Wow... DU is unreadable tonight

[scheming daemons]

You do not have the right to not be offended.

The First Amendment exists to protect the right to offend.





Get over it. If you dislike the New Yorker cover, then don't buy the New Yorker. Write an angry letter to their editor.

But get over yourselves.



The first response of the Obama campaign was unfortunate.... but hopefully they react better tomorrow after thinking about it.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I understand what the NYer was getting at, BUT: Images stick, become part of

the subconscious. The Obama camp has a right not to like it.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. They should've just laughed at it

and said "yeah, that's what they're trying to do."

I expect by tomorrow the campaign will respond appropriately.

[Youphemism]

17. Uh, no. They've already responded appropriately.

Whether or not you like the article, Obama's wife was portrayed as a frizzy-haired radical gun-toter, fist-bumping Obama as they burn flags together.

It was perfectly appropriate to release a measured response expressing disappointment.

Don't expect a flip-flop.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Nah

they'll say something more appropriate tomorrow.

[Youphemism]

26. Don't hold your breath. /nt

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Nah

they'll say something more appropriate tomorrow.

[EstimatedProphet]

75. I have to wonder if their response was appropriate after all

Not because they consider this an attack, but because this gives them the opportunity to publically address the smears and lies being generated by the rightwing. the NY cover gets it all in the open, where it can be talked about.

[jobycom]

2. There, that helped.

:rofl: At least as much as my kicking your thread helped.

[CreekDog]

3. excuse me, where is the constitutional issue here?

please show links to posts saying that the New Yorker's cover should be banned or made illegal.

just show one and i won't think you are a total rube.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. There's not one.

Some people just can't figure out that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee "freedom from anyone telling me what they think of my worthless opinion". There's a lot of that going around here, on a wide variety of subjects. They also think that a privately owned message board is a public forum, where their every utterance must be given a full airing.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. I think it's fortunate that you don't own this board, or the New Yorker. Although I bet

the New Yorker gives your concerns an airing, and this board allows me to say that I like the New Yorker's sense of humor.

I think the New Yorker burned the right wing real bad with that cover, and better than you ever will.

That's my opinion.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[last_texas_dem]

9. Do posts seeking to stop the cover from going to press count?

[CreekDog]

18. no because they are not doing it on any legal grounds

nor seeking legal grounds to do it.

[last_texas_dem]

24. Point taken

FWIW, though, when the FReeper-types were effectively able to force the Dixie Chicks off of country radio stations due to their disagreement with Natalie Maines's anti-Bush statements they weren't "doing it on any legal grounds" either.

[bowens43]

45. ONly if it's the government trying to do the preventing.

[scheming daemons]

14. Well....

Well... there's this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6495360&mesg_id=6495360

Which is calling for a barrage of letters and emails to the New Yorker asking them to pull their cover.



That's a call for censorship (no, not governmental censorship, I agree) but putting pressure on a publication to change its content because we find it "distasteful" goes against everything we're supposed to believe in.


You don't like it... don't buy it. Boycotts and calls for a political cartoonist to be fired (which we've seen tonight) are examples of threats and intimidation meant to squelch free speech.

[CreekDog]

19. not the same

sorry, no donut. :(

[Divine Discontent]

4. Actually, it's quite readable tonight - it's our first amendment rights in action

And if this cover photo, along with it's accompanying article that has nothing to do with the cartoon, upsets many people when they see it thanks to posts being made about it - good! It's because most of us are as disgusted as the Obama campaign is about it.

Just looking at it, you could see this on a right wing smear site! Us bloggers types are the only ones who will really get this - 3/4 or more of the country in seeing this on TV/print/computer will have the image further associate the Obamas with anti-white rhetoric, Muslim faith, and anti-Americanism.

As a 25 year subscriber to the NYer said, it only would be satire if it had McCain or some other GOPer imaging this scene and saying it's the fear they have of Obama getting into the WHITE House - instead, it looks like a hit piece, and with the story having nothing to do with the right wing lies, and instead talks about Obama's ambition and how he got where he did so quickly - it really is a poorly thought out issue when the article has NOTHING to do with the smears against Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. People DO have the right to be offended.

That does not infringe upon anyone's right to express themselves. Criticism does NOT equal censorship. Censure does NOT equal censorship. So far, I haven't seen anyone here call upon the government to shut down the New Yorker.

If the Obama campaign reacts in a way that doesn't coincide with the way you think they should, then that is YOUR problem. If you don't like the way that DU members are reacting to the cover, then stop reading DU for a while.

Get over yourself. Really.

[Divine Discontent]

6. ditto. eom

[Skittles]

23. you know it, catburgler

I'm getting more dispayed at DU by the minute

[NanceGreggs]

8. It has nothing to do with First Amendment rights ...

... or being offended.

It has everything to do with Mr. Low-Information-Voter seeing that cover at his local news-stand, and believing that the RW stereotype of Obama has been validated by a librul magazine.

"Even that New Yawker rag thinks this Obama feller is a terra-ist."

And don't even try to tell me - as many here have tonight - that because Joe Sixpack doesn't read the New Yorker, he'll never see that cover, and draw his own misguided conclusions.

[cliffordu]

12. That's right - I say it dominates the news for a week, maybe more and

then the cover itself is pinned to EVERY 'low information voter' website, office wall and factory bulletin board in creation.

Remember the Curoius George tee shirts?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Well, especially since FAUX News and the rest of the happy MSM mouthpieces will make sure he does

One can hope that they'll be at least somewhat shamed enough to realize the cartoon was a send-up on them. Sadly, I suspect it will be more ammunition. "OMG!! Even the liberal New Yorker suspects that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer with a militant Black supremacist wife!!1!"

It doesn't help that the article in the magazine is a smear job about what a "cutthroat" politician Obama is.

:banghead:

[NanceGreggs]

To be shamed enough to realize ...

... that the cartoon was a send-up of them, they would first have to acquire the intelligence to know what a send-up is. And I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

And therein lies the problem.

[depakid]

15. Sorry- but I'm going to tell you

Not even most educated and wealthy people bother with the New Yorker.

And, unlike other countres, the vast majority of America doesn't have newagents where people browse.

That's just reality, Ms. Greggs.

[NanceGreggs]

31. The New Yorker is prominently displayed ...

... on news-stands everywhere - right along with celebrity gossip rags, and tabloids declaring that the Bush twins were sired by aliens from a little-known planet bent on the destruction of civilization as we know it.

One needn't be "browsing" to see it.

[depakid]

36. Perhaps in Canada or parts of the Northeast, but not in the rest of the states

You'll be hard pressed to find it anywhere (as I mentioned, there aren't newsagents or "news stands" throughout America anymore). So you won't see the New Yorker or more worthy mags, other than maybe in a physicians' or some lawyers' offices or an airport.

Tabloids on the other hand, they're ubiquitous- though my guess is this drawing or some facsimile is too stupid even for them to take a bite.

[NanceGreggs]

37. I guess I've been away from home too long ...

Is it really the case that magazines like the New Yorker aren't widely circulated?

Even when living back home, I must admit that I always lived in urban areas - where everything was accessible (even though it might not be "popular" with the locals.)

That being said, I am still not happy with what the FAUX-News types will do with this - and we both know they'll make that cover infamous among people who'll never see it at the local news-stand.

[depakid]

40. Yes, it's true

In Australia, we have newsagents in pretty much every town where we can pick up and read all sorts of things- like American newstands used to be. When we're in the states these days, it's a different world.

Sometimes that's an interesting thing though- and we reckon crap like this may create quadaries like: "oh, gee the New Yorker said" but "someone told me that this guy writing in the New Yorker also said...."

Like Chess and Chinese Checkers, it pays to look a couple moves ahead.

[whopis01]

78. You either are not looking very hard

or are just making up stuff to try to make your point.

There are plenty of newstands throughout parts of the country other than the Northeast.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any bookstore that doesn't have a newstand either as a section or attached to it down here in the South.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Pretty low opinion of Joe Sixpack there.

[NanceGreggs]

41. I am speaking about the same Joe Sixpack ...

... who voted for Bush, twice. And yes, I DO have a low opinion of him, and his lack of desire to look beyond the cover of anything - a magazine, a book, a presidential candidate.

[TreasonousBastard]

47. So this guy's gonna see a magazine cover...

this week and that's gonna impress him enough he'll vote for McCain in November?

I figgers if he's that dumb, he's not gonna get to see the cover.

(But even dumber than him is inventing stuff like this to worry about.)

[NanceGreggs]

55. No, the cover isn't going to change anyone's vote ...

... but it does reinforce a very negative (and false) image of our candidate. Using this toon on the cover, where it will be seen by millions of people, was in very poor taste in the middle of campaigning season.

[John Q. Citizen]

69. Oh, I thought you meant the joe six packs on this board voting for Obama who assumed

the cover was an attack on Obama from the right wing media.

You know, the Obama supporters here who totally missed the satire because they are in worship/defend- our-leader mode.

[CTyankee]

46. "Even that New Yawker rag thinks this Obama feller is a terra-ist."

Nance,

Do you think that hypothetical guy you quote would EVER vote for Obama in the first place? We have the snowball in hell chances of getting that idiot to vote for Obama.

"Well, I was thinkin' bout votin' for that Obama guy, but since I saw that there cartoon, NO WAY will I vote for him!"

You see what I'm getting at?

Please.

[NanceGreggs]

50. No, I don't think that cover is going to change ...

... anyone's voting intentions.

I do, however, think it reinforces a very negative (and totally false) image of our candidate.

Putting that toon on the cover during campaigning season was, IMHO, in very poor taste on the New Yorker's part.

[CTyankee]

77. My point is that anybody who thinks the cartoon "reinforces" a negative image

of Obama already HAS a negative image of Obama. We're not going to change that, cartoon or no cartoon.

If you take the cartoon seriously (which I don't) I can certainly see how you would feel it is in poor taste. I see it as satire.

I've also noticed that Obama and his family has been getting lots of favorable press lately. Michelle was great on "The View," the kids are adorable and Obama has come out strongly on family values. This kind of coverage --of real people, not cartoon characters -- is all positive. People who say they don't "know" Obama are getting a better look so they can feel more comfortable with him. It's deplorable that people need the extra effort at comfort, but we all knew that going in, didn't we? Sadly, racism in the U.S. is the biggest problem facing the campaign, IMHO. People won't admit it, but there are some who just won't vote for a black person for President. We have to have faith that there are enough non-racists voters to make up for them.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Nice arrogant view of the LIV.

Wonder why people think liberals are elitist?

[KittyWampus]

53. And how exactly is not allowing Mr. Low Info Voter to see this helping him? You're his guardian?

you think pretending the smears don't exist is the right course?

This cover gives the Left an opportunity to confront the Right with their filthy smears and to reach out to Mr. Low Info Voter.

YOU and too many other DU'ers are happy to throw an opportunity away.

Because you're scared.

Because you're used to being reactionary.

Because you forgot how to be proactive.

Because you don't understand how this can help empower us to confront the very smears being portrayed.

[NanceGreggs]

63. Who's talking about "not allowing" anyone to see this?

I don't think this cover is going to change anyone's voting intentions.

I also don't think that anyone who has already bought into the RW stereotype of Obama as a "flag-burning Muslim" is going to look at that cover and think, "Oh, of course. This is meant to confront the smears I've been hearing."

Reinforcing a very negative and false image of our candidate, in the middle of campaigning season, was in very poor taste, IMHO. And yes, it WILL reinforce that image for many.

[Duder]

82. I agree...

At the conservative tabloid WorldNet poll about 60% agree with the statement:
"The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."

[John Q. Citizen]

68. It's a shame those people don't have the savoir faire you do Nance. Some people

are just superior to others when it comes to interpreting satire, don't you agree?

And we all know Democrats absolutely hate six packs. It's so low brow. We, the true liberals, are the only people capable of interpretation of a magazine cover. The hoi polloi just don't have the facility.

Luckily there are well guided people like you about to protect the misguided masses from their ignorant selves.

If only you could have gotten to the cartoonist and the editor before this happened so you could have explained the situation to them.

I mean, they live in New York and probably have no idea just how bad it is out here in the hinterland, like you do.

[NanceGreggs]

73. Yes, of course, that's exactly what I said ...

... only liberals are capable of interpreting a magazine cover.

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that;'s how it came accross to me. Of course

maybe my interpretation is faulty.

[tblue37]

72. He'll see it, because it will be reproduced

endlessly on RW sites and on RW T-shirts and bumper stickers.

[Growler]

79. Exactly! n/t

[vaberella]

11. I've been left speechless and almost numb by this cover. I understand satire, but I feel it's not

helping Obama's campaign.

[scheming daemons]

16. Since when is the New Yorker obligated to help Obama's campaign

I want Obama to win as much as anyone.... but we really need to grow a set here.


The outrage over this far exceeds rationality.

[Skittles]

28. grow a set of what? n/t

[scheming daemons]

30. Being that many here have shown themselves to be WAY too easily offended,

I'll refrain from answering you.

;-)

[Skittles]

32. I'm not an easily-offended kind of person

I just don't believe male body parts are required for courage

[scheming daemons]

34. So you lack the ability to discern sarcasm AND the ability to understand a metaphor....

Maybe James Carville can explain it to you.... after all, he said Hillary had three of them.

[Skittles]

38. James Carville is an idiot too n/t

[WinkyDink]

43. Since when can we not opine, even if you don't like it?

[Skittles]

22. better yet

how about you get over yourself? The First Amendment also protects the right so say something was a F***ING BAD IDEA

[scheming daemons]

27. Was it? Sales of this issue of the New Yorker will break records.....

From the standpoint of the magazine and it's desire to sell copies..... this was a BRILLIANT fucking idea.



Everybody in the country will be talking about the New Yorker tomorrow. FREE ADVERTISING.



The bigger shit storm this causes, the better it is for the magazine.



Bad fucking idea? Please.... the cartoonist and his editor will get a raise.


Their goal is to be provocative and draw people to their magazine. A+ in that respect.

[Skittles]

LOL

OK so their goal WASN'T to draw attention to the terrorist anti-American view a lot of the media has of Mr. Obama? That makes it even WORSE.

[scheming daemons]

33. The first step is getting people to pick up the magazine.....

Mission accomplished.


Then.... when they read the brilliant articles inside (usually).... they might increase their subscription base.



The New Yorker knows their audience. Upscale... highly intelligent... able to discern sarcasm. They catered to them and at the same time, generated incredible buzz for their publication.



They are high-fiving all around TNY's offices tonight..... thanks to the predictable over-reaction of those who lack in the sense of humor area.

[UrbScotty]

25. The Obama campaign has an OBLIGATION to dislike this kind of filth

They owe it to our society not to condone this against Obama, against McCain, or against SpongeBob.

[scheming daemons]

29. Jesus... more over the top-ness

Frankly.... a cartoon portraying SpongeBob as a terrorist would be funny as hell.... and would make an AWESOME t-shirt.

[UrbScotty]

76. It's over the top to be disgusted by the current state of our political situation?

[Goblinmonger]

52. Filth?

ZOMG. At least you're not overreacting.

[billyoc]

35. One mouse click per New Yorker thread.

including this one. :hi:

[WinkyDink]

42. So you're for freedom of expression, but some of us should just "get over it"? Think about that.

[crankychatter]

44. "I enjoy offending people that enjoy BEING offended" F. Zappa

I wouldn't deny either, their joy.

[datasuspect]

48. magazine publishing is a tough business

with the internet and all. people don't have to buy the magazine to get content. although i'm sure the new yorker has a good margin, they will see some revenue from this particular issue.

[KingFlorez]

49. And people have a right to voice their opinions

No one is stating they have a right not to be offended, what you need to remember is just like the New Yorker had a right to print this cover, people have a right to voice an opposing a opinion. It's a simple as that.

[bigwillq]

54. People have the right to be offended.

People have the right to write a letter or voice their displeasure with the piece.

However, some measures have been excessive...like people telling to stop the presses or to burn copies of the magazine.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

If you do buy it with the intent to burn it; don't. Recycle it.

I really like my First Amendment rights, so I will not tell a publication what they can or cannot print regardless if I find it offensive or not.
You can use your First Amendment rights in a better way then burning paper or telling them to stop the press because you don't agree with it.
There's a lot of things the media does that I don't agree with but they have every right to print what they want.

This story, in the long run, imo, will not be that big of a deal. Obama will be just fine. DU will give this story more play than the MSM does.

[dsomuah]

56. The first amendment also exists to protect our right to criticise the offender

Personally I could care less about the New Yorker article. The only people it appeals to are the racists inside McCain's base, and those people weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

But it's not like the Obama campaign is going to court to try and prevent the cover from coming out. They are simply criticizing it.

Anyone has the freedom of speech to say anything they like. But I also have the freedom of speech to say "That was lame"

[zippy890]

57. agree with you

rather brilliant satire

Michelle with an AK 47:rofl:

oh the fun we could have with this at the right-wings racist anti-Arab gunloving expense

if we could just let ourselves.

[medeak]

58. Don't du readers read the New Yorker?

Can't believe this is an issue here. Suppose I gave DU credit for not being limited people

[1776Forever]

59. My sister lives in TN & I cannot believe the crap she tells me about

the way people are in her small town. We grew up in a college town in Ohio so we are not prejudice in the least. She lives half way between Nashville and Memphis. She told me there was one AA family there and they keep to themselves. When Ford ran there were a few people who saw the light but most just turned their heads away and voted for the whitey, just because he was white. Sick! The New Yorker was only thinking of New Yorker's (or that savoir-faire type) when they allowed this crap to be put on their cover. This will go much further when it comes to people like those in TN or Kentucky, Ohio, and W.V. who don't have the same sense to know the meaning in this so called satirical piece.

This just didn't seem appropriate for the message it was trying to give. There are others ways to do that. I was especially dismayed at Michelle with the machine gun thrown over her shoulder. Her fist bump I am sure was a family tradition that showed togetherness and love. I don't get the satire of putting her in the picture. My call.

[burythehatchet]

60. What are doing posting on useless message boards, you ought to be running Obama's campaign

[scheming daemons]

61. I agree with you

;-)

[yellowcanine]

62. And Obama's campaign has the right to be offended.

[unblock]

64. when did this become a first amendment issue? or are you trying to shut down only one side of this?

i haven't seen anyone call for the government to stifly the new yorker, so it's not directly a first amendment issue.
i haven't even seen anyone as much as call for a boycott (other than your suggestion) or try to commercially shut down the new yorker, so it's not even informally a first amendment issue.
i've only seen people complain that it was in poor taste or pro-republican or offensive.

are you saying that the new yorker has a right to offend but that the offended people don't have a right to voice that they were offended?

get over it yourself. people have a right to complain.

[AllentownJake]

66. Everything has been a first amendment issue on here lately

Don't like my opinion on FISA, Bernie Mac, etc...well than your tyring to shut down my free speech and because I have principles or am offended by Bernie Mac or understand satire,(insert reason your holier than thou) I don't deserve critism for what I'm saying, People forget the second part of free speech is that when you decide to say something people have the right to respond.

Even if the response is I wish you would shut-up and stop whining. Its actually kind of comical.

[smoogatz]

67. But at the same time

there's satire that works and satire that doesn't, and nobody's trashing the first amendment by pointing that out. Bad decision by the New Yorker, bound to piss off a broad swath of their subscribers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. The highest form of Freedom of Speech,

is the freedom to criticize. The New Yorker has the right to criticize if they like, we have a right to criticize their lack of judgment.

It's good that we voice our opposition, because what they did was try to send a stealth Willie Horton message. And they got called out on it.

[cabbage08]

80. Kick

[Mister Ed]

81. Don't confuse denunciation with censorship. n/t