Balancing The Power Of Free Speech

Are some things off limits to political cartoons?

If I'd asked this question before the recent brouhaha regarding the now famous Danish cartoons controversy I think that many would have a different answer than they would now, and perhaps for entirely opposite reasons.

Some who might have said yes, may have decided now that in fact, no, political cartoons are a form of free speech and should be allowed the freedom to choose their subject matter and their message.

Some who might have said no, may now believe that the controversy is a good reason why there should be limits.

Then there are surely those that have only had their original opinion further solidified by the the events of recent days.

My personal response to the question above is that it depends. It depends on the magazine, newspaper, Web site, whatever, that the cartoons are printed in or on. I believe that there is a standard for mainstream media, or traditional media, and a different standard for alternative or marginal media. This is because each is expressing an opinion that represents either a mainstream segment of a population, or a small radical minority viewpoint, and I think that makes a world of difference.

Danish paper Jyllands-Posten that carried the original cartoons back in late September, isn't some small, little read rag, it is the country's largest daily newspaper. As such, it should be sensitive to what is generally accepted in the political cartoon world. Political figures have always been fair game. Religious figures have been treated more carefully.

The other newspapers around the world have chosen to show their solidarity with the Danish paper, including a Jordanian paper as the BBC reports:

Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

The article in al-Shihan also included a list of Danish products.

However, while the call is for Muslims of the world to be reasonable, there is also a need for the press to be as well. A set of similar cartoons lampooning Jesus Christ and the Christian God would surely be received with criticism by easily offended Christians as well. Political cartoons making fun of Jews would be sure to ignite passions in Israel. And given this sensitivity on the part of the faithful, there should be some sensitivity on the part of the publishers, understanding that the size of their readerships means the opinions or messages that they print are not only read by many, but are seen to represent the opinions of many.

But there is also a valid argument to be made that if the message, as controversial as it is, represents a readership, regardless of the size of it, then that message should not be restrained. Not expressing the message would be to repress freedom of thought, and freedom of the press.

The mainstream media does not only report on the news, but presents commentary, and that commentary should not be restricted by concerns of offending one group or another.

Certainly, at the same time, the response in the Muslim world to the cartoons can be said to have been out of proportion with the offense. I would ask why hasn't there been a similar outrage against kidnappings and beheadings? Why hasn't there been a similar outrage against suicide bombers detonating their explosive payload within the holy confines of a mosque during a funeral, or at a wedding party?

It has even been claimed that the whole affair regarding these cartoons was actually exacerbated by Muslims looking to take advantage of the issue to stir up the passions of Middle Easterners, by presenting additional fabricated cartoons that were not in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

But then, as Ian at World View succinctly explains, the issue was further blown up by a Norwegian Christian rag called Magazinet that wrote about this, and then of course the solidarity play of other mainstream newspapers.

Is there a middle ground?

Absolutely. We've lived with it for years, but passions are flaring and as Ian correctly opines it is time for us to end it now - at least for this episode of "You Can't Take My Freedom Of Speech Away From Me", also known as "Don't Blasphemy My Religion".