Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.

[Gengar003]

Huh. Jesus also appears on Ghastly's Ghastly Comic (NSFW). Haven't seen any Muhammads...

If the Muslims don't want to portray Muhammad, that's great. Other non-muslims in countries where free speech and freedom of the press are considered rights should be allowed to, if they want to.

[Cat42]

What makes you think Matt Stone and Trey Parker don't get death threats?

[Orion]

I'm very ignorant of foreign affairs (I am american after all) but this seems strange to me. First and foremost I notice this article mentions that it was a goal of several of these groups to make denmark an islamic state. This seems a bit ridiculous since denmark's about 2% muslim.

I also noticed that that line has been removed since I started typing. Is there any source on this more reliable than wikipedia?

EDIT: I also know for a fact that south park has in fact portrayed mohammed before, although they weren't trying to be as offensive as this person apparently was.

[RemusShepherd]

I want to know if any comic artists on CG have drawn caricatures of Gods from various relgions used in satire and feel if could be considered offensive.

I haven't yet, but I will be soon. By the end of February, I think.

I also want to know how this development affects us all as cartoonists and weather or not the right to free speach should have limits.

No limits, none. Put any limits on it, and it's no longer free speech.

Now, I feel that people should be held accountable for the things they say if those things cause harm -- If you shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater, you should be found guilty of causing whatever harm the crowd suffers. But since Deicide is not against the law anywhere, satire of religious symbols should never be considered illegal.

Heck, Jesus makes cameo appearences on South Park. Why aren't Trey and Matt getting death threats?

I think you'll find that they are.

[Toxic]

Ghastly got our Burstnet sponsers mad after he had a comic showing Jesus having sex. It's pretty funny how Ghastly described it, that Burstnet was mad because he had shown a heterosexual couple having missionary-position sex within the context of marriage for the purpose of procreation.

[Orion]

I also want to know how this development affects us all as cartoonists and weather or not the right to free speach should have limits.

No limits, none. Put any limits on it, and it's no longer free speech.

Now, I feel that people should be held accountable for the things they say if those things cause harm -- If you shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater, you should be found guilty of causing whatever harm the crowd suffers. But since Deicide is not against the law anywhere, satire of religious symbols should never be considered illegal.

Well said. Although I think it's worth noting that several (western) countries do have different laws on freedom of speech/press than we (americans) do. At least this is the impression I have.

As far as how it affects us. I don't think it does that much. Certainly if nothing else they'll take ghastly before the rest of us. then we'll have time to get away. He can be our mining parakeet.

[Bustertheclown]

Ghastly got our Burstnet sponsers mad after he had a comic showing Jesus having sex. It's pretty funny how Ghastly described it, that Burstnet was mad because he had shown a heterosexual couple having missionary-position sex within the context of marriage for the purpose of procreation.

It's a pretty telling thing, however, to know that Ghastly's treatment of religion is what got his work in trouble, percieved dogmatic irony aside. Religion is a pervasive issue, even in democratic societies, and it's not something to be handled lightly without expecting repurcussions.

As far as my own opinion goes, here's what I posted on http://tmcm.livejournal.com/Shannon%20Wheeler's%20Blog about the subject:

Ah, race, religion, and creed. If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be pissed as hell at the cartoons. Apparently, the affrontery isn't just that it's insensitive in the way that satire often is, and should be. It's that people depicted the prophet Mohammad when that is forbidden, and a newspaper openly commissioned the depiction as a form of humor. As a humorist, I feel that that's a far reach from the general "hold up the mirror" role that satire plays. Instead, it's a public slap in the face to muslims for the role that Islam is percieved to play in current extremist trends.

You want to draw an adequate comparison? I'd say it's fair to think that graphically depicting the Prophet Mohammad, and then using him in humorous depictions at that, would be sort of akin to a major newspaper printing a cartoon with a funny joke about the Catholic Church's recent sexual woes, featuring the Pope fondling the Baby Jesus. Of course, the paper would never do such a thing, given that the Church is on Democracy's side, and any editor with three brain cells would know that it would piss off millions of loyal readers. I don't believe that people of the Muslim faith, in an capacity, are often afforded such consequential weight.

To break in for a moment, getting back to the Ghastly situation, God having sex was enough to have sponsorship pulled from Ghastly's comic. So, I'll take that as evidence that my comparison isn't too far off.

Also, I think it's particularly cowardly for an editor to hide behind the ol' "It's a democracy! Freedom of speech!" defense, too. It feels contrived, like they were aiming to pull a stunt to incite controversy from the outset, damn the costs, as long as they had the journalist mantra to shield them. An act like this smacks much more of propaganda than proper satire. Sure, it's legal, but then the question becomes, is it right?

The bottom line is that religion takes a whole lot of flack within a secular society, and most often bites its lip at the abuse. Then, when religious people suddenly raise their voices in response to what they perceive as insults to them and their belief system, they're smacked down as zealots, whether they are or not. I'm not a religious man, but I don't believe that this type of behavior does anything but add to current problems. It's irresponsible, it's intolerent, and, frankly, it's hypocritical behavior on the part of secularists.

[Turi]

This is not a question of freedom of speech vs blasphemy. It is a question of decency. Jyllands-Posten is known as one of our more decent and conservative newspapers. For it to commission and print those pictures of which many are very offensive, equaling (is that a word?) islam with terrorism, is much more than it would have been if some CG'er, say Ghastly, known for making harsh and imprudent statements. Hiding behind "freedom of speech" is more than irresponsible, it is childish.

We have freedom of speech in Denmark, but one is responsible for what he utters in public. Jyllands-Posten behaved uncharacteristically indecent, and has continued to do so, antagonizing all criticism. Ironically enough are many of the voices yelling for freedom of speech in this matter the same who yell "primmitive fanatics" when Saudi-Arabs burn Danish flags. I fail to see the difference.

[McDuffies]

My stance on this is that I don't have a stance until I see the comic in question. I can't know whether accusations are justified until I know if the comic is actually crossing the line of what I think is offending religious beliefs. Moslem organizations have some history of overreacting when it comes to any kind of portraying their religious subjects, but that's irrelevant if this comic is, in fact, something that would offend communities of any other religion if it was about their religions.

Now the freedom of speech stands, but we have to be aware that it can be abused, not only used. I am for going as far as it can as long as it has some purpose, but when I see that artist's aim was to actually brutally offend some group, then I think that that group has right to offend (have in mind that criticising is not the same as offending). Artists will do that to attract attention, and it's mayor hipocrisy when one such artist complains about freedom of speech because they're the ones who are bringing the whole idea of freedom of speech into question.

But as I said, I don't know if the comic in question falls in that category, not having read it.

***

This thread is a hot potato. Do not make it into a religious arguement, flame war or bashing of any sorts. Be careful.

[War]

http://work1out.dk/

There you go.

[RemusShepherd]

Apparently, the affrontery isn't just that it's insensitive in the way that satire often is, and should be. It's that people depicted the prophet Mohammad when that is forbidden, and a newspaper openly commissioned the depiction as a form of humor.

Well, 'forbidden' means 'forbidden for people following that religion'. Religious people seem to forget that their rules do not apply to anyone outside their faith.

If muslims want to boycott the paper, I'm all for that. Stage protests. Issue a fatwah if you want to deal with the repercussions of that. But in no way should what the newspaper did be illegal.

The bottom line is that religion takes a whole lot of flack within a secular society, and most often bites its lip at the abuse. Then, when religious people suddenly raise their voices in response to what they perceive as insults to them and their belief system, they're smacked down as zealots, whether they are or not. I'm not a religious man, but I don't believe that this type of behavior does anything but add to current problems. It's irresponsible, it's intolerent, and, frankly, it's hypocritical behavior on the part of secularists.

No, it's entirely consistent with secular beliefs. 'We don't believe in the things you believe, so we're not going to assign them any extraordinary protection'. Insults are not aimed specifically at religion any more than insults are aimed at any other aspect of modern society. The problem religious people have is that they want special treatment, and secularists refuse to give it to them.

[Orion]

I'm personally of the opinion that the newspaper should not have printed the pictures in the first place, and in fact should probably apologize and issue a retraction. Unless there is some context for the images we don't know about (quite possible) then there is no reason for them other than an attempt to offend. From the caption they seem to be saying they print them to 'protect their rights' which just seems to be another way of saying "we're doing this because we can"

Now that said, the newspaper should not (and it looks like will not) be forced to retract them by the government or anyone else. The boycott of Denmark seems a little extreme, but there are certainly worse responses (and I'm assuming it's not simply the cartoons themselves) considering the recent events in france.


Ironically enough the incident that got ghastly in trouble also ended up making things much better for his comic. He was allowed to sell his own adspace and actually start getting some money for his work (not barrels of it I'm sure, but more than before).

[Blackaby]

I think doing something like that is pretty fecking sick. The artists should be spanked.

[Pillywiggin]

The cartoonists had every right to make these comics and the newspapers have the right to publish them. That said, it's incredibly tacky and tasteless and they really shouldn't have done it in the first place. After the protests started they really should have stopped.

Although there have been repercussions for some of these people.

[Reinder]

[
You want to draw an adequate comparison? I'd say it's fair to think that graphically depicting the Prophet Mohammad, and then using him in humorous depictions at that, would be sort of akin to a major newspaper printing a cartoon with a funny joke about the Catholic Church's recent sexual woes, featuring the Pope fondling the Baby Jesus.

Brilliant! *Steals this idea*

[Rkolter]

My own .02:

Freedom of speech: there are already limits on freedom of speech, supported by time tested law in every western country, including the US. For example, it is illegal to claim that you have planted a bomb in a building, even if you have not, and even if it is in jest. It is illegal in many cases to misrepresent who you are, even if just vocally. Freedom of speech has never meant "absolute, unquestioned, entirely unfettered" Freedom of speech.

Tolerence: Tolerence means accepting someone for what they are, even if what they are is not what you are. That doesn't mean accepting everything that exists at every extreme, but it does mean making a general effort to not antagonize people.

And antagonization seems to be the reason for these comics. The majority of Muslims are decent, good people. They have their whacked out psychos. These comics brand, in a literal way, their entire religion as evil. And that's just not true. The vast, vast majority of Muslims are decent enough people just like anyone else.

[Berg]

What a lot of posters here seem to be missing, is the fact that the angry protesting Muslims aren't just pissed at the newspapers that printed these drawings. They've been protesting against the entire countries in which they were published. First and foremost, Denmark and Norway (others have followed).

Here in Norway, they were printed in a fairly small and obscure Christian newspaper. The fact that this alone is enough to send these people on a flag-burning protesting rampage against Norway, and not just the newspaper in question or even the Norwegian press as a whole, is what's worrying here. What did Norway, as a country, do to offend them? Nothing, except not censoring the offensive material. So: They are essentially objecting to the very concept of free speech itself.

[RemusShepherd]

You might also note that Armed Gunmen surrounded EU newspaper offices in Israel and threatened to take hostages. These aren't fringe groups, either -- they're backed by Fatah, a minority palestinian political party.

I think the problem is that in many Islamic societies, religious dictates and the law are indistinguishable. That leaves no room for secular freedom of speech, and gives them the unspoken right to enforce their rules of behavior on people outside their faith. This is one problem with legal systems based on divine teachings; they can never be peaceful in a globalized world, because you are eventually going to find someone who is offensive to your way of life. More or less the same thing happened in christian Spain and England during the middle ages...

[Turi]

Well, Saudi diplomats asked for a meeting with the Danish Pirme Minister, which he refused. Since a country is first and foremostly judged on the actions of its leaders, I can understand why some Arabs might think at least Denmark as being all for posting offensive, islamofobic material.

I doubt a meeting between our Prime Minister and the Saudi diplomats would have offered a solution to the situation, but by refusing to meet with them, he signalled not taking the matter seriously.

[Berg]

I also find it interesting how Islamic leaders demanded not only apologies, but that the editors of the newspapers be punished.