Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
The Dutch are once again finding themselves in hot water over cartoons. A Muslim group, the Arab European League, placed on its website the cartoon shown to the right. It's certainly an offensive cartoon, no question about that. But the AEL should not be prosecuted for publishing the cartoon any more than certain segments of the Muslim world should have reacted in violence against the publication of the now-infamous "Mohammed cartoons." It was wrong of people to try to suppress the Danish newspaper cartoonists' free speech by committing acts of violence (and wrong of the cowards to self-censor in response), and it's equally wrong for the Dutch authorities to attempt to punish the AEL for its non-violent, written expression.
My policy is to republish "offensive" images which some are trying to censor through violence or state prosecution, regardless of whether I agree with the images or not. Holocaust deniers are a despicable bunch, generally, and there is a significant amount of anti-Semitism within groups such as the AEL. I don't trust the AEL's motives in publishing this cartoon. The AEL apparently had tried to have the Dutch cartoonists prosecuted for their drawings, clearly showing that they have no more respect for freedom of speech than the average government in the Islamic world. But they are right when they say that, if freedom of speech protects the Dutch cartoonists, it also protects AEL from publishing this offensive cartoon.
The Dutch prosecutors claim that their review of the Mohammed cartoons found that they were not offensive to Muslims as a whole and did not incite hatred or violence towards Muslims, but that their review of this cartoon found that it was offensive to Jews as a whole. While I can see some distinctions between this cartoon and the Mohammed ones, I don't see any that are or should be legally significant. It's all in the eye of the beholder, which is one of many reasons why we should not prosecute, nor commit violence against, people for the content of their speech or ideas. Condemn the AEL for promoting bigotry, sure, no problem. Prosecute them? That's wrong.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| omstredencartoon2_0.jpg | 19 KB |
Our RSS feed
(Don't) argue with a lawyer
I'm not sure of the legal aspects, but I see a huge gap between the two instances. Although I didn't find them all that funny, the Mohammed cartons were obviously "humor". They weren't meant to incite. They were meant to make fun of. As in poking your finger in the eye of a belief system. I've seen Christ, the Pope, Budda, (and Mohammed) all get poked with varying degrees of humor. The amount of humor I saw in the poke probably depended on my bias. But the illustrations were definitely "pokes".
I don't see the poke in the eye status of the cartoon above. Are they trying to say the number of Jews cremated is inflated, and that is funny somehow? I don't see that they are making fun of anything in any manner. What is the purpose of the illustration? Are my biases in the way here?
Free speech is free speech I guess, but it is a pretty slippery slope. That illustration has a bit of grease on it.
Matter of perspective...
I saw the humor in some of the Mohammed cartoons, though they were intended not so much as humor as simply an exercise to document the self-censorship that the paper thought was going on with discussions of radical Islam. But I can certainly see where a devout Muslim would find, say, the picture of Mohammed with a bomb for a keffiyah, to be quite offensive. If we establish rules based on subjective judgments of motive or ability to see humor in something, then it's not possible to subtract out our cultural biases, and we admit that others with different cultural biases have a right to judge us based on their own cultural biases.
The thing is, it's speech. It's not a bomb. It's not a gun. It literally cannot itself cause physical harm to anybody in any way. The proper way to combat the offensiveness of its ideas is to criticize it, to point out its flaws, to educate people about the real truth. Violence and governmental repression is entirely inappropriate.
Free speech
Again, my argument is not based on law.
I can see the Jew cartoon as hate speech. The Mohammed cartoons don't cross that line imo. Yes it is subjective, but are you saying that any restrictions on hate speech are wrong? The lines are arbitrary and if you are going to draw them by necessity cultural.
Governmental repression = censorship? "Fire" in a crowded room. Incitement to riot. Pornography. Hate speech. Holocaust denial. Defamation of religious beliefs. Offending cultural sensibilities. No lines??
I am not saying I personally agree with the censorship in this instance. I'm just saying our biases are different than the folks making the decision. Given the history of the situation I'm not sure the censorship is entirely inappropriate.
Very few lines...
I'm generally pretty pleased with the lines that the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn over the past 2 centuries. Speech that has a significant risk of immediate violence, sure. Incitement to riot is not the same as exercising free speech, that's true. Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, likewise. Objectively false speech generally receives less protection, and that's ok.
But matters of opinion? Conclusions stemming from underlying facts, which conclusions are in the end nothing more than opinion? No. Censoring that is wrong, in all circumstances.
There may have indeed have been a need for laws banning Holocaust denial in Europe for some period after the Nazis were defeated (note, however, that this comic is not being prosecuted for Holocaust denial, but for inciting hatred of a religion). But that time has long since passed, and is utterly unenforceable in the internet age, anyway.
In your opinion, this cartoon is different from the Mohammed ones. Why? What are the factors that lead you to that conclusion? How might we write a rule which distinguishes that cartoon from the Mohammed ones? Could we write such a rule so that the outcome of a court case would be the same regardless of whether the judge and jury were made up of Muslims or of Jews? If you can't write a rule like that, then you're saying that it's entirely appropriate for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Mark Steyn for his article critical of radical Islam, since they believe it to be offensive and "hate speech."
I defend the right of the "Piss Christ" artist to make it and display it. I condemn having the government pay for such filth, and I criticize the art and those who voluntarily choose to display it, but I defend their right to do so, and I would oppose any violence against them for doing it, no matter how offensive or "hate-filled" it may be.
"Very few lines"
Once you draw ANY line the rest seem a matter of degree to me. Speech is longer free. It becomes acceptable in certian circumstances. Societal consequences are different from governmental regulation. Once you accept any censorship, and I think we both do, it all becomes a matter of opinion. In that regard, everything is subjective.
The difference: Bomb Mohammed is making fun of a group of people. No immediate harm other than loss of self-esteem. Overstated Holocaust victims is denigrating a group. Subjective opinion. (I didn't know the prosecution was for religion hate. On that basis I don't see the grounds.)
I can't write a law. The spectrum is too closely packed. But to me being offended doesn't make the cut. Actively trying to denigrate does. Piss Christ is too close to call.
What's the difference?
What exactly is the difference between "making fun of a group of people" and "denigrating a group of people"? There's not. That is 100% subjective. As you acknowledge, the "spectrum is too closely packed." If we allow "making fun of people" and outlaw "denigrating a group of people" all we're actually saying is that whatever group is in charge gets to protect their own side from being gored.
It's not just that YOU can't write a law, it's that it's not possible to write a law that distinguishesd between the two based on anything other than purely subjective opinion. With other lines the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn over the decades, there are objective criteria. Sometimes those are more easily applied than others, but the criteria are fairly objective. The "fighting words" doctrine, for example, looks at whether the words are a call to immediate action on the part of those immediately listening to it. Libel suits are available only against untrue statements of fact. We are able to write rules which guide us in determining whether something is permitted or proscribed. But it's just not possible to write a law that distinguishes between "making fun of" people and "denigrating" people. That is 100% subjective, and almost entirely dependent on one's underlying sympathies and biases. And that should not, should never be, the basis for law.
Word change
I know it doesn't change how you look at it Pat, but I made a lazy word choice. Substitute 'causes long term harm to the Jewish community by increasing anti-semitism' for denigrate.
I'm not the only one...
I'm not the only one who feels this way. I still don't see any objective basis for distinguishing this cartoon from the others. A great many Muslims feel, very, very strongly, that those cartoons do "cause long term harm to the Islamic community by increasing anti-Islamic sentiment."
Still not convinced
After reading the piece and the comments it's as clear as mud to me now. As weak as the argument of "I know porn when I see it" is, it's the only one I have.
I do understand what you are saying, and don't totally disagree. But the one case still seems different than the other to me. A line (drawn by my bias of course) seems to have been crossed. Nothing I have any real stake in.
I'll try this one: The Mohammed cartoon is based on fact (a small instance of fact used as an untrue generality). The Jew cartoon is factually untrue.