|
If you've been looking at the news or surfing the web this morning, you've probably seen the latest Liberal Outrage. Several papers chose not to run two Opus cartoons that had jokes about radical Islam. You can see it in the "mainstream" press here, and in right-wing Blogovia here, and if you look around, you'll see it all over, no doubt. You can find the cartoons here. Now, I can't see why these cartoons would be so inflammatory, but then again I also don't care that Salman Rushdie was knighted. I would have allowed the cartoons to run if I edited a newspaper. But that isn't the point. Everywhere you look, the editors who pulled the cartoons are being called "cowards" and "spineless." I've seen people complaining about censorship, and how we don't need the government to do that for us because we'll do it to ourselves. There is plenty, also, about hypocrisy, because last week's Opus about Falwell was published. Of course, I've seen the inevitable comments about how these editors are afraid to "take a stand." This reminds me very much of the to-do about the Dixie Chicks a few years ago. They stood onstage somewhere in England and told the audience that they were ashamed that President Bush was from their home state of Texas. Bam! They were off radio stations all over the country. Bam! They were out of record stores, too. Bam! Concerts were cancelled in some areas due to low ticket sales. Their careers eventually recovered - when some righties started opening their eyes and remembering that there is indeed a U.S Constitution - but they had a couple of rough years because of it. And whenever someone said anything about the right to free speech or censorship, many Righties provided this answer: "What censorship? The government didn't say they can't be played! The government didn't cancel their shows! The government didn't take their CDs off the racks! These are privately owned radio stations and record stores, and if they don't want to play what these traitors (yes, they were called that) sing then that is their RIGHT. Don't YOU believe in freedom?" Well, how is this any different? Aren't these newspapers private companies? Do they not have the right to make their own editorial decisions, especially when we're talking not about a news story, but a comic strip? Are they obligated to print what righties want them to, as if they were all owned by Murdoch? Of course they aren't. So is the right willing to take a stand for the freedom of individual companies to make their own decisions about their own product? It seems that a lot of people are willing to take the stand in some instances, but not others. And that isn't taking a stand at all, is it? It's understandable why these editors made this choice, as well, although I'll say once again that I disagree with it. The address of the editorial offices is plainly printed in each copy of the paper, and some folks have an allergy to being blown to little, tiny bits. It's fear. It's the same fear that makes people create stupid excuses for a war that anyone honest can see was wrong from the beginning. It's the same fear that makes people eager to give up their freedoms - the same ones they say the soldiers are fighting for - for a promise of security that this administration has not even tried to give them. It's a fear of being blown to smithereens by radical muslims, and the Left is far from being alone in feeling that. Fear of muslims has, in fact, influenced the Republican platform more than anything else since 2001. Fear of muslims is why Bush got a second term. Fear of muslims is why we suddenly don't need warrants to listen to private conversatons, and also why that isn't exactly what the KGB used to do. For a conservative blogger to say that this fear is cowardly is the ultimate in hypocrisy, unless that blogger is insulting Islam with their own name and address printed clearly on his blog every time. And those would be few and far between, wouldn't they? And why is the Falwell thing equated with this? Do his followers kill people for any percieved insult? More to the point, does he speak for all Christians? The unpublished cartoons made a statement (a weak one, albeit) about ALL of Islam, not one cleric. The Falwell cartoon spoke of one person only, but just like when he died people are happily pretending that any criticism of Falwell is a criticism of Christianity as a whole. Well, I was raised Catholic, so he didn't speak for me. In fact, he didn't have much that was nice to say about Catholics. He said, as I recall "If you're not a Born-Again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." In other words, if you didn't belong to HIS denomination, you weren't a Christian at all. That didn't speak for Catholics, or Methodists, or Lutherans, or Mormons, or Episcopalians, or anyone that isn't a born-again, Baptist, racist segregationist that wants to destroy the Constitution and the government as it stands and replace it with a theocracy based on their beliefs. So, how is a joke about him being in Heaven with a whole list of fellow Americans that he never missed a chance to denigrate during his life an insult to all of Christianity? If Christians of most denominations want to see insults to their beliefs, a great place to look would be a list of Jerry Falwell quotes. Here's one. But, please, righties, feel free to continue to make a fuss about this. I'm not the only one who remembers the Dixie Chicks, I'm sure, so keep showing folks how your opinion wavers and how you consider a cartoon to be more important than the fact that the soldiers are fighting for a government that took the whole month off. Keep showing folks that this is more important than security, liberty, health care, and jobs continuing to march overseas. Please keep showing us how all you big, strong warriors who happen to be at home while others fight and die to alleviate YOUR fear are "taking a stand", albeit a completely different stand than you took a few years ago in a similar situation. Please keep showing us this at least until November of next year. Those of us who actually care about America more than our own fear would appreciate that. |
| Miz UV August 28, 2007 02:21 PM PDT Whoa, great post!! You're absolutely right to say that the wingnuts are hypocrites for mocking the fear when every second they're telling us we'd better be afraid of these terrorist assholes who are on the verge of taking over the world and imposing sharia law. And it's not irrational to be cautious about printing anything Islam-related when we remember what happened with the European cartoons. As you say, let these bigmouths post the 'toon on their own blogs with their full real name and street address available on the sidebar. Now what might be mock-worthy is if you found someone *insisting* that there's no such thing as an Islamic terrorist and no Muslim would ever do violence over words, and then *that* person was scared to publish a cartoon mocking Islam. But is there actually anyone saying that, or is this just another rightwing lie? And yep, I was one of those who didn't give a shit about the Dixie Chicks boycott. Free market. Sell what you please, buy what you want. (Legal stuff, natch.) I'd be thrilled if stores voluntarily quit selling violent games and music. It is a bit different when you're talking about a newspaper that wants to be perceived as bipartisan though. OTOH, you are correct in pointing out that mocking the whole of Islam is not the same as ragging on one particular Christian d00d. I'm putting this post in Shared! | ||
| Joe the Troll August 28, 2007 02:33 PM PDT Thank you, Miz UV! I didn't really care about the Dixie Chicks thing either, except that I fully supported their right to say what they want without being called TRAITORS. I thought it was childish to boycott them, but people had that right, too. I guess no one is talking boycott now because they've already made such a show of not buying these particular newspapers to begin with! | ||
| Nat August 28, 2007 03:39 PM PDT Very well put, Joe, and I don't care to read up with Malkin, who infuriates me with every read. Doesn't everyone remember the big flap over some cartoon that ran in Denmark depicting Mohammed with a bomb for a head (I think these are the ones Paula refers to)? Remember all the threats, etc? Anything at all that puts their beliefs in a dim light is inflammatory. I don't blame the paper for leaving that out; it's their decision. I'd rather have them all digging up more dirt on the Bushies, anyway. And the Falwell strip was funny! | ||
| Joe the Troll August 28, 2007 03:41 PM PDT I thought so too, Nat. And yes, that is exactly what paula was referring to. Some folks just have no sense of humor. | ||
| O' Tim August 28, 2007 03:51 PM PDT I've emerged from Google Reader Land to say "Great post, Joe." This is not censorship. Newspapers have a contract with Breathed's syndication firm, and there is no doubt a clause within that reserves for them the right to not publish as many strips for whatever reason they choose - Breathed still gets paid. I gained enormous respect for the Dixie Chicks after they stood up to that boycott nonsense. | ||
| Nat August 28, 2007 04:07 PM PDT Yeah, and they came back with a vengeance, too! Yay for the Chicks! | ||
| tiger lamb girl August 28, 2007 06:28 PM PDT Defo yay for the Chicks. This whole topic infuriates me. I can't really add anything to what you and MizUV have said... well put! | ||
| DangerDoll August 28, 2007 07:26 PM PDT Very well put...and food for thought. Hadn't considered it in light of the Dixie Chicks angle. Still no DC music being played here. I bought two each of their last CD and DVD just to support them (well, and they're freakin' awesomely talented). | ||
| Joe the Troll August 28, 2007 09:00 PM PDT Got a jump on the Christmas shopping, eh? | ||
| Looney August 28, 2007 11:01 PM PDT Sorry, it is cowardly. And that has nothing to do with Falwell, Christianity, etc. It has everything to do with rewarding bad behavior. We decide to refrain from exercising our constitutional rights to criticize either aspects or branches of a religious movement, however subtle and humorous and, frankly meaningless, because we're afraid of the psycho-suicide bombers. That's bowing to the pressure. Those sh*tbirds are in terrible need of criticism. And they need to learn to live with it. Would I publish it? In a hot minute. The only lesson learned by this is that if you really want to halt criticism of your own brand of insanity, just start f***ing blowing people up. Then everyone'll all be extra nice to you and make sure they never-ever hurt your poor widdle feelings. PS: The Falwell cartoon *was* funny... | ||
| Joe the Troll August 29, 2007 05:21 AM PDT Looney- The fucking PATRIOT Act is giving in on a much larger scale. Freedom of speech also means freedom to shut up if you want to. As I said, I would have printed the cartoon, but the fact is they have the right NOT to, just like those radio stations had the right to take the Dixie Chicks off the air. The people who freely give up their right to be free of warrantless wiretaps and demean those who want their liberties intact, then go off about this are hypocrites through and through. They talk about taking a stand - well, what's more worth taking a stand on? Cartoons or the 4th Amendment? Since these are, as I pointed out, private companies not acting under any government force, the 1st Amendment would not apply here. "he only lesson learned by this is that if you really want to halt criticism of your own brand of insanity, just start f***ing blowing people up. Then everyone'll all be extra nice to you and make sure they never-ever hurt your poor widdle feelings." Frankly, I'm not certain how attacking a country that didn't attack us to teach the Muslim world to respect our power is any different. If we were interested in Justice over revenge, we would have acted quite differently. I don't see "everybody" trying not to hurt their feelings - people with guns and bombs are doing that every day. Let's not pretend our stance in Iraq is purely defensive, after all. The people being careful here are not just protecting their own lives. They don't publish the Washington Post out of the editor's garage. The guy that made that decision at each paper was protecting a thousand employees as well, and their families. After all, it isn't as if the borders have been secured any more than they were in 2001. I agree with a lot of what you say, but the weaklings who consider a pretense - a mere PRETENSE- of security over the liberties that many have fought and died for have no place criticizing the editors of these papers for a decision that is well within their rights. It is far worse, in my opinion, to turn on your own countrymen simply for saying something you disagree with, as has happened to the DCs and many others. And these same people will use those who have fought and died for "freedom" as an excuse to work against it. You see how convoluted and sick these people are? They care nothing for freedom by their own admission. It's just a semantic tool used to shame people who oppose their views. | ||
| Cheezy August 29, 2007 07:24 AM PDT Great stuff again, Joe - you've made some very perceptive points and summed up the situation nicely. Yet again, what really shits me is the unsubtle use of language here. According to some idiots, this episode shows that "Muslims" have "no sense of humour". Well, I got news. The vast majority of Muslims, whether they find jokes about their religion funny or not (and some DO find them funny - I know people like that), are not going to kill anyone or blow shit up because of a cartoon. Just like the vast majority of Christians. The caution showed by the Washington Post is a reaction to the potential reaction of a tiny minority of extremists. Dickheaded, dangerous fuckers, to be sure. But not representative of the faith, as some righties like to pretend. I guess I'd have to actually be an editor of that organisation to know whether or not I agree with this caution. I may do, or I may not. Freedom of speech of is an incredibly important principle but, by the same token, it's sensible to try to ascertain what the reaction to exercising freedom of speech will be in this instance, weighed against the benefits of what you've got to say. Which is something the media does all the time of course - not just with Islam-related issues. If it's just a cartoon (i.e. not exactly important information for us all) it's hardly surprising that the cost of not exercising your freedom in this instance is not thought to be terribly high. A more pertinent question: Surely the cost of the fourth estate NOT doing their job properly during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq (i.e. not reporting the - painfully obvious to experts - official manipulation of intelligence) has been proven to be incalculably higher. | ||
| Jennyjinx August 29, 2007 08:59 AM PDT Right the fuck on, Joe! And A-Men too! I agree 100% with everything you said. | ||
| Fez Monkey August 29, 2007 09:28 AM PDT I hadn't heard about this brouhaha at all, so it is news to me. Naturally I have a completely uninformed and purely reactionary take on it. I don't get it. I don't get why this strip wasn't printed and I don't get why people are so up-in-arms about it. But the funny thing, as you mentioned, is how this is now a rallying point for conservatives. They sure weren't pounding the freedom of expression drum when some papers printed Aaron Macgruder's Adventures of Flagee and Ribbon in Boondocks back when Bushco was lying about why we should invade Iraq. In fact, they staged boycotts to try and have the strip pulled permanently. And the lefties are no better, if they now start saying that mocking muslim nonsense is somehow bad manners when mocking non-muslim nonsense is okay. Sheesh. When will people stop forming opinions based on "sides" and start based on facts? ook ook | ||
| annie August 29, 2007 09:29 AM PDT I concur completely, joe. well-put. the dixie chicks are brave americans... we need more like them. (general strike!~ sept. 11, 2007.) | ||
| Art August 29, 2007 02:03 PM PDT You're giving trolls a bad name. Please find a new name. Amazing to me how many hate-filled leftist freaks continue to deride Reverend Falwell for things he never said nor implied. P.S. Real trolls didn't listen to the talentless "dixie chicks" long before they emulated you and droned on and on about things they have no factual knowledge of. | ||
| Joe the Troll August 29, 2007 04:03 PM PDT Actually, Art, I don't listen to them, I just know what the first amendment says, and respect that. As for Falwell, you obviously haven't read up on him much, because everything behind that link above is a direct quote from Jerry. Why not show us some of that factual knowledge, instead of just speaking ABOUT it, Art? | ||
| Looney August 31, 2007 11:35 AM PDT Where the hell did the PATRIOT ACT come into this? Do you automatically assume that I support that horsecrap? Well shame on you, dood, for ASSuming. This admins penchant for totalitarian measures is the only thing that drove this republican accross party lines in '04. Freedom does mean the freedom to shut up. But they weren't shutting up. They were muzzling one of their artists. It's still censoring and it's still cowardly, and my point still stands that if I want the Washington Post to be really careful not to offend me, I only have to blow up a few innocent people and act like a rabid four year old on crack everytime someone says something that offends me. The cost *is* high because it's like the erosion of a dam. Eventually that last particle of concrete/sand/whatever gives way and the whole dang thing comes crashing down. | ||
| Joe the Troll August 31, 2007 04:54 PM PDT I didn't say you supported it, I merely said that if we're going to discuss giving up our rights to get a little safety, that is a far grander example than this piddly little cartoon thing. And they can edit themselves - they ARE called editors, after all - any way they like. It's kind of like how every media outlet Buffet owns edits out the truth, and they AREN'T afraid of being blown up, are they? The bottom line is it's the editor's call and no one else's, and the editor is responsible for a lot of people, not just himself. He has to think about all the others - reporters, secretaries, janitors - who might be harmed if the precedent for violence is followed. On the other hand, no one was threatening to blow up a radio station if the Dixie Chicks were played. They did it only because they didn't like anyone using their right to free speech to say something contradictory. So on one hand, someone edits their media outlet to deter possible violence. On the other hand, someone edits their outlet to deter complaints from people who don't respect freedom of speech until someone refuses to print a cartoon. Who is the bigger coward? I say the latter. I would have printed the cartoon, but if I'm going to respect the right of the program director to cut the Dixie Chicks, which I have to because it's his right, then I also have to respect the editor's decision, because that's his right as well. If I just pick one, then I am inconsistent, and picking neither does not demonstrate respect for our individual freedoms. Remember, a lot of people who are decrying this "self-censorship" are the same ones who called anyone who spoke against the war a traitor. They don't care about freedom of speech unless it's used to say what they want said. That doesn't impress me. It's when you stand up for speech - and legal, rightful decisions regarding speech - that you disagree with that your dedication to free speech shows. (And no, I'm not saying that you were one of those people.) The dam you speak of has already been eroded by far more powerful forces, like the fact that if you speak out loudly enough to be unilaterally judged to be aiding the enemy( I think it's the Homeland Security chief that has that power, but I'm not sure), our government can now take everything you own. That was passed about a month ago for our safety. The dam started eroding in 2003 when actors who spoke out against the war started losing spokesman and advertising jobs. The Patriot Act REALLY took a sledgehammer to the dam. If freedom of speech is in danger in America, and it is, there are far bigger menaces in our own country than these newspaper editors. That said, I REALLY don't think Al Queda is feeling victorious because they pre-empted two Opus strips. Good use of the tagboard, Loons! | ||
| Leave a Comment: |