NAACP calls for firing of N.Y. Post cartoonist

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: CNN.COM

Leaders of the NAACP on Saturday called for the firing of the New York Post cartoonist whose drawing lampooning the federal stimulus bill has drawn charges that it's racist and encourages violence toward President Obama.

Speaking at the civil rights group's annual meeting in New York, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said that if Sean Delonas is not fired, the group will call for protests of the paper and Fox television affiliates, which are owned by Post parent company News Corp.

"There is consensus that if the Post does not ... get rid of the journalists who are responsible for this bit of hate speech seeing the light of day, that we will move this from a local, regional issue to a very national issue," Jealous said.

The group also called for the cartoonist's editor to be fired.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/21/chimp.cartoon/index.html

---

I would like to know why the secret service is sitting on their collective hands. This is a lot worse than racism or 'bad taste'.

[EFerrari]

1. Good!

:kick:

[Cha]

2. This is really good news!

This will not be tolerated. Nice try at getting your hate on, sean delonas, but it backfired, big time.

[47of74]

3. The Secret Service needs to take a hard line with these things

No matter who it is saying such things.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Oh.... there go those wacky oversensitive negroes again...

You see? This is why only white folks are to be allowed to decide what is racist and what is not.

[bluestateguy]

5. The cartoonist should not be fired

He should be thrown in jail.

[Scandalous]

17. Great idea...

and while you're at it, make sure the cell is big enough to hold you, me, and half of the DU members. God knows the things we've posted about Bu$h and his cronies over the past 8 years would put us in the slammer, given your standards of criminal conduct.

And never mind the fact that it is a stretch to suggest that the author was calling for the murder of Obama. My interpretation of the cartoon is as follows: "The stimulus bill is so bad, it must have been written by this chimpanzee. Now that we killed the chimp, who will finish the bill?" Due to the stupidity of the cartoonist/editor, the door was left open to interpret the cartoon as a threat against Obama. I believe that is their only fault. Just my opinion.

[Beartracks]

18. I agree about your cartoon interpretation

"The stimulus bill is so screwy, it must have been written by a monkey." That's what I got out of it. Never thought about it being racist until I read something here about people complaining. And despite such complaints, I still don't believe it was intended as such.

On a related thought... Remember the old saying that, given an infinite amount of time at a typewriter, a monkey would eventually bang out Shakespeare? I suppose that, in a month's time, a monkey could perhaps crank out a stimulus bill such as the one alluded to in this cartoon!

[Gore1FL]

36. Spot on analysis

The cartoonist was stupid to not be sensitive to how it could be interpreted.

If there wasn't a crazed animal shot in CT, the outrage would make a bit more sense.

The intent was clearly taking a current event and twisting it into a political statement. No more. No less.

[toopers]

61. Sorry, the cartoonist was not stupid . . .

Sharpton is a proven liar and race baiting, media hound who does more harm to race relations.

[scarface2004]

6. put the cartoonist in the cage with the chimps!

see if he makes it out, freakin asshole!!

[Lint Head]

7. He could do website graphics for the KKK.

It's not like he wouldn't be able to find work.
:dem:

[goclark]

8. Benjamin Jealous is correct to put pressure on this issue

and as you can tell from his resume -- he is serious and the perfect person for the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jealous

[Swagman]

9. note: NYP editor Australian Col Allan is Murdoch's favourite editor

Col Allan tried to embarass current PM Kevin Rudd (a commited but GENUINE Christian compassionate conservative).When Rudd was Opposition Leader and on a visit to New York, Allan took Rudd to a topless go-go bar. Rudd left immediately when he realised where he was but Col Allan released the story during the general election to aid Murdoch favourite John Howard.

It backfired badly- Rudd's approval ratings soared even higher !:rofl:

[4edwards]

10. The Cartoon is Hate Speech

Way more upsetting than the blatant racism in the cartoon, was the violence. The violence depicted was horrible. I can hardly believe this got by ANY editor. Can you imagine if someone had put a cartoon like this about Bush in print? I think the NAACP is completely correct about this. This should be called out. There was nothing satirical or funny about it. It was racist violence depicted and it was very stupid and frightening.

[Gore1FL]

38. There was a current even tthat involved the shhoting of a crazed chimp in CT

The cartoonist was an idiot for not taking into account that people seeing the cartoon who had not heard of that specific incident would see it as something different than it was, but while all racists are idiots, not all idiots are racists.

All political cartoons use metaphors of current events to make political statements. This one was simply very easy to misinterpret as the current event it represented was not particularly front page news.

In this cartoon the shot monkey actually represented the CT monkey that was shot. The violence it depicted had actually already happened. It was not a call to action.

[NBachers]

11. Retaliate Immediately to Abuse by Republican Thugs

[Swagman]

12. the editor should go as well

see my post on COL ALLAN-editor of the New York Post. Allan is a control freak and a right wing nutter and Murdoch's chosen henchman.

NOTHING appears in the Post without Allan's approval. He is a very smart man-he knew the implications of the cartoon. By proxy-this is also a Rupert Murdoch statement. Murdoch is a liar and claims editors have editorial freedom-but only as long as they push Mudoch's views.

[Liberty Belle]

13. How about firing the editor, too, who agreed to run that racist trash?

[MrsBrady]

14. actually, personally I would like the person who "approved" the cartoon be fired

the artist can do whatever they want.

To me the copy editor or whomever decided it was OK is really the one responsible.

Anyone that has any kind of basic understanding of American culture understands that to
1) Compare a black man to an ape is racist (as that has been a tool of racism here forever)
2) that implying of shooting the president is, um, not a good idea. (understatement for sarcastic effect)

I am quite sure that whomever approved the cartoon to run is aware of US cultural racist "no-nos".
So I say fire the one that approved the cartoon to run.
I mean, you can't tell me the editor or the "suit" that approved this didn't know. No way.
You mean to tell me they couldn't have said to the artist, "go back and give me something that wouldn't imply racism or assassination and then we'll talk."
BS.

[1]

15. nope. that would be the slipperiest of all slippery slopes...

so we let subjective outcry define the first amendment now? i don't think so...

[EFerrari]

19. There is no 1st Amendment right to spew racism and get paid for it.

This "artist" can say anything he wants. The public can ask for his head because the public also has 1st Amendment rights.

[No Elephants]

22. First Amendment? That proscribes only government action, not consumer action.

[LanternWaste]

27. Popular opinion and the marketplace of ideas

Popular opinion and the marketplace of ideas are not part and parcel of the first amendment-- rather, they are both strengthened by it.

Unless the government itself is censoring the cartoon and bringing charges, the fist amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. As it stands, the market place and people's voices will determine does or does not fit within the mores of this culture.

[1]

37. you guys are right. i was using the 1st amendment in the same loosey goosey way as...

those that object to prayer at an inauguration.

"separation of church and state." "freedom of the press." both just sloppy interpretations of the 1st amendment.

unless the government itself is establishing law about the prayer/cartoon, the fist amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this or that.

that said, the post will not succumb to this subjective outrage and fire the cartoonist. eye of the beholder and all. that would open the post up to firing anyone that someone finds objectionable.

no newspaper would do that. hell, in some sick way i am sure the post is digging all of this controversy.

[LanternWaste]

47. Too clever by half

Too clever by half, and a great style in your tap-dancing to boot.

[Zhade]

49. What fucking horseshit.

NT!

[smiley]

16. this cartoon may have had racist overtones...

but I just don't get the argument that it is inciting violence. Many who have posted to this thread and other threads devoted to this subject definitely do. I disagree

With that being said I feel the need to say that at the most I found this cartoon to be extremely unfunny. Certainly I see the racism in its content, but that wasn't my first thought. I found it particularly offensive because of the narrative directed towards the tragic event which inspired the cartoon - not the stimulus bill and its author, but of the tragic mauling of a woman and the death of a beautiful primate.


However, as much as I feel that the NY post should have never printed this cartoon, I still feel strongly in the freedom of speech and an artists right to express themselves. There is a lot of artwork out there that could inspire someone to feel the need to commit violence against another. This cartoon does not seem to fit the bill (IMO), and in no way should involve the secret service in the investigation of it's contents. Art is art - even if you don't agree with it.

[paulsby]

20. assume for the sake of argument

that this artwork COULD inspire someone to feel the need to commit violence against another (you said it doesn't fit the bill).

it still, as far as legality does not matter.

speech that could inspire someone to feel the need to commit violence against another does not meet the criminal standards of "true threat" "incitement" etc. or any other free speech exceptions.

an excellent argument is that this cartoonist should be fired. but a piece of speech (or artwork... which is speech) that COULD incite someone to commit violence is not criminal.

even if it DID incite someone to commit violence, it's still not a crime.

we could get into a long discussion about the case law, if that's desired.

[smiley]

31. Are we making the same point?

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but all I was trying to say is that I don't see how this cartoon is inciting violence. Certainly it is a violent depiction. I just don't feel it is inciting violence.

Plus, I never said it was a crime. In fact I thought I was trying to say the artist was protected by free speech and he has every right to draw whatever he wants. Although, I didn't mention it in my previous post, the proper thing for the paper to do at this point would be for them to stop using this artist's work altogether and to terminate the editor who approved the cartoon.

:)

[paulsby]

40. i think we are

that the paper should consider firing this guy.

my point was that this article COULD incite somebody to commit violence (you claimed it did not meet that standard), but that that does NOT make it illegal. that's not (thankfully ) the standard.

if that was the case, then (for example), the clash releasing the song "white riot" would be illegal.

or ice-t releasing "cop killer"

And any # of speeches by angela davis, ann coulter, etc. should be criminalized.

i was saying that even if you DO accept (which you apparently don't, at least as i understand what you wrote), that this cartoon COULD incite violence, that is still not a crime.

look at the mohammed cartoon scandal.

it is clear that those cartoons could incite violence. heck, they DID incite violence. but they are still constitutionally protected.

[smiley]

44. But we as a country....

seem to agree about the mohammed cartoon scandals. essentially: " what's the big deal"

Why is this anything different? The Mohammed cartoon riots are just as ridiculous as those who are are calling for the head of this cartoonist. It's different subject matter, but in many ways the same.

You mention the Clash and Ice-T. I get what you're saying but I grew up in the era of both those songs. I didn't get the inciting violence then and I don't get the argument now.

Honestly - I think we agree on everything said. I just personally do not see how this cartoon is inciting violence. I see how it can be seen as racist. But personally, that was not my first interpretation.

[paulsby]

45. my key was the word "could".

iow, that some people (wrongly) claim that if this cartoon COULD incite violence, that it is therefore illegal.

not true. legally speaking.

you, otoh, seem to deny that it COULD (again the word "could" is what i keyed off of) incite violence.

clearly, in my opinion :), this cartoon COULD incite violence. so could lots of forms of legal speech, and i listed some examples.

as another example, if a guy who firebombed a slaughterhouse because he listened to "meat is murder" by the smiths and thus concluded that meat IS murder, and therefore it is justifiable defense of others (in this case - cows being murderred) to stop the carnage, it would not therefore follow that "meat is murder" is criminal speech under our laws.

iow, there is no results based analysis (iow, just because an article/cartoon incited violence is not sufficient to say it's not constitutionally protected), nor is there a prohibition on speech that COULD (iow it's a possibility) incite violence.

the law, based on our first amendment is MUCH more strict.

we could give a million examples, but the point is plenty of legal speech COULD incite violence. that alone does not make it criminal.

that's all i;m sayin'

iow, assume arguendo that the cartoon could incite violence.

still doesn't make it illegal.

[smiley]

53. No, I said I felt it doesn't incite violence

I never said it "couldn't".

In this day in age anything is possible.

However I never said it should be illegal. In fact I said the exact opposite. So what are we talking about here?

[LanternWaste]

28. Regardless of whether the cartoonist is fired or not...

Regardless of whether the cartoonist is fired or not, no one is preventing him from continuing to do what he does-- even if you don't agree with it.

[smiley]

32. I'm not following you here.

The point I was trying to make was that I didn't see how this was inciting violence. Certainly I can see how this can be construed as racist. I just don't see anyone wanting to go out and commit violence against Obama because of it.

Furthermore, I'm assuming the cartoonist is not an employee of the paper, but rather a syndicated cartoonist. He has every right to draw what he wants. If anything the editor should be getting the axe for this one.

[NeoConsSuck]

33. So the NY Post wouldn't have a problem with this:

I mail the NY Post a cartoon. It is a body lying on the sidewalk covered with a white sheet. Standing next to the body is Allan and Murdock. Below them is the caption: We'll have to find someone else to write the next cartoon.

That's not inciting violence, correct? The person under the sheet might have had a heart attack and died. I'm sure the FBI and NY's finest wouldn't care. And if you really believe that I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

[smiley]

41. With all due respect...

I am still not following you.

[U4ikLefty]

52. Ahh, the "play-stupid" technique...you ARE playing, right??? n/t

[smiley]

55. No I'm not playing stupid

I still don't see how this incites someone to go out and commit violence.

Somehow, I feel you just want to argue.

[smiley]

57. Honestly, I do not follow your analogy

I've read your post over and over and still find nothing to me that is inciting violence.

How much is that swampland by the way?

[Zhade]

29. MAY? Are you fucking blind?

NT!

[smiley]

30. yes, may...

and no I'm not blind. I'm an artist and a cartoonist and I feel that it is an image that is up for interpretation.

However, I do see how someone (obviously you) sees this as entirely racist.

To bad you have the mouth of a sailor and the manners of a jackass or we could have possibly discussed this in more detail.

[EFerrari]

34. As an artist and someone who only aspires to the mouth of a sailor

and the manners of a jackass, I've heard this kind of "open mindedness" somewhere before.

David Duke, is that you?

[smiley]

43. Is that question directed to me?

or the person who previously posted to me?
Because honestly, if your asking me this - then you're 100% barking up the wrong tree.

Exactly what open mindedness in my post are you questioning? I'm only questioning the use of language by those who felt the need to respond to my first post. What was so wrong with that? I'm only asking for civility.


On edit:

I am so looking forward to this response. Me - David Duke - that's f'n hillarious!!!!! Wait til I tell my Mom.

[Gore1FL]

39. I must be.

Did the cops who shot the crazed chimp in CT have a racist intent? Is reporting on the incident in the form of a cartoon inherently racist? Is suggesting the stimulous bill was so bad that it must have been written by the crazed chimp that was shot in CT have a racists intent?

Or could it be that many who were unaware of the actual killing of a crazed chimp in CT wasn't wide spread news enough that people who hadn't heard about it simply jumped to conclusions?

The artist should have taken into account that those who did not hear about the CT event could easily misinterpret the cartoon. Therein lies the failure of the artist.

[smiley]

42. removed for stupidity..

thought this post was directed towards me.
:(

[smiley]

58. Bravo brother!

You have said it perfectly.

I guess I've done a horrible job of explaining myself since I seem to be getting attacked as a racist by a few here.

Thank you for shedding the light a little bit.

:toast:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

23. Got decaf?

[Jamastiene]

25. Did you mean to add a sarcasm tag and forget it?

:wow:

[Jamastiene]

24. I agree with the NAACP on this AND

I think criminal charges or at least an investigation by the Secret Service are in order as well.

[junior college]

26. holy crap!

[askeptic]

35. So why was portraying Bush as a chimp OK?

I strongly disagree that this was hate speech. It is a take-off on the news story where the chimp went berserk and was shot by police. I think NAACP is WAY too sensitive and reading racism into any criticism. While I don't agree with the cartoonist's sentiments, he and the Post have every right in the world to publish it, and I'm ashamed of those on this board who are essentially advocating censorship.

[smiley]

46. exactly correct and well said...

they're either too sensitive, or just straight up hypocrites.

[U4ikLefty]

51. Yeah, they are too sensitive...or you are to ingorant to see the racism

I leave it up to others to decide.

[smiley]

54. I beg to differ

If you had bothered to read any one of my posts in full you would have seen that I have said over and over that I can see how someone could view this as racist.

My point was, that from my first viewing of the cartoon, racism was not my initial response.

[junior college]

50. You can print as many pictures of black people being portrayed as monkeys as you want

but it is a very racist thing to do. If you are a racist I can understand why you would not be sensitive to it.

[askeptic]

59. You have no right to accuse anyone

But, of course, reasoned arguments are probably beyond your comprehension

[slackmaster]

56. Many of us never thought it was OK

In both cases, it amounts to poking fun at a human because of physical traits over which they have no control.

The only real difference with Obama is the undeniable history of racist comparisons of black people with apes or monkeys.

[Adelox]

48. Isn't this TREASON?

Isn't this TREASON!!?

Surely, they should not allow this cartoon's obvious threat to be minimized to a simple expression of the 1st amendment!

If the Shot ape symbolizes President Obama, as a sub-human, who has overstepped his "place;" then The Police Officers must represent republican racists, who are calling for Obama’s assassination.

John McCain certainly jumped up and called a press conference to criticize the stimulus package and separate himself from President Obama; after Obama's secret meeting with republicans.

The NAACP must take a harder stand, than just the termination and apology of these journalists.

These journalists should serve jail time.

I wonder if the NY post was rejected from receiving stimulus money.

[askeptic]

60. Man! Whackjobs as bad as the Muslims against Muhammad cartoons

The people who are calling for censorship, firings and retaliation are just whackjobs in my book. Forgetting about the news story of the shot chimp and trying to make it Obama is completely off the mark. I find it hard to believe I'm seeing this kind of intolerance and jumping to conclusions by what I thought were intelligent people.