Cartoon Controversy: Freedom of Expression?
The Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” continues to receive complaints from Muslims around the world after its depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In Syria, the Denmark Embassy was torched by the furious Muslims –followed by an apology from the newspaper. Other countries in Europe however have published the same cartoons and make matter worse in the name of freedom of speech. Just what is freedom of speech, really?
Simon Jenkins of “Times Online” says:
A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.
Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.
Does it mean that the editor has no respect to the freedom of speech?
Every one is entitled to his opinion. The more readers an article has, the more reaction it would get. If it offended one person, the sole reader would protest—and it may not have any impact upon the author. If there were more, however, what would happen? A hundred may demonstrate in front of the newspaper’s office; a thousand may boycott the article; a million may ask the government to ban the entire newspaper; and more may cause violence. Is it wrong? It is absolutely wrong! But it is not a simple task to control those people. It would be much easier to prevent it from happening: pay a respect to others’ belief, that is.
Subhan Ahsan of “Desicritics” wrote:
With the publication of such culturally insensitive cartoons by the Danish newspaper, there is even less peace now in the already fragile world. To many these cartoons may not have been a big deal, and yes I would have agreed with you on this had this Danish Newspaper recognize their stupidity and apologized for the same. But this Danish Agency and the Denmark government chose to ignore the plea of ambassadors of many nations, as if entertaining their few thousand citizens with silly cartoons is more important than the feelings of millions of people that these ambassadors represented.
On the comment, he gave an example for the showcase of the Nazi Swastika symbol. In Germany and many other countries in Europe it is forbidden to show the sign because it may hurt certain community. This unwritten policy is also very much followed by mainstream news agencies, he said. So why not this care for cultural/religious sensitivity be taken for other communities?
Yes Government shouldn’t enforce censorship. But if an event has generated lots of publicity and which could possibly create violence, isn’t its Government’s responsibility to take actions to resolve the matter?
I was hoping you’d write an article about this issue, Ayu.
Editorial cartoonists who can’t find the fine line between smart satire and incendiary farce should find a different line of work.
These cartoons featured, among other things, the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, and many Muslims are still rioting after other newspapers reprinted the cartoons. The editors and those who reprinted them should have used common sense and axed the cartoons before they ever saw the light of day.
According to the AP, arrest warrants were issued Saturday for the editors-in-chief of the Jordanian newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. As a newspaper editor, I can’t imagine being arrested for something printed in my newspaper. The cartoonists themselves are in hiding.
Editorial cartoonists are the court jesters of the newspaper world. It’s their job to take shots at today’s hot topics with a healthy dose of clever insight. The cartoonists were within their rights, but were nowhere near clever.
Newspapers have the right to print what they want, but responsibility should come first. I make tough decisions every day about what to put in and what to take out of our paper. Portraying Prophet Muhammad’s face is blasphemous to Muslims. But drawing him in the caricature style favored by many editorial cartoonists is even worse. Even the standard stereotype of a bearded Muslim would have been far less offensive than a humorous sketch of a person who means so much to so many.
But is it an excuse to react violently? Hardly.
Most Christian Americans, if they saw a cartoon portraying Jesus doing something blasphemous, wouldn’t go nuts and burn down the newspaper office that ran the cartoon. Muslims are in the same boat, I think.
There are just as many radical Christians as there are radical Muslims. Radical Christian groups use terrorism, too, but they keep their violence at home by bombing abortion clinics and gay nightclubs.
Newspaper editors must remember that editorial cartoons should be scrutinized just as much as a front-page news story. Let artists be artists, but draw the line when the subject matter stretches into unwarranted blasphemy.
Comment by Aaron — February 6, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Well you’re an editor so you must know better than I do. To draw Muhammad, though, is different because in the religion it is simply forbidden. Muslims don’t draw Muhammad, so no matter in what form he was drawn, it would still trigger protests. Of course it is not an excuse for all the violence they caused. But now the timing also matters. Perhaps ten or twenty years ago people would only warn the newspaper–like they did when Prince Harry of Britain wore the Nazi uniform in some kind of party. But now, with the war on Iraq, terrorism and such…people are too sensitive, I’m afraid.
Comment by ayulittleone — February 6, 2006 @ 6:41 pm