt any embassies would be burned to the ground.

Well said TFI, our libertaria

Submitted by stevenl on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 6:58am.

Well said TFI, our libertarian strands run parallel on the 1st Amendment. Better mark this day down on the calendar! I suspect the American print newpapers not publishing the cartoons is based more on fear than cultural sensitivity, which tells me the terrorists have scored a victory of sorts. For a very local OlyBlog example of freedom of speech vs. blasphemy, see meeples blog of Dec. 14, 2005.

I'm glad we agree.I'm going t

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 8:23am.

I'm glad we agree.

I'm going to have to kill the moment and say I disagree, though, on the decision by American newspapers "not publishing the cartoons" based on fear rather than cultural sensitivity.

In Europe we're already beginning to see a backlash against free speech (which was already leading the way in heavily regulating speech such as banning Nazi material and enacting "hate speech" laws).

The BBC:

The Swedish government has moved to shut down the website of a far-right political party's newspaper over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The site's host, Levonline, pulled the plug on the website of the Swedish Democrats' SD-Kuriren newspaper after consulting with the government.

I don't think any American newspaper can legitimately claim they are in fear of the government shutting down their operation.

On the other end of the spectrum, Islamic countries are taking it a step further than the Europeans.

Khaleej Times:

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia declared the possession of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad illegal as thousands of Muslims marched on Friday in the country’s biggest demonstration against the caricatures, calling for the destruction of Denmark, Israel and the US.

That's right, the mere possession of a depiction of Muhammad is now a crime in Malaysia.

The Olympian's statement on the subject made it sound like they're doing us a service as to not incite any rioting in Olympia (or Thurston, Lewis, and Gray's county). If the US was having the same experience as the rest of the world with violent protesting, I would disagree with their stance but could at least see their point.

Fortunately, we've been spared from such a violent reaction. Then again, per NPR, the Philadelphia Inquirer is the only major media outlet to re-print the picture (which, to me, is actually kind of disturbing they're the only one which has chosen to do so).

It is my belief that American media has caved to cultural sensitivity rather than any legitimate fear of violence.

Yeah, you're right, now that

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 8:58am.

Yeah, you're right, now that I read it again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

TFI: The American media has c

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 12:31pm.

TFI: The American media has caved to cultural sensitivity rather than...

Let me reframe that for you: The American media has practiced cultural sensitivity...

I don't see why printing the

Submitted by chaney on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 3:22pm.

I don't see why printing the cartoons themselves is so important. I think everyone's seen hateful stereotypes before. As for all the "Oh, Christians would never do this, the heathens, blah blah blah..." comments... If the Ottoman Empire had divided Europe up after WWI along whatever lines it liked, large numbers of Christians were living in poverty, European countries were periodically being invaded and occupied by Muslim countries, and the Muslims already had a history of conquering entire continents and races (like, say, North America)... THEN how would Christians react to pictures of Christ's head being dunked in a toilet?

By answering "the same," I th

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 3:59pm.

By answering "the same," I think you're basically saying that at the bottom of the social structure, there are always going to be "savages."

New York Observer:New York Pr

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/10/2006 - 7:04pm.

New York Observer:

New York Press editors resigned en masse today in a dispute with top management over reproducing the riot-linked Danish Mohmammed cartoons. Editor in chief Harry Siegel's explanation follows:
New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization.

You can find the full letter at the provided link.

According to Wikipedia, here

Submitted by stevenl on Sat, 02/11/2006 - 6:29pm.

According to Wikipedia, here are the U.S. papers that have reprinted some of the cartoons. None of them have reprinted the entire set.

Valley Mirror, Sacramento
Salient, Harvard U.
New York Sun
Riverside Press Enterprise, California
Austin-American Statesman
Philadelphia Inquirer
Denver Rocky Mountain News
Victorville Daily Press, California
The Stranger, Seattle
Daily Illini

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: