Cartoon Riots: Has The Liberal Line Been Crossed?

[phrenzy]

I think it has. One thing I hold dear and value more than anything is my ability to criticize, parody and satirize. I am even proud that we can have some hillbilly holding a 'GOD HATES FAGS' sign while two gay men can kiss each other right in front of them. To me, this is the fundamental building block to the further enlightenment of man. A war of ideas with only intellectual combat done. I do consider this freedom absolute and will die before I give it up.

I think that many fellow liberals, especially given the climate in the US right now, understand how important the protection of controversial and unpopular ideas actually is. That's why it is frightening to see hordes of religious nuts threatening (and carrying out) acts of violence based solely on a tasteless cartoon that offended their religious convictions.

This is one issue I know many liberals and left leaning people ARE willing to fight for. This is the first time I have actually felt a palpable threat to my "way of life" from the islamic fanatics in the middle east. It's one thing to have a beef with the military, or even our official government positions, but to commit violence and terror over a decision of a free and independent newspaper publishing things they didn't like is beyond all reason.

I really believe that the countries that value a free and independent press need to stand up and explain their position on this one. Let people understand that criticism and dialogue and humor, however tasteless SHOULD spark emotion. And that emotion should be channeled into intellectual energy to combat those offending ideas.

If the people offended are not willing to accept that, and insist on using violence to impose their restrictions on societies that do not allow those restrictions, than they will have to be fought. Preferably, with words.

[louis c]

1. I agree with you

Well said "phrenzy".

I believe in free speech, free expression, and a free press. Without it, there is no real democracy.

No one person and no group should be allowed to violently intimidate any speech, regardless of how much it may offend or how much they may disagree.

[louis c]

16. Here's what we're talking about

Here is a posting of the cartoons in question. At least we should know what we're talking about.



POST:
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

I personally think the one depicting Mohammad at the gates of heaven greeting the most recent suicide bombers with "Stop, Stop, we've run out of virgins" as absolutely to the point.

I understand the cartoonists' editorial position, and the absurdity of bombing in the name of religion.

I have alway quoted the New Testament of the Christian Bible to show the hypocrisy of war in the name of my religion.

A cartoon depicting Christ as telling Bush to no longer kill in his (Christ's) name would not offend me, and I would understand the editorial point. I would also understand if Christ was depicted in an Army uniform to show the hypocrisy of the war.

Muslims will have to learn that in free societies we have wars of words. If they can't respect that, too bad. I believe we should be sensitive to their culture in their country. By the same token, they should be sensitive to our culture in our country.

I hold the First Amendment as sacred as do they hold the Prophet Mohammad.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. well put. As unseemly, or difficult, supporting the right to parody,

criticize and satire are crucial, even if those comments are directed to us.

but remember, that in some houses, violence is considered a form of expression. Look at that gay-basher who just got caught out east. His website was sickening, yet very educational.

[cali]

3. This is really not all about cartoons

and for the thousandth time, responsible media has an obligation to be responsible about what they choose to print. Note, I said choose. I am not advocating turning away in any way from free speech. I don't want to see the NYT, WP or LAT publishing those cartoons. It's inflammatory. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[phrenzy]

4. That is apologist speak.

I never defended the DECISION of the papers to publish the offensive cartoons, I defended their RIGHT to.

[cali]

7. Explain how my post is apologist in nature

and I never said that you defended the decision of the papers.

[Burning Water]

14. I'll just jump right in here.

There is no constitutional obligation for the press to be 'responsible'. Read some of the pamphleteering of the American press just prior to the Revolutionary War.


Remember 'dissent' is an American value. What you 'dissent' about is irrelevant. And "freedom of expression" is a more or less universal Western one. Besides, we don't have to be sensitive to the expressions of those who call, say Jews, "pigs & dogs".

[kittynboi]

25. Irresponsible=freedom

Sometimes, we HAVE to be irresponsible and go against the grain.

What if the New York Times was "responsible" and did not print the news about the PEntagon Papers?

What if the Washington Post was also responsible and stopped Woodward and Bernsteins investigation?

No. The MORE contentuous an issue, the bigger the desire to self censor, the more obliged we are NOT to self censor.



People keep saying "what if it was gay bashing or blackface or etc."

This reminds me of an article I read just the other day. That gay bashing, or at least hostility,, is well and alive in the media. Gays are expected to share air time with discredited lunatics who claim they can "cure" us. Anti imigration forces like Buchanan and his ilk are regularly on CNN.

Veiled language, yes, but very often, these forms of speech ARE in the major press every day.

So don't try to tell me I would somehow have another opinion if it were a different type of hate speech, because those things are already everywhre in our media.

[Burning Water]

27. I'm not

sure here. The tone of your post makes me think that you are in disagreement with me, when what you said was "Sometimes, we HAVE to be irresponsible and go against the grain.". What I said was that the press has no obligation to be responsible. Seems to me we are on the same page.

I'm also not exactly sure what you mean about the "gay-bashing" and the "anti-immigration" forces. Free speech is free for them, too. In fact, how do we expose these ideas for the pernicious things that they are if they are not allowed to see the light of day, so that everybody can see the dirt that we see??

[kittynboi]

30. Accident.

I think
I might have accidentally responded to the wrong post.

[cali]

28. Faulty examples

I can easily argue that publishing the Pentagon Papers, Woodward and Bernstein's work and the NSA domestic spying issue, was the ONLY responsible action on the part of the newspapers.

Every single day, newspapers makes calls about what they will print. And their are a great many factors that they consider. By and large American newspapers have decided not to print the Danish Cartoons. Is this self-censorship or responsible journalism?

[kittynboi]

31. Fear.

""Is this self-censorship or responsible journalism?""

It's self censorship not from responsibility but fear of offending whiners.

All my life, when I've heard about anything that was offending someone, I've wanted to see it for myself to see what it was all about. I'm not joking when I say that it never occured to me before all of this that any other course of action was intellectually honest. Self conesprship is bad enough. But sheilding yourself from information..................that is, to me, so beyond the plae I can't even come up with an anology that does it (in)justice.

I actually SAW someone write that they had not seen the images and were glad they had not seen them, and had no desire to see them. And this was NOT a muslim.

[kittynboi]

23. Meaningless.

If there are certain things we know never to print for any reason at all, and censor oursleves, then we are not free. That is not a REAL choice on whether or not to print them.

[BushOut06]

24. So let me get this perfectly straight...

It's perfectly okay for newspapers to print cartoons that Christians might find highly offensive. After all, what are they going to do but bitch and moan, and threaten a boycott?

Why is it okay to offend one religious group but not another? Because of the differences in reactions?

[Ohio Joe]

5. Agreed

I start to feel that whomever is fanning these flames is doing so to provoke a response and i'm afraid that they may get it. I can only hope that this will cool down and there will be no more violence over this.

[greyl]

6. I'm on your side. :)

Interesting new article, somewhat related, in LBN:

Silencing dissent a growing trend
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2087836

[Warpy]

8. Put a "BAPTISTS ARE GOING TO HELL"

billboard on your front lawn and see what happens. People take this stuff very, very seriously. The more unprovable those beliefs are, the more seriously they're taken and the more vigorously (violently) they are defended.

Yeah, we should be able to criticize anything and anyone. However, the line seems to be drawn at public criticism of religious belief, whether by a satirical cartoon or an insulting sign or by a political speaker. Cross that line and you're asking for serious trouble, no matter what religious group you've offended.

Nothing looks sillier than a religious belief you don't share. Nothing will be more vehemently defended by the people who believe it, either. I just hope the defense is short lived and the violence minimal.

[phrenzy]

10. Protecting is not condoning.

If I did that, on my own property, I would expect (and have every right to expect) law enforcement to protect me from any physical violence.

[Burning Water]

15. The Baptists

would laugh at you. They KNOW they are going to Heaven, and that you probably aren't.

[Occulus]

22. which would, in actual practice, be the reverse

That's what these people don't get, and it's right out of their very own Bible: blessed are they that are persecuted in the name of God, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

[Burning Water]

26. Ah, but isn't

that what so many Fundies are claiming: that they are being persecuted? How do you suppose they got that idea?:)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Really, what do you think

would happen if you put that sign on your yard?

Roving gangs of Baptists with automatic rifles?

Nah. Somebody would probably eventually deface the sign. It might make the newspaper. Then there would be hail of letters to the editor defending your rights. Some would say you are right but didn't use good sense. And some would say you are a demon.

The whole thing would be debated, but you wouldn't worry about having your throat slit or being beheaded on the Interet.

[rman]

9. fine, as long as you don't advocate war

[phrenzy]

11. Some things are worth fighting for.

And this is one of them. I do not advocate 'war' I advocate defense from repressive religious fanaticism.

[rman]

13. i don't think a few burned embassies are worth a war

if you want tit-for-tat, burn a few of their embassies.

[Burning Water]

18. The Danes aren't

going to war with anybody. The French might.

[genie_weenie]

32. it's interesting to note

That many expect the Danes to turn the other cheek (or overlook the assault, if you prefer non-religious wording) after having been subjected to attacks and some DUers can't muster up the courage to demand the Muslim community look the other way or forgive...

War would be bad.


War is a racket. It always Has been. Smedly Butler USMC.

[warrior1]

12. would the depth of the

violence been as great if bush hadn't attach an unarmed islamic country? There would have been some violence I believe just not this intense.

[blurp]

19. Bush sucks, but you're too fixated on him.

First, Iraq was (I say WAS) the most secular country, besides Israel, in the middle east. Most Muslims disliked Saddam because his government was a secular one. He even backed it up with violence against more religious Muslim groups within the country. Saddam even had a picture Joseph Stalin on his wall. Good Muslims don't worship atheist dictators.

The attack on a weakly Muslim Iraq has very little to do with Muslims getting upset at Denmark for publishing cartoons.

In trying to make everything Bush's fault you're blinding yourself to a lot of other things that are responsible for Muslim hostility.

P.S. Bush sucks.

[Shipwack]

20. I think that there is more here than -anyone- is talking about.

There's more factors behind the riots than just some tasteless cartoons. I skim some Middle Eastern blogs (mostly Bahrain), and the general consensus seems to be annoyance and shame at these rioters. The bloggers aren't happy about the cartoons, but basically they feel that the Prophet Muhammad is too great to be harmed by what some idiotic cartoonist draws. However, bloggers aren't a good representation of what the man in the souk is thinking. They tend to be better educated and have a better income.

There's a growing unemployment problem in the Mid-East right now. I haven't seen any reports on the matter, but I bet that most of the rioters have economic problems they can't do anything about, so they latch onto this "insult". This anger is utilized by those in power, for their own purposes. A thousand muslims protested in London, but all they did was carry signs. Would it be safe to infer that they have a better quality of life than their brothers and sisters in faith that live in the Middle East?

Right now, the Arab world should be asking Saudi Arabia why they allowed a ferry that transported hundreds of lower income workers to operate in an unsafe manner... but the Saudis are a 500 pound gorilla that they don't want to antagonize.

[kittynboi]

21. I'm with you.

If only the Illuminati were real. THEY could handle this. ^_~

But seriously. I concur.

[HereSince1628]

29. This doesn't generally cross an ideological line for me

though your understanding of liberal ideology may be different than mine.

I consider the hallmarks of liberal ideology to be the concepts of broadmindedness and tolerance.

In general, broadmindedness would suggest that we be willing to view this from a perspective other than our own. Tolerance would suggest that I put up with something or constrain my behavior even if I don't necessarily agree with something.

Fundamentalist reactions are likely to be different from liberal reactions. The reaction of the powerful different from the reactions of the powerless. It seems to me that is something that a broadminded liberal reader, or cartoonist would get. And that they would take into account when trying to balance the general notion of freedom of expression with the ideologically more liberal notion of freedom from insulting expression.

Is testing "their" (fill in any other ethnic, socio-economic or religious others) intolerance really a component of liberal ideology?

I don't think so.

Consider the level of ethnic/religious volatility in Europe exposed by last year's rioting in France. Does the prodding of an unhealed social conflict with ethnic cartoons somehow fulfil liberal ideology?

I don't think so.

[phrenzy]

33. Once again..

Defending the RIGHT is not condoning the CONTENT.