So let's say some German cartoonist lampoons Jesus and American fundies...

[Yollam]

You know, Jesus is holding an uzi, driving a tank with an American flag on it into Baghdad or whatever. Maybe a couple others lampooning the "Scarlet Letter"/"Crucible" mentality of US Fundies. Then a bunch of fundies go bananas and start attacking the Dutch embassies.

How many DUers make the CARTOONIST out to be the villain in that case?

It just seems like a bit of a double standard to me - a lot of posters here and elsewhere have told me "Yeah, we need freedom of speech, but they shouldn't publish that because they know that muslims will react violently". Or "They are from a totally different culture, where religion seeps into every aspect of life" But doesn't that describe US fundies and their totally-different-from-normal-people's culture?

(I hesitated to post this because there is a part of me that thinks a lot or all of those "muslim" protesters were actually CIA agents or RW political operatives of some kind, but this post is predicated on the possibility that they were for real.)


ON EDIT:

Oh Jeebus. I just noticed a poll with almost the exact same wording as this one. Sorry for being an unwitting copycat.

[BillZBubb]

1. Nice STRAWMAN!

How many DUer's are on the side of those who did the actual burning of the embassy? Just asking.

[Kagemusha]

4. ...One strawman deserves another?

or am I reading this question wrong.

[Yollam]

12. No, it's okay. My post was worded that way.

It was a fair criticism.

[Yollam]

6. Nobody said they were

And this is not about DUers specifically, I post on other boards - DU tends to be more moderate on these issues.

But I have seen a few DUers condemning the cartoonist for riling up the muslims - I just don't get it.


THen again, there are a few DUers who also say we shouldn't upset the US fundies, but they are usually on the other end of the political spectrum from the ones who say that we shouldn't provoke the Muslims.

[Yollam]

9. My wording was poor - you made a good point.

I edited the post to more accurately make my point. I wouldn't imply that any DUers have defended burning an embassy. I knot that that's not the case. Thanks for alerting me to my mistake.

[Joe Fields]

13. Not me! You didn't see catholics laying waste to the land over

priest pedophile jokes.

[Yollam]

16. But US fundies do have a violent streak.

Especially in the south. A lot of the guys in the white robes claim to be "Christians".

[genie_weenie]

21. Yes, but

when they burn crosses doesn't the government come down against them?

The Arab league, hateful islamic clerics and many islmaic leaders (e.g. Libya) have a vested intrest in this being as wide a conflagaration as possible. It simply allows them to enforce their hold upon their citizens by setting up a nice Boogeyman...

[Kagemusha]

2. More like Saudi Arabian operatives.

I've heard the outrage only went international after the big Haj stampede that killed 350 people. Saudi papers did 4 articles a day on it (mandatory). Then outrage spread. And they reported on the fake, much worse cartoons too (not ones the Danes published but ones seemingly invented by Muslims for Muslim outrage)

[bloom]

3. If the fundies were really some kind of

oppressed minority - you might have a point.


I think it's more like the Nazi propaganda against Jews in the 30's.


I also would not be surprised to have it be that the CIA or whoever has a hand in it.

[Yollam]

14. Muslims are not the oppressed minority in Syria.

They are the majority.

But I agree that CIA involvement would not be surprising. We have to take everything on the telescreens with a grain of salt.

[progdonkey]

20. exactly right

The biggest point here is that the Muslims are in the minority, whereas the Fundies in that hypothetical are a subgroup of the majority religion both in Europe and here. The cartoons were nothing more than crude insults to Muslims and Islam; the newspapers have the right to publish them, just like they have the right to publish a strip version of "the Eternal Jew." That doesn't mean they don't deserve what they get in response, though. The cartoons have no artistic merit whatsoever; they were obviously made with the sole purpose of pissing off and denigrating an already-down-trodden minority.

They don't make any sort of important point about Islam or some sort of hypocrisy, etc. It's not like having, say, a cartoon comparing Israeli actions in the Gaza to Nazi actions in the ghettos: it would certainly piss a lot of people off, but there's an actual argument behind the content of the cartoons--the pissing people off is incidental. These "Mohammed" cartoons would be more like the kind of "big nosed Jewish banker" shit you'd find in "der Stürmer"--nothing more than crude racist imagery.

[tigereye]

30. have you actually seen the cartoons?

not all of them would qualify as crude racist imagery - who gets to decide what is satire and what is not? Some of the cartoons seem very similar to typical political cartoons here in the US. I love political cartoons and they often make very complex points that words are unable to make. Do we lambaste and threaten cartoonists every time they offend someone's sensibilities? Who decides what is racist/offensive and what is satire?

[northzax]

5. the protesting is scary

actually, that the governments have enough propaganda power over the Mob to get riots over something so, frankly, silly, is scary.

and while I am not certain, I bet that Denmark doesn't have a guarantee to freedom of speech as strong as the US does, just a thought.

[Inland]

10. I dont' think it does.

The sort of wild west of ideas doesn't exist in other places. In the US, you can say anything you want, as long as it doesn't change anything Bush does.

[northzax]

19. single best travel comment I have ever heard

on a school trip to Moscow in 1990- guy on the trip from South Carolina (thick accent is why I mention it) said, loudly, "i have freedom of speech, I can say anything I want, it's a Free Country" er, no, it wasn't. the cops were not amused by that.

[tigereye]

31. Denmark is very progressive in many ways

from what I have heard.

[northzax]

39. so is the Netherlands

but there is not absolute freedom of speech there, or in Germany, France, or basically anywhere. Hell, Canada is 'progressive' and there is no guaranteed right to free speech.

[Inland]

7. Depends what you mean by "on the side".

If it's offendsive, I certainly am not going to tell them not to be offended.

But if they commit violence or property damage, into the pokey they go with the guy who broke the Starbuck's window during the economic conference and Martin Sheen.

[MrModerate]

8. I think they were definitely for real -- whether there were . . .

agents provocateur among them or not.

I haven't followed the threads you allude to, but I can tell you what regular 'Murricans are saying (because I've heard from them today):

• This behavior is shameful and casts Islam in a very bad light.

• If you're opposed to blaspheming the Prophet, then don't do it. But your own book says that infidels can't blaspheme, so get over it.

• And while we're at it, your intolerance offends MY sense of right and wrong.

. . . just what I heard "around the water cooler" today.

[SpecialK]

11. This is a great German cartoon of some of our favorite fundies...

Was the cover of a Der Spiegel magazine about 3 years ago.

[PATRICK]

15. If it suits the purpose

of the Bush team to divide Europeans from Americans over an Iranian War I would not be surprised at all to see the same gratuitous insulting cartoons applied to Americans and their religion. The way that just works out may be just the normal way things happen. It is also the Propaganda Ministry way when they can't get people on their side. It's not about your ideals. It's about looking there and fighting amongst ourselves with all the righteous indignation of manipulated, indignant suckers.

All these discussions should be suspended, out of FREE CHOICE and wisdom, to keep the mind on the crisis coming up swiftly and related intimately to these distractions. Or am I paying and participating in the slaughter and dismemberment of women and children for the rights of a suspiciously disruptive cartoonist?

The US orchestrates. The Muslim governments orchestrate back. Idealists debate. Then we go to war.

[Yollam]

17. Best comment I've seen so far.

On this or the other threads.

[genie_weenie]

24. You are spot on!

This suits the corrupt leaders of many a nation, not just Islamic ones!

Watch out, for the calls from boycotts, to violence, to defend national or religious honor with war!

[tigereye]

33. discussing freedom of speech

and what constitutes satire, etc., is not simply a distraction.

[tatertop]

18. Why print such cartoons at all?

They are not funny.
They are not entertaining.
They are designed solely to inflame.
Why is it hate speech when it involves gays or jews
or women or racial minorities but when it is anti-Muslim
we are merely 'exercising our right to free speech' and
they should 'just get over it.'

Is it not better to stop all hate speech than to
start defending only those slices that you are not concerned with?

What a hoot.

[Yollam]

22. Hate speech is protected speech.

At least in America it is. And whether those cartoons cross the line into hate speech is entirely subjective.

I personally found them to be stereotypical and not very good, but the artist has his POV and is entitled to try to get it out there.

Of course, if the readers of his publication don't like it, they can vote with their feet and cancel their subscriptions, and the publication could be more strict about such things in the future. I have no problem with that...

[Marie26]

29. Not in Denmark

In most of Europe, hate speech is not protected. There is no right to free speech in Europe. The police can & do arrest people for expressing hateful, bigoted or racist opinions. In Germany, for example, someone can be arrested for doing the Nazi salute. If a cartoon is permitted, it isn't because "hate speech is protected," but because the government does not consider it sufficiently offensive. We in America have the First Amendment protecting all speech, but that's a uniquely American institution. I've noticed a lot of posts stating that "everyone has a right to free speech." No, actually, everyone doesn't. We do. It's very American perspective that isn't shared by the Danes or the Muslim countries involved in this thing.

[Susang]

42. I believe you to be incorrect

It appears that Denmark does have freedom of the press, even in cases like this. So that would make your statement quite incorrect.

~snip~

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that he has no power over what the media publishes since Denmark recognizes freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/646

[Marie26]

47. I could be wrong

And I shouldn't have posted w/o having a link, sorry! My understanding was that the constitution of Denmark does not contain a First Amendment protecting free speech - which is why "hate speech" isn't protected there. But I'll try to make sure about that first before stating it as if it were a fact. Thanks for the tip!

[Kellanved]

46. A constitutional scholar, are you?

Quite an achievement to know the Free Speech rules of all European countries.

In reality, the press rules vary a lot throughout Europe. Most constitutions and the European Human Rights Accord guarantee Freedom of Press.

There are certain variations on the extent press freedom is allowed to supersede other rights, generally even hate speech is very much protected. (and the cartoons are far from that anyway)

[Marie26]

49. It isn't quite an achievement

to make broad generalizations based on a limited knowledge of an area. People on the Internet do it all the time! I thought that Denmark had a law prohibiting hate speech, like many other European nations do (France & Germany, for example). But it's looking like I'm wrong about that. So... you're right. I didn't do enough research before writing this work, and I'm sorry. I might have made some claims that I couldn't back up, and I'm so sorry. If you want to kick me out of Oprah's Book Club, I'll really understand.

[Kellanved]

51. Alas, that is pretty much the point

You are right that most German, in fact most European, constitutional scholars argue that hate speech can be stripped of the status of "speech" (there are also US scholars holding that position).

But not even Germany expressively forbids hate speech, the actual legal situation is most complicated. There are several parts of the constitution and several supreme court decisions to be considered.
By and large even hate speech, unless based on incorrect factual statements, is very much protected in Germany.

[genie_weenie]

23. What are the limits?

Where do we draw the line?

Is it hate speech to teach evolution in classroom since this violates *all* Abrahamic Religions?

[Inland]

25. I don't subscribe to those papers. nt

[robbedvoter]

26. Why make catholic pedophile jokes? Funny is not a requirement

You want to outlaw SNL?It'd break my heart to have to defend the stupid POS, but I'd have to.

[Yupster]

44. If all SNL jokes had to be funny

they would have been outlawed decades ago.

[tigereye]

34. have you seen them?

could you not make this argument about all political cartoons?

Who gets to decide what is "hate speech?" and actually these are not speech. Cartoons have a very different flavor than speech.

[NNN0LHI]

27. Here is the way it works with me

If you and I were walking along and came upon a bees nest and you picked up a stick and stirred them bees up to high heaven and several of them came over and stung me who do you think I will be pissed off at? The bees? Or you?

Yea, you got it. I would be pissed off at you. Very pissed off.

Now on the other hand say some Danish paper had their cartoonist draw some cartoons that they knew were sure to make some Muslims hate me and want to kill me but went ahead and printed them anyway. Who am I going to be pissed off at do you think? The Muslims? Or the Danes?

Yea, you got it again. I am going to be very pissed off at some Danish motherscratchers for stirring up the Muslim bees with their stick. Very pissed off.

Don

[tigereye]

36. somehow I suspect you would not make this argument

if it were an anti-* political cartoon - I suspect you need a broader argument.

(or you could say a metaphor is not an argument.) ;)

[NNN0LHI]

40. Your suspicions are incorrect

If the anti-* political cartoon was not going to cause me or the administrators of this site any trouble I would fight for it to be allowed.

Now on the other hand if someone posted an anti-* political cartoon that could cause myself or the administrators of the site any grief (use your imagination) I would alert on the post immediately for the mods to make a call.

Context is everything. :-)

Don

[tigereye]

41. but it seems to me that people may be taking these cartoons

very much out of context....

here is what Wikipedia had to say.

snip "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after complaints were made about twelve editorial cartoons which depict the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were initially printed in the centre right Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Some of the cartoons have been reprinted in other newspapers in Europe, the United States, New Zealand, and Jordan.

The drawings, which include a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb on his head, were purportedly meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw them and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims. Islamic teachings forbid the depiction of Muhammad as a measure against idolatry, a form of aniconism.....This generalisation comes in the context of perceived religious intolerance toward Muslims, and has led to the recent escalation of the controversy. Some argue that in the wake of the recent global backlash (including but not limited to the torching of foreign embassies) the artists' impressions have been retroactively corroborated.

Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, there are both Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere who view them as offensive, blasphemous and against the tenets of Islam. The cartoons may be considered as a protest to the violent threats people have received for publicly criticising Islam in Denmark." snip

my apologies if this has already been repeated....

[_testify_]

37. because the bees don't know any better?

I'm sure that's not what you meant,but your analogy doesn't really work. We're not talking about animals, we're talking about people - and I don't understand how the cartoonist can be blamed for his ignorance but a mob burning a building down can't be blamed for theirs...

[Skelington]

43. But that does not even come close to what "free" speech is about,

I thought free speech was my right to see, read materials, listen to audio and have what ever thoughts I wanted without having to worry about wether or not you approve? If I encite a riot via my words or actions,(with or without bees) that is not free speech. Any human that uses a cartoon as justification for violence doesn't really need justification, they only want a synbol to recuit more violence from people.

I'm sick of watching my flag burned and stepped on all over the ME world, by your logic I could take my frustrations out on the next muslim I see, they should know better than do something that would hurt me that bad.

The butchering of innocent americans, palestinians, isrealis, and countless other peoples through out the world is ignored by radical muslims. But draw that cartoon and it's a global outrage. The retaliation was not called for, it was a severe over reaction and it was just another reason to hate. I watched them burn European flags, and embassies on the news, threaten trade cut-offs and call for furter violence.......... over cartoons. I'm begining loose the open mind I have for the ME.

[NNN0LHI]

48. I have been in taverns in Chicago and beer joints in Arkansas...

...where your idea of free speech will get a person killed in a hurry. Just try talking a little shit in some of these places and see what happens to you once. Tell the folks you meet there about your rights and freedom of speech and see how far it gets you. Welcome to the real world.

Don

[Skelington]

52. You mean,

There are over reacting, emotional people that take things to the extreme? WOW I had no idea! Wow, and here I thought everybody was fairly treated everywhere, all the time, and life was fair, boy is my bubble burst.

Go into any bar, any church, any grocery store and you could find intolerance, and ignorance mixed with violence.

I like my world, and I am right about free speech, regardless of what you said in Chicago and Arkansas to piss people off.

Having the freedom to say what you want, couples with responsibliity for what you say and the reaction you are after. Sounds like a set up to cry victim to me. You can't yell fire in a crowd it's against the law, yelling "queer" in a gay bar is legal, however it's stupid and after recieving a beating,.... it would be wrong to bitch about the loss of free speech. Go to Mass. with A "W" sticker and you will likley not be welcomed like a good ole' boy, go to Arkansas with a bunch of big city paranoia and "Mutt and Jeff" will likley not want you to meet the family.

I cannot believe how many people WANT, to be oppressed, just to have something to talk about. A little common sense goes a long way. I live in the adult world, hope to see you there.

And for the record, your expression about "talking a little shit in these places and see what happens", makes it abvious that you "talked a little shit" and you got called on it. My wife's family is from New Iberia LA, go on down and talk your shit there and see what happens.

[Marie26]

28. A hypothetical

I've thought about this & we're sort of missing something. Your example captures the religious element, but it doesn't really have the racial/ethnic overtones that the Danish cartoons did. So I'm not sure it's a valid comparison. In Europe, Muslim immigrants are mostly poor, live out in the outer ghettos, and are usually not able to become citizens. They're basically there to supply cheap labor for Europeans, but are also resented by many Europeans. There's a right-wing movement to end immigration & preserve the "purity" of Denmark & other European countries. OK. That's a different sociological background from what exists in the US, so we can't really understand the motivations there. Probably the closest parallel in the United States would be the issue of illegal immigrants.

OK, now imagine this scenario. The Washington Times decides to create a "contest" for cartoonists -each cartoon is supposed to illustrate the "threat Hispanic immigrants pose to the United States." Twelve different cartoons are selected and placed on the front page of the newspaper. Each depicts various stereotypes of Hispanic immigrants; and some lampoon the Virgin of Guadalupe, an icon of Mexican Catholics. Some Hispanic leaders in the US protest the caricatures as insulting & blasphemous. But the Washington Times insists it is it's right to publish as "free speech." In solidarity, the "New Republic," the Wall Street Journal, Lou Dobbs & Fox News also prominently show the cartoons. The WSJ actually displays all 12 on their front page. Now protests are sparked in the US, and people begin demonstrating & protesting in Latin America as well once the cartoons are seen.

OK, now all of us know that there's a right to free speech in America. But would many Democrats come rushing to the defense of those types of cartoons? Would we really consider the motivation to be "free speech" or would we think the cartoonists had an anti-immigrant message? Would we be calling people who protest them "fundies" or fanatics? Or would we see the cartoons as part of a troubling right-wing movement against immigrants? Would you have a different view on the value of this type of caricature?

(This isn't to say that the reaction in the Muslim world is appropiate, or that the cartoons are equivilant. I'm just trying to think of an example Americans could identify with).

[tigereye]

38. this begs the question

that there are many complex issues in Europe about immigration and the divide between European/ Danish majorities, their perceptions of Muslim immigrants and what their beliefs are. I do think that violent Muslim fundamentalists need to be held up to scrutiny overall and some cartoons in this sense might be appropriate.

Many European nations do not agree with their (fund.) ideas and there may be a disconnect between what the immigrants/or other Muslims consider to be offensive to their religion ( i.e., depictions of the Prophet) and the rights of the larger society, which does not follow Islamic law, to express their concerns about these conflicts.


I do like your example better than some I have seen above....

[Yupster]

45. I would think that we'd be organizing

boycotts and letter to the editor campaigns and maybe even lawsuits.

I just don't see huge angry mobs burning down buildings.

I don't think anyone is mad at the Muslims for being angry. They can be angry all they want. They just have to keep it legal and non-violent.

[Marie26]

50. Completely agree

I guess my only point was that we'd probably be a little less forgiving of the editors. But I agree that the reaction to these cartoons in the Muslim world is way out of line & completely counterproductive.

[Skidmore]

32. It has nothing to do with lampooning and free speech really

but a lot more to do with provocation by someone wanting to foment trouble. Right now, I'd lay odds on some psyops group.

[SPKrazy]

35. Fundies Would Be Stupid Enough To Burn Dutch Embassy When It Was

A German Cartoonist?

Probably stupid enough not to know the difference but I would hope that they wouldn't burn anyone's embassy.

[mitchum]

53. The embrace of religion is IRRATIONAL, and to expect any adherents...

to behave in a rational manner is...well...crazy