Editors at some student publications at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University have published some of the cartoons.I wonder what that "forum" is going to consist of. Here are some letters to the editor of The Badger Herald, many of which stress that the cartoon is "racist."
The decisions have set off a painful clash, seemingly pitting two of the values so often embraced in university environments — freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures — directly against each other....
The issue has prompted letters to the editor, community meetings and public forums. Officials at the University of Wisconsin were organizing a forum in Madison for next week after The Badger Herald on Monday ran one of the cartoons, one that portrayed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb.
"Universally, we found the cartoon to be repugnant," said Mac VerStandig, the editor in chief of The Badger Herald. "But we believe that there was a certain endangerment of free speech here, especially given the general prudishness of the American press. We believe our readers are mature enough to look at these images."
February 17, 2006
Student newspapers and those cartoons of Muhammad.
While major newspapers in the United States have declined to reprint the inflammatory cartoons that depict the Prophet Muhammad, some student newspapers have reprinted them:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
I suggest David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That!", and, in particular, his chapter on the ACLU, and how this problem has caused that organization to become scizoid.
What has to be remembered though is that sensistivity to other cultures, etc. is nowhere enshrined in the Constitution. The situation with Freedom of Speech is precisely the opposite, the 1st Amdt. to the Constitution, made applicable to the States through the 14th, which states, in relevant part: "Congress [or the states] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Whle this may not apply to Harvard, Wisconson and Illinois State appear to be bound by this.
Ann, obviously, as an expert here, would necessarily have better handle on the nuances of this, but for state schools, I don't see a real conflict, only an imagined one.
Besides, making sensitivity to certain cultures (and not others) a compelling state interest is highly unlikely in my view to be good for this country.
IMHO, the idea that news should and can be suppressed because it is allegedly racist is preposterous. This is news - Moslems are rioting all around the world over this, the Iranians have renamed Danishes, etc. And part of the news is at least a feel for the cartoons and how bad they really are or are not, if for no other reason than to judge for ourselves whether the rioters are overreacting or not.
I'm sorry. I just don't get why the cartoon of Mohammad with the bomb is racist or demeaning. The message of the cartoon is obvious. The cartoon implies that the message of Mohammad is one of violence and not one of peace. Based on what we see and hear about Islam, many people believe that the cartoon portrays an accurate message of the religion. Why should we believe differently.....
Consider this comparison: If a cartoon were drawn showing Christ in a compromising position with a child, thus implying that Christianity supported pedophilia, that would be a false message. In this sense perhaps Mohammad with a bomb is also a false message. However, church goers would not respond to the cartoon of Christ by abusing more children, instead they would try to show that it wasn't true.
The volent response by Muslims over the cartoon in fact reinforces the original message of the cartoon.
Perhaps these groups of Muslims really just want war. They may get it.
Mac condemns the Golden Globes for politicizing the night when they gave best foreign film award to a movie he admits he has never seen, but he didn't like one statement in the acceptance speech.
Mac is really not all that into free speech now, is he?
I wasn't aware that Islam was a race.
Keep throwing terms around untill all their meaning is earased, great idea.
They suspended the Editor at U of I, incidently. So much for free speech there.
quxxo -
This is very, very complicated, so please try hard to concentrate:
Disagreeing with somebody is not the same as trying to silence him.
In fact — and this point is miles over your head, so don't worry about it too much — disagreeing with people is what free speech is all about.
He didn't see the movie, but he knows that the Golden Globes judges, in an industry he has no experience in, politicized the night by giving the award to a Palestinian movie.
But he didn't see the movie, so how does he know this?
Slippery Cheese, I am not saying he is not entitled to his speech, I am saying that since he didn't see the movie, his opinions and conclusions on how the night was politicized are just about worthless. But he is free to make them.
I am drawing conclusions about how he feels about free speech from his own behavior on how he condemns others for their free speech.
You guys are teh funnay, always asking me why I post here, and telling me how dumb I am, how nasty all us liberals are, and goading Ann to banninate me, and yet, I am the one opposed to free speech.
I must be in the wrong blog. I thought this was the blog that thought Cindy Sheehan wasn't arrested and was rightfully thrown out for wearing a tee shirt in full compliance with the law at the SOTU just three weeks ago.
Come on Slippery Cheese, be an "it getter!"
"What happened to freedom of speech? If we start saying we can't look at things, what's next? Our books?"
Yes, that is indeed the plan, and the EU is on it!
Weeding Out Offensive Textbooks
I'm sorry if someone from the MSA is "offended" but that in no way trumps free speech. If you're too devout to tolerate satire, move to Iran--no blasphemy allowed there.
Apparently, a cleric in Pakistan has now offered $1 million for anyone who kills the cartoonists.
We can't let these pricks get away with this. We need to respond in a personal manner to these islamic clerics... make it all about them and not about countries or Islam. Therefore, the U.S. government should put a bounty on this guys head in return.
Do you really understand what free speech and censorship are? If Prof. A did ban you, do you think that would violate your speech rights?
Did I say that it would? Open up your partisan mind, and reread what I wrote, and read more closely. You will have to sharpen your arguments, what you are doing is making a non-argument! Frankly, I find that weird!
Check out this ad that the Young Republicans National Convention refused to run due to its tone (entirely patriotic tone at that!)
Mac, Hi Mac! Here's a link, just for you.
Quxxo- I simply observed that YOU said YOU'RE not entitled to an opinion on these matters. I did not ask anybody to do anything, and did not characterize your remarks as anything in particular.
Oh please Slippery Cheese, I have come to expect better arguments than this from you. There is a difference between Mac condemning the Golden Globes for a movie that Mac and Cheese never saw based solely according to Mac on a statement he heard in the acceptance speech, and you and me commenting on current events that are widely reported on and discussed on the intarweb.
In the first case, Mac wasn't condemning the Globes based on the content of the movie, but based on one ambiguous statement that the recipient made when he accepted the award. Mac then proceeded to draw the most extreme interpretation of that statement, and then suggested that this was the basis for the Globes award.
When you and I disagree on whether Cheney should have outed Plame, we are both discussing the facts and discussions as widely reported by anyone on the intarweb.
If Mac had referred to other information he had referred to to become informed about the movie you may have a point. But he discussed nothing else about the move apart from a) he didn't see it, and b) he didn't like one sentence of the acceptance speech.
Referring to Munich, while I know that you remember (with me) the live coverage from the scene, I also know that you have read about the current movie from several different long reviews of the movie.
Anyway, I am about to hit the road for a snow trip, enjoy your reading.
When I saw those cartoons, I was really disappointed...those guys weren't even trying. I can think of stuff that would be lots more offensive than that...if the Islamofascists riot over those pathetic sketches, they'd die of apoplexy if they saw the kind of stuff I've got in mind. But unfortunately, I can't draw worth a damn.
So come on, you artsy types, you're always claiming art matters--now's your chance to prove it. Who can come up with the most offensive and blasphemous depiction of Mo and/or Al? Winner determined by body count in the resulting riot...and DOD should underwrite the prize--cartoons could be more effective than smart bombs in taking out these guys.
"...this type of response is cut from the exact same cloth as what it is reacting to."
Coco,
Why do you believe this? Should we just ignore the realities of the situation? Anger is quite appropriate in this case and will hopefully motivate the world to stand up for Enlightenment values and for the vast majority of Muslims who hate radicalism.
Are you saying that it's spontaneous feeling on the part of devout people? This whole chain of events was engineered by a Muslim Brotherhood Danish imam. Of course, they want war, if intimidation fails. So far, intimidation is working just fine.
Not only is Islam NOT a race, the majority of Muslims are NOT Arab... It the cartoons supposed to be anti-Micronesian?
Anybody who says criticism of Islam is racist has just shown they should be ignored...
It seems that hardly a week goes by that we don’t see or read in the media the latest example of US or western abuse of Muslim or Arabic prisoners or of their culture. The disaster at abu Ghraib, the killing of an Iraqi Air Force general by an Army warrant officer, the beatings of Iraqi civilians by UK soldiers caught on video for the whole (and particularly, the Muslim) world to see, come to mind. And then, when some rather sophomoric cartoons are published in a Danish newspaper, we are somehow surprised by the violent outrage the Muslim world expresses.
It was all perfectly predictable.
And just as predictably, student newspapers promptly jumped upon the bandwagon of poor taste.
It seems to me that the reaction of the student newspapers in question was not so much a defense of freedom of the press, but rather a thumbing of the editorial nose as if to say "We dont have to be sensitive to the beliefs of our fellow humans. We're the press. We can do as we please."
Well, ok, you have your freedom of the press. But do you see what happens when you abuse that freedom?
Can someone explain to me what the Badger Herald's purpose was in publishing the cartoon? It seems to me it was just because they could. Republishing the cartoon doesn't particular add to the discourse in anyway. Just because you have the right of free speech doesn't mean you always excercise it. Editing yourself can sometimes be a more effective form of communication, but as the BH shows, students journalists have often yet to learn that.
Joel Fleming: "Muslims can be black, white, Arab or Asian."
Arabs are Caucasian, Joel. Don't confuse suntans with skin color.
Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Iraqis, and Saudi Arabians are, for the most part, white guys.
In addition, Iranians (they are Persian, not Arab) are Caucasian. So are Afghans.
At this point, the conflict between Islam and the West in the Middle East is largely (but not completely) a battle of white guys against white guys.
pitting two of the values so often embraced in university environments — freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures — directly against each other....
This is precisely why MSM in the United States have been caught with their drawers down, about this matter.
Because both these topics are dear to the left-liberal establishment, but usually, they know what is permissible or not in our society.
Kanye West -- black Jesus wearing crown of thorns (GOOD)
Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed -- (BAD)
Cartoons of President Bush dressed as a Nazi (by Ted Rall and Co.) -- ACCEPTABLE
Since this entire episode relates to another country and their culture, they are on less sure footing than a controversy generated in America.
What should they do?
The answer so far has been, ignore the specifics.
Cheers,
Victoria
dec
I think you missed, or ignored, Joel's point.
How about responding with something to that point?
Here are some letters to the editor of The Badger Herald, many of which stress that the cartoon is "racist."
Many commenters have touched on the topic of racism.
Sloaney for example, doesn't see it as racist, and indeed, it was pointed out that Islam isn't a race (duh).
But what is happening here, is that in America, our national cultural discourse centres on race -- like in Britain, ours is about class, or in Ireland, about religion.
So each country uses the arguments they are most comfortable in expressing, in whatever relates to "foreigners".
To these people:
Denmark: bunch of white dudes
Islamic peoples: Overwhelming not white dudes
And thus are born the outraged letters claiming racism, to the Badger Herald.
Cheers,
Victoria
JAL: "I think you missed, or ignored, Joel's point. How about responding with something to that point?"
Joel's point in the comment I responded to was that "Islam is not a race." Of course, it's not a race. It's a religion.
Bob hit me on the nose with a newspaper.
LOL
You're right, JAL, all those Muslims are probably just flipping out because of some bad Western incidents. They probably feel a lot of moral indignation since they are, of course, committed to humane treatment of prisoners and civilians. Oh wait. . .
My apologies, DEC, wrong Joel.
It's tought to get senile and blind at the same time.
No problem, JAL.
With regard to newspapers publishing the cartoons, let's look at the two different sets of circumstances and excuses. We have the following freedoms in play:
a. Freedom of the Press
b. Freedom of speech (e.g artistic freedom of expression)
c. Freedom of Religion
d. The Publics right to Know (the thing the MSM always trumpets unless it's not in their interest)
1. College papers publish the cartoons arguing a., b. and d. trump c. In reality, most of that is likely the more classic "thumb your nose at authority" freedom exercised by your average 20 y/o.
2. The NYT refuses to publish the article arguing that c trumps a., b. and d. Amazingly on Feb 8, the NYT's article about the cartoons refused to show them, and used the infamous Dung Madonna ( the image of the Mother of Christ covered with sh_t). So in a single article, the NYT explains why in deference to one religion (Islam) it refuses to show some very tame cartoons, and illustrates the point by displaying and extremely vulgar piece of art the defames another religion. One can only presume that the real reason is that either/and the NYT is anti-Christian or intimidated by Islamist threats.
Oh the hypocrisy
To see racism in everything is racist....
As T.E. Lawrence wrote,
Arabic names won't go into English, exactly
Vbspurs: "But what is happening here, is that in America, our national cultural discourse centres on race -- like in Britain, ours is about class, or in Ireland, about religion.So each country uses the arguments they are most comfortable in expressing, in whatever relates to "foreigners."
You make an excellent point here, Victoria.
However, Americans help the other side when talk about the conflict in "racial" terms. Caucasian radical Islamists are quite happy for Americans to label them erroneously as "people of color." It helps the extremists pull people of color in sub-Saharan Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. to their side.
It is helpful to remember that people of the Middle East are brilliant propagandists on the global stage. After all, their ancestors spread Islam and Christianity around the world.
Coco,
I agree with you mostly, but I do think the press should make it about the political, contrived nature of these protests. Up to now they characterize them, as always, as devout people springing into protest over some Western sin. No historical context.
Namecalling? Unfortunate. War? They've been at war against us for years. If Iran gets the nuke, or Musharaff is overthrown, I'm sure there will be a shooting war, and I lay the blame for that at the Islamists' feet.
More racism:
News Alert
Freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures are ONLY dear to the left-libeal establisment??? Then sign me up I guess.
I'm not sure if you're being purposely obtuse to make a point but let me restate so there are no further misunderstandings:
1) Political progressives stress the importance of freedom of speech -- including that of objectional and controversial speech.
2) As well as cultural relativism, which includes accepting something in one culture, which would be completely unacceptable, even illegal in theirs.
Where are the beacons of freedom of speech (including the ACLU who were retained by a few people who put out lewd or blasphemous Christmas displays this year), who claim public right-to-know at the drop of a hat, during this entire incident?
I have no doubt, whatsoever mind you, that if these cartoons were Christian-centric, the NYT would've republished them in a trice.
We Christians are used to ceding way to criticism, which often becomes abuse of religious imagery, like Chris Ofili's dung-covered Madonna.
And of course, we won't chop people's heads off, because of that.
This isn't a point of pride for me. It's just a statement of fact.
By the way, is the Wall Street Journal part of this left-liberal MSM establishment? Who is?
It is only the WSJ editorial board that are Conservative (actually, make that anti-Statist, free-marketeers. Because of the paper's nature, they rarely comment on discernibly socially conservative issues).
However, even I was gobsmacked to find out that a study on news bias, found WSJ to be the most progressive news entity around.
Perhaps you've seen or heard of that most recent study, else I could Google it for you.
Cheers,
Victoria
Post a Comment