The Freedom to Offend

Thinking about the fracas surrounding the New Yorker cover reminds me of other political cartoons like, for instance, the cariacature of the Prophet Muhammad, in violation of Islamic law, which drew the wrath of the Muslim world.

I'm reminded, too, of a speech made by a young congressman, before the House of Representative, on February 18, 1947; Richard Nixon:

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, when the Committee on Un-American Activities opened its session at 10 o'clock, it had by previous investigation, tied together the loose end of one chapter of a foreign-directed conspiracy whose aim and purpose was to undermine and destroy the government of the United States...It is essential as Members of this House that we defend vigilantly the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But we must bear in mind that the rights of free speech and free press do not carry with them the right to advocate the destruction of the very government which protects the freedom of an individual to express his views.

And, here we are, more than 60 years later, in the same ballpark, with another pitcher, and dealing with the same mindset, as reflected by President George W. Bush who observes that: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make -- either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." All we need do is substitute the word "Communist" for "terrorist," et voila! But, can we sit back, and let the First Amendment be sodomized by those who understand control better than consciousness, and allow artists to be called over the coals for what amounts to a dumb joke?

The New Yorker is a magazine, founded in the 1920s, which has been around longer than the administrations of either Presidents Nixon or Bush. Notably, too, in the 1920s, the greatest novel of the English language, James Joyce's "Ulysses," was banned by the Tariff Act , and confiscated at American borders, on grounds of obscenity. This was right around the time that an organization of writers, PEN, was formed to protect artists from the arbitrary stroke of the censor's hand.

Who can forget the memorable words of another president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, about a decade after the launching of a magazine whose name has become synonymous with quality, humor, satire, poetry, political commentary, and first-rate cartoons: "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. The third is freedom from want...The fourth is freedom from fear."

Arguably, humor is optional with the vehicle, and it is subjective. One person may feast on what another finds tasteless. While there may be some who find a political cartoon disturbing, the ramifications of self-censorship, as well as societal pressure to redact that which offends, must be resisted as an outrage to all who view dissent as a vital ingredient for democratic, and higher order, thinking.

Whether we think the Obama cartoon was satire, flawed or otherwise, or simply over-the-top, we must agree with author, and past president of PEN American Center, Salman Rushdie, when he asks: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." When public opinion dictates what is acceptable, there can be no art, and without art, there can be no diversity.

Comments

[jayne]

Damn right this cartoon is offensive, as are those who believe these STUPID things about Senator Obama, but instead of condemning the artist, and the magazine who published it, why not express outrage at those who harbor these absurd, inane beliefs.

[Russycle]

Of course the editors at the New Yorker had every right to publish this cartoon. But to suggest that no one has the right to criticize their decision because it might result in "self-censorship" is ludicrous. If the editors believe in their actions, they should be able to defend them. If they can't, they need to make better decisions. That's life, not censorship.

[Scarabus]

Every utterance, verbal or visual, is aimed more or less consciously at a specific audience. But these days every utterance becomes instantly available for appropriation, "re-purposing," or referencing out of context. Regardless of intentions, the actual audience is the world.

The *anticipated* audience for the cover are Upper East Side, sophisticated New Yorkers, plus their equivalent elsewhere. The *actual* audience encompass everyone connected to the internet, including the most manipulative and/or clueless wingnuts. Satire/irony that would please the insiders who "get" the joke will be understood by naive wingnuts as having a meaning 180 degrees opposite what was intended. And it will be promoted that way by sophisticated wingnuts who get it but choose deliberately to distort it.

In Just How Stupid Are We? Rick Shenkman refers to a story run by Lesley Stahl. The thesis of the story was that Ronnie Reagan was a complete hypocrite, claiming to support issues which in fact he was torpedoing. Stahl expected to be attacked by White House staff. Instead she was thanked. Her story had been illustrated by clips showing Reagan speaking before backdrops promoting the causes he was trying to destroy. But the White House people told her that her words were irrelevant. No one would internalize the satiric irony. She had given them 5 or 6 minutes of footage showing their guy in the best possible light; and those images were the only thing the TV audience would remember.

[gladiatorpodolsky]

I am no fan of the Obamas, but this was about as funny as a dead baby.

[Lon]

This is an odd juxtiposition. After all it is people who are not fans of Obamas that are being satirized. (Admittedly not all non-fans just the ones believing nonsense). There is something odd in the idea that not being a fan of Obama should make you more likely to find this funny than otherwise.

[Michale32086]

Regardless of how one views the cartoon, the simple fact is, there IS freedom to publish it and discuss it..

Compare the reactions towards this cartoon to the reactions towards the prophet cartoons in Europe..

When Americans start reacting like radical and hysterical extremists, burning and killing, THEN I will concede that there is a problem with our Freedom Of Speech...

Michale.....

[sarge]

Hey, Michale, for once we agree! Bravo.

[TyTy121]

I also believe in the first admendment, but I also can see why people are offended by the New Yorker 's cartoon of the Obama's. I believe that the picture of Osama Bin Laden protrayed right above the burning american flag was really over the top. I know the New Yorker has a history of controversial satire on the front cover of their magazine, but to use a symbol of a man who is responsible for killing 3000 innocent americas and link it to the Obama's is very offensive.

[sarge]

It was over the top, but that is kind of the point. The NYer wasn't making the link between Obama and Osama, they were lampooning it.