[Peace-discuss] Cartoons

[John W.]

At 01:03 AM 2/11/2006, Janine Giordano wrote:

>Matt said, "I am opposed to the publishing of this crap in much the same 
>way I publicly
>opposed the publishing of the zionist, anti-palestinian trash that appeared
>in the DI a few years ago. (full page ad depecting palestinian children as
>terrorists to be...)"
>
>Just to play devil's advocate and discuss what we mean by "free speech" in 
>the bounds of hate crimes and offense---- what if we called the cartoons 
>art? Would you still be up for its "censorship"? I remember wanting to 
>walk out of a lecture a couple years ago wherein religious iconography of 
>mine was incredibly desecrated--the professor, however, vehemently 
>insisted that this was ART. To play devil's advocate only, what if we call 
>these cartoons were called art? Would you think them publishable? What if 
>the cartoons were making fun of Jesus? Is the problem that it contributes 
>to a climate that is already hateful? (If so, is the problem solved by 
>suppressing its symptom?)
>
>I do agree that publishing ads of palestinian children as "terrorists to 
>be" adds fuel to the flames of racist visual material. I would not think 
>that needs to be published. I agree that the first ammendment does not 
>encompass the freedom to harm one another. But, where do we draw the line 
>between hate crimes and free-market capitalist "speech" called art, 
>advertised products made on the sweat of third world labor, or shares of 
>stock in an exploitative and corrupt corporation? [I see these cartoons as 
>symptoms of oppression in the same way I see high dividends paid to 
>shareholders of corporations that that rely on sweatshops. Do we agree 
>that the "hate crime" is done, or does it continue to inflict harm every 
>time it is read?)] Whom do we ultimately benefit from suppressing the 
>spread of this imagery? Immediately, yes, we protect the dignity of the 
>people it lampoons. But is the result the same in the longrun? Is there 
>any value to "muckraking" journalism?
>
>Janine


I'm reminded of the work of "art" entitled "Piss Christ" a couple decades 
ago.  I did a google search on it, and here's a point of view I came 
across, from what appears to be a German blog.

I hasten to add that I personally agree with Matt Reichel, below, and 
presumably with Bob Illyes.  Freedom of speech is not only a right, but a 
privilege which should be used responsibly.  Be it "art" or be it plain old 
political speech, as a general rule I don't believe in exercising my 
"right" to free speech if I know that the content of my speech is going to 
be offensive to a significant segment of the population.  I feel obligated, 
at the very least, to balance that consideration against the "importance" 
of my speech.


http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/001925.php


Tuesday, January 31, 2006


DANISH BOYCOTT, CHRIST AND FREEDOM

A reader mails:
You know Pieter, it really irritates me to no end how the libs have been 
jumping all over this as the group against offensiveness towards religions. 
You remember that whole "Piss Christ" thing years back? Weren't it the libs 
back then jumping up and down for freedom of expression?

Yes, I instantly remembered <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ>"Piss 
Christ" and when I did some research I was surprised that it was almost 
twenty years ago that it happened. And it was a double controversy, the 
left fighting for freedom of expression while the right was furious over 
the fact that a piece of blasphemy had been funded by the American taxpayer.

My reader is of course right. Our culture has accepted the notion that 
there is nothing wrong in using whatever means to argue that the dogmas and 
teachings of Jesus Christ are morally corrupt. Freedom of expression, fine, 
although we can discuss matters of good taste when it comes to Andres 
Serrano's now infamous depiction of Christ. Still, that assertion has 
somehow been accompanied by the argument that it is simply not acceptable 
to apply any criticism or ridicule to any other religion, most notably the 
one that finds itself increasingly in the spotlight of recent intellectual 
and public scrutiny. I leave it to your imagination if Serrano's original 
work was somehow amended with another deity taking Christ's place. I guess 
we would not be debating freedom of expression or who funded it, we would 
probably be debating something completely different.

Again, the ability to apply criticism and ridicule are the basic rights of 
anyone living in a western democracy. As a society we should expect 
citizens and artists alike to apply a measure of good taste. It is very 
hard to argue that the Jyllands-Posten's cartoons were offensive, but a 
case could be made that Serrano's "Piss Christ" was testing the limits of 
that somewhat arbitrary 'taste measure'. But we didn't kill Serrano, we 
didn't destroy his career, we didn't ask him for damages and a 
rectification, no, we debated it and we are still debating it today, twenty 
years on. That's freedom, that's democracy.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 03:55 PM | 
<http://www.peaktalk.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=1925>TrackBack (0)

************


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com>
To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cartoons


>When this was published in Charlie Hebdo a few days ago, I waited in a 
>longer than usual line at my local news stand here in the 14th 
>arrondissement to buy the published material, realizing full well that 
>this junk periodical was using hate speech as a means of making a little 
>extra cash, and that I was letting my curiosity help fuel that process. 
>Everyone in line seemed to mirror my sentiments: telling me that this has 
>nothing to do with "free speech," at least in part because we were paying 
>for it.
>
>I am opposed to the publishing of this crap in much the same way I 
>publicly opposed the publishing of the zionist, anti-palestinian trash 
>that appeared in the DI a few years ago. (full page ad depecting 
>palestinian children as terrorists to be...)
>
>Free speech has never meant freedom of speech at all times and places, but 
>instead requires an understanding of the balance between right and 
>responsibility: one can possess no right in a free and democratic society 
>without carrying it out in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
>
>
>Side Note: if the riots that engulfed the northern balieue of Paris a few 
>months ago actually had anything to do with a "clash of civilizations" as 
>many commentators would have you believe, then publishing this cartoon 
>would most certainly have fueled the flames again...RIGHT??
>
>cheers,
>matt e r
>
>
>>From: "Janine Giordano" <jgiord2 at uiuc.edu>
>>Reply-To: Janine Giordano <jgiord2 at uiuc.edu>
>>To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>,"Bob Illyes" <illyes at uiuc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cartoons
>>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:01:43 -0600
>>
>>Bob said, " I have no sympathy for the folks
>>that are rioting and burning, but am disgusted that the DI
>>has gotten into the fray by republishing stuff that is seen
>>as obscene by many Muslims. But then I believe they are behind
>>the Chief as well, so should I be surprised?"
>>
>>Yeah, that's an interesting question of whether or not offensive material
>>should be republished--for a particular purpose of pubic notice and open
>>critique. This is an interesting issue that I suspect the ACLU deals with
>>often---I, for one, really appreciate knowing what these cartoons that we
>>are all talking about actually look like. I don't personally like the idea
>>of opposing something on the grounds of hate-speech simply by taking the
>>"media's" word for it that these cartoons were so horrible. Seeing them, I
>>can have something to say. I have appreciated Ken Cuno and Behrooz
>>Ghamari-Tabrizi's explanation for why these are so offensive. Their
>>assessments lead me to wonder whether or not it matters how *intentionally*
>>hateful these cartoons were. Part of me believes (or wants to believe) that
>>these were made in real ignorance, and a climate of excessively racialized/
>>politicized religion. As Ghamari-Tabrizi's article implies, whether
>>consciously malicious or not they are part of an old system of
>>discrimination. But, in terms of responding to the incident here and now, I
>>wonder if we should consider constructive ways of theorizing/categorizing
>>hate speech from pathetic stupidity coming from a subculture of bigoted 
>>individuals. Is every racist/ close-minded remark a product of its 
>>culture, or is it possible that we have some bigots in Denmark? 
>>(Because,... we don't have to go all the way to Denmark....)
>>
>>janine
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Illyes" <illyes at uiuc.edu>
>>To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:46 PM
>>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cartoons
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the news, David. I have no sympathy for the folks
>>>that are rioting and burning, but am disgusted that the DI
>>>has gotten into the fray by republishing stuff that is seen
>>>as obscene by many Muslims. But then I believe they are behind
>>>the Chief as well, so should I be surprised?
>>>
>>>Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060211/3a517be2/attachment.html