Freedom of Speech in Cartoons
Abby Breeding
Professor Bednarz
Humor and Religion
15 October 2015
Freedom of speech is a great concept. Who wouldn’t like to be able to speak their mind and have their opinions heard in the hopes of bringing change to the world? It is common today throughout many developed countries to have this right to free speech, bringing many issues of the society to the attention of many around the world. This right is most often practiced in the press. A Danish newspaper in the mid 2000’s, the Jyllens-Posten, landed itself in the middle of the controversial stage as their printing of twelve cartoons depicting the Islamic Muhammad in what many would call a stereotypically negative position caused rioting and called the specifics of the right to freedom of speech into question. Were these cartoons an act of the right to freedom of speech or were they an attack on the Muslim community? Articles in both The Washington Post and The Irish Times gave their input on the topic.
While both articles believe that these cartoons are inexcusable and crossed lines that should have never even been considered an acceptable thing to do, the Irish Times writer, Lorna Siggins notes that religion in the western world, except for the States, has seemed to take a backseat in modern culture. Even with the east as well as the U.S. still being consumed it seems the reaction to the cartoons was in “‘two different languages", and Muslims should have pointed out that the cartoons were "racist". In the West, there was a form of implicit censorship which preceded speech, while censorship in the Arab world "followed speech"’ (Siggins). This take is very interesting as it is able to point out the cultural differences in the Western World and the Middle East.
In the Washington Post, the author says that the matter of these cartoons is not that they are offensive, but rather, are they using the right to freedom of speech or is speech being used as a weapon? To the writer it is obvious to see speech as a weapon but they call out nations such as Germany, Spain, and France which all republished the cartoons in defense of the freedom of religion, saying that it was alright for the cartoons to be published in the first place. Meanwhile, nations like Jordon have had many attempt to republish the pictures, only to result in prosecutions and riots. The author calls out the Danish for their lack of action in their bigoted, right-wing country, saying that their bigotry and anti-immigrant state is the reason why the Prime Minister refused to meet with the Muslim Ambassadors which could have ceased many of the riots over their posts in the world news. The author states, “It's not an accident that these Arab voices of reason are also leading proponents of democracy: They, more than anyone, are the ones deserving of the West's support” (Post). The author wants the reader to realize that our concern should not be whether or not free speech is a right or a weapon but we should really be concerning ourselves with the safety of those around us in the world.
To this day, many consider the Jyllens-Posten Muhammad cartoons to be a paradigm example of controversy, splitting the nations, and drawing attention to the concept of freedom. As a nation with the right to free speech, this is something we should consider every day. Having the right to freedom of speech is empowering. However, is that power to say anything worth the lives of our fellow man?
Work Cited
Siggins, Lorna. "Wisdom of Defending Freedom of Speech Questioned." The Irish Times. The
Irish Times, 1 May 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
"The Uses of Cartoons." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 8 Feb. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
Professor Bednarz
Humor and Religion
15 October 2015
Freedom of speech is a great concept. Who wouldn’t like to be able to speak their mind and have their opinions heard in the hopes of bringing change to the world? It is common today throughout many developed countries to have this right to free speech, bringing many issues of the society to the attention of many around the world. This right is most often practiced in the press. A Danish newspaper in the mid 2000’s, the Jyllens-Posten, landed itself in the middle of the controversial stage as their printing of twelve cartoons depicting the Islamic Muhammad in what many would call a stereotypically negative position caused rioting and called the specifics of the right to freedom of speech into question. Were these cartoons an act of the right to freedom of speech or were they an attack on the Muslim community? Articles in both The Washington Post and The Irish Times gave their input on the topic.
While both articles believe that these cartoons are inexcusable and crossed lines that should have never even been considered an acceptable thing to do, the Irish Times writer, Lorna Siggins notes that religion in the western world, except for the States, has seemed to take a backseat in modern culture. Even with the east as well as the U.S. still being consumed it seems the reaction to the cartoons was in “‘two different languages", and Muslims should have pointed out that the cartoons were "racist". In the West, there was a form of implicit censorship which preceded speech, while censorship in the Arab world "followed speech"’ (Siggins). This take is very interesting as it is able to point out the cultural differences in the Western World and the Middle East.
In the Washington Post, the author says that the matter of these cartoons is not that they are offensive, but rather, are they using the right to freedom of speech or is speech being used as a weapon? To the writer it is obvious to see speech as a weapon but they call out nations such as Germany, Spain, and France which all republished the cartoons in defense of the freedom of religion, saying that it was alright for the cartoons to be published in the first place. Meanwhile, nations like Jordon have had many attempt to republish the pictures, only to result in prosecutions and riots. The author calls out the Danish for their lack of action in their bigoted, right-wing country, saying that their bigotry and anti-immigrant state is the reason why the Prime Minister refused to meet with the Muslim Ambassadors which could have ceased many of the riots over their posts in the world news. The author states, “It's not an accident that these Arab voices of reason are also leading proponents of democracy: They, more than anyone, are the ones deserving of the West's support” (Post). The author wants the reader to realize that our concern should not be whether or not free speech is a right or a weapon but we should really be concerning ourselves with the safety of those around us in the world.
To this day, many consider the Jyllens-Posten Muhammad cartoons to be a paradigm example of controversy, splitting the nations, and drawing attention to the concept of freedom. As a nation with the right to free speech, this is something we should consider every day. Having the right to freedom of speech is empowering. However, is that power to say anything worth the lives of our fellow man?
Work Cited
Siggins, Lorna. "Wisdom of Defending Freedom of Speech Questioned." The Irish Times. The
Irish Times, 1 May 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
"The Uses of Cartoons." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 8 Feb. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.