"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
It was going to be said.
KGB Confiscates A Webcartoonist's Equipment, Threatens Jail
-
PieceOfSkunk
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:42 pm
- Location: DFW TX USA
I'd not heard that. Traditionally if the comic will be considered controversial; the substitute text is already subbmitted or an alternate comic is given for the editor to decide.
But it is up to the editor. That is not state-sponsored censorship. The newspaper has no obligation to run the comic.
But it is up to the editor. That is not state-sponsored censorship. The newspaper has no obligation to run the comic.
Warren
Comics. Drawn poorly.
------------------------------
It's grey, not gray. And it always has been.
Lauren's Wing - The fund for animal care
Comics. Drawn poorly.
------------------------------
It's grey, not gray. And it always has been.
Lauren's Wing - The fund for animal care
-
RPin
- Gentleman Pornographer
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:12 am
- Location: I'm off to Brazil, bitches!
- Contact:
And looking SPECIFICALLY through the prism of the basic right of freedom of speech, the difference between an editor who does not allow a cartoonist to speak his mind and a dictator that does not allow a cartoonist to speak his mind is...?
Yes, there is a world of difference between how both deal with the situation. But that is not what I'm trying to ask. In fact, answer that as you wish (if you wish at all). I sort of think this debate is pointless. I'm not badmouthing USA (which I love btw) here, because that sort of thing happens everywhere.
Yes, there is a world of difference between how both deal with the situation. But that is not what I'm trying to ask. In fact, answer that as you wish (if you wish at all). I sort of think this debate is pointless. I'm not badmouthing USA (which I love btw) here, because that sort of thing happens everywhere.
-
Sortelli
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 6334
- Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:15 pm
- Location: in your grandpa's clothes, I look incredible
- Contact:
The difference is that if the editor was compelled to carry certain speech it wouldn't be free. The newspaper is free to chose it's own content, and McGruder is free to produce anything he wishes and distribute it any way he sees fit.
If he chooses to work with a newspaper, he has to deal with the constraints. It's not like he can't put out books or 'zines or, you know, a free online webcomic that anyone can access. No one's stopping him, but you can't force someone to subsidize the publishing process.
If he chooses to work with a newspaper, he has to deal with the constraints. It's not like he can't put out books or 'zines or, you know, a free online webcomic that anyone can access. No one's stopping him, but you can't force someone to subsidize the publishing process.
-
KittyKatBlack
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:56 pm
- Location: How the hell should I know? I just live here...
- Contact:
I was going to say Soccer Moms, but Sortelli's answer was better.Sortelli wrote:The difference is that if the editor was compelled to carry certain speech it wouldn't be free. The newspaper is free to chose it's own content, and McGruder is free to produce anything he wishes and distribute it any way he sees fit.
If he chooses to work with a newspaper, he has to deal with the constraints. It's not like he can't put out books or 'zines or, you know, a free online webcomic that anyone can access. No one's stopping him, but you can't force someone to subsidize the publishing process.
-
Sortelli
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 6334
- Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:15 pm
- Location: in your grandpa's clothes, I look incredible
- Contact:
Also, in the bigger picture, it's not that McGruder is being specifically singled out. Prickly City had a strip about Ted Kennedy from the other side of the political spectrum rejected for the same sort of reasons. If a paper decides that a certain accusation or implication is beyond the boundaries of taste or it's own standards it has every right to decline or edit the content it carries within the boundaries of their contractual rights.
You can view the Passion of Aaron McGruder through a narrow enough prism to turn his troubles into a metaphor for how, you know, NO ONE IS REALLY FREE, but that's extreme tunnel vision.
You can view the Passion of Aaron McGruder through a narrow enough prism to turn his troubles into a metaphor for how, you know, NO ONE IS REALLY FREE, but that's extreme tunnel vision.
-
RPin
- Gentleman Pornographer
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:12 am
- Location: I'm off to Brazil, bitches!
- Contact:
When you say that a newspaper is free to run whatever it wants and that a cartoonist is free to quit his job whenever he wants you are very correct, but in my opinion this lacks a view of the bigger picture this all is just a part of.
An editor of a newspaper does not decide to run a given content in a given form based on the premise that he is free to do so, not even based on the standarts of the paper. The editor makes such decisions thinking that ultimately it may hurt sales by offending readers and scaring advertisers away.
So, in a way, you can say it is not the editor who makes such decisions. Censorship has been, and always will be, a mean of controlling the message by whoever has more power, and while that is evident in goverments embodied by the person of an autoritarian ruler, in neoliberal nations (the whole western world, with a few exceptions) he who has such power is the market. The market holds control of what can be said and when.
I'd like to think that we are free (if we take the conversation to more metaphorical venues I truly think we are), but perhaps we just like to play freedom. That cartoonist could quit his job (I know of some who did for these same reasons), but that would mean no longer being able to support himself and his family if he has one. So in a way we are given choices, but the way I look, we are just following paths someone else has decided for us without noticing it.
But I'm derailing too much from a subject I didn't even want to continue on...
This was by no means a rethorical question. And here is what my personal answer is:RPin wrote:And looking SPECIFICALLY through the prism of the basic right of freedom of speech, the difference between an editor who does not allow a cartoonist to speak his mind and a dictator that does not allow a cartoonist to speak his mind is...?
An editor of a newspaper does not decide to run a given content in a given form based on the premise that he is free to do so, not even based on the standarts of the paper. The editor makes such decisions thinking that ultimately it may hurt sales by offending readers and scaring advertisers away.
So, in a way, you can say it is not the editor who makes such decisions. Censorship has been, and always will be, a mean of controlling the message by whoever has more power, and while that is evident in goverments embodied by the person of an autoritarian ruler, in neoliberal nations (the whole western world, with a few exceptions) he who has such power is the market. The market holds control of what can be said and when.
I'd like to think that we are free (if we take the conversation to more metaphorical venues I truly think we are), but perhaps we just like to play freedom. That cartoonist could quit his job (I know of some who did for these same reasons), but that would mean no longer being able to support himself and his family if he has one. So in a way we are given choices, but the way I look, we are just following paths someone else has decided for us without noticing it.
But I'm derailing too much from a subject I didn't even want to continue on...
-
KittyKatBlack
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:56 pm
- Location: How the hell should I know? I just live here...
- Contact:
-
Sortelli
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 6334
- Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:15 pm
- Location: in your grandpa's clothes, I look incredible
- Contact:
I see your point from that perspective, Pin, but I would argue that that's as free as freedom gets.
Compare a man living in a modern totalitarian society where certain trivial actions are punishable with death. He could arguably be more free than a man living unhindered by government in the wild because he would have a great deal more choices before him. Where the man in the wild has no one to answer to, he is held by the constraints lf his environment. He must fend for himself against nature for food and shelter while the citizen of the oppressive government can still chose to become a doctor or lawyer or member of The Party, he can choose what clothes to wear as opposed to not having any to wear at all.
But the wild man is still more free because he's able to strive against the powers around him as he sees fit, to succeed and fail on his own merits and to gather as much power for himself according to his desires and ability. One could say that the wild man isn't free because the power his surroundings hold over him is greater than the power weilded by a totalitarian government (in fact, I would have a hard time choosing whose shoes I would want to be in between the two of them), but I believe the man in the wild has more freedom.
In a society where private citizens are free to pursue their own desires we create a marketplace where certain things are less favored by the will of the majority, but that's a FAR cry from a central agency that determines who gets how much of what and why. McGruder is no more censored by the paper than someone who would demand you publish his comic in place of Alex and Ilia on your site.
Compare a man living in a modern totalitarian society where certain trivial actions are punishable with death. He could arguably be more free than a man living unhindered by government in the wild because he would have a great deal more choices before him. Where the man in the wild has no one to answer to, he is held by the constraints lf his environment. He must fend for himself against nature for food and shelter while the citizen of the oppressive government can still chose to become a doctor or lawyer or member of The Party, he can choose what clothes to wear as opposed to not having any to wear at all.
But the wild man is still more free because he's able to strive against the powers around him as he sees fit, to succeed and fail on his own merits and to gather as much power for himself according to his desires and ability. One could say that the wild man isn't free because the power his surroundings hold over him is greater than the power weilded by a totalitarian government (in fact, I would have a hard time choosing whose shoes I would want to be in between the two of them), but I believe the man in the wild has more freedom.
In a society where private citizens are free to pursue their own desires we create a marketplace where certain things are less favored by the will of the majority, but that's a FAR cry from a central agency that determines who gets how much of what and why. McGruder is no more censored by the paper than someone who would demand you publish his comic in place of Alex and Ilia on your site.
-
RPin
- Gentleman Pornographer
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:12 am
- Location: I'm off to Brazil, bitches!
- Contact:
Tis okay, I still love you <3.
As I said, it's just a personal point of view. I think there isn't that much of a difference between goverment imposed and market imposed censorships when the focus of the debate is freedom of speech, but that's just how I look at it. Other people are free to disagree, and ultimately it's this inablity of two people that think differently to coexist pacifically that creats dictators and prompts editors into refusing certain content into their newspapers.
I for one am not falling into that trap.
As I said, it's just a personal point of view. I think there isn't that much of a difference between goverment imposed and market imposed censorships when the focus of the debate is freedom of speech, but that's just how I look at it. Other people are free to disagree, and ultimately it's this inablity of two people that think differently to coexist pacifically that creats dictators and prompts editors into refusing certain content into their newspapers.
I for one am not falling into that trap.
