Lynn Johnston, the cartoonist behind one of the most-loved comics in history (a strip I've read since I was three feet tall), has issued a press release about the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Lynn, like most cartoonists, is torn on this issue. On the one hand there's the desire to defend freedom of speech, and on the other hand there's the desire to respect different cultures and faiths. It's a tought balancing act, and here's where Lynn comes down on the issue:
Kansas City, MO (02/07/2006) A Statement from Lynn Johnston, cartoonist of "For Better or For Worse"
As a cartoonist with over 30 years' experience, I am outraged by the way cartoons are being used to inflame a world religion.
Freedom of speech does not give us the right to ridicule, to flaunt power, or to invent explosive cover stories for the sake of sensationalism.
Freedom of speech allows a controversial point of view to be published. If this point of view is derogatory, is it "free speech" to then publish it again and again and again?
Like pornography, inappropriate material can be found if inquisitive people want to find it. I am therefore appalled by the lack of respect and total disregard for human life-- all for the sake of a headline.
People who wear the apparel of their faith live their faith 24 hours a day as a statement of their constant and unwavering devotion. Comedy and sarcasm of our concept of God may not be liked by many, but we have a history of tolerating it.
They do not. Can we not respect this deeply religious way of life?
I believe these cartoons have a right to exist. The media does not have the right to use them callously in the name of freedom. Freedom for whom? If one innocent person dies because of this capricious incident, publishers must accept the blame.
On behalf of conscientious humorists and illustrators worldwide, I want to say to the nation of people who have been understandably offended – an apology is due. This is not comedy. If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the category of hate literature and should be treated as such.
Laughter is a language we can all understand. For the sake of decency and good taste – stop reprinting this inflammatory image and allow a people already in crisis to heal.
-Universal Press Syndicate press release
Most of the cartoons at the heart of this controversy are poorly-though out, childish, amateurish and off-target, as far as I'm concerned. Some are mild and inoffensive, unless you're the type who suddenly decided to get offended that the prophet has been depicted at all (despite the fact that centuries of artwork and sculpture depicting Mohammed have passed without any ensuing rioting and torched embassies).
That said...
I can't agree with what (I think) Lynn is saying. I respect when other people observe their own sacred edicts, for the most part (e.g. not depicting the prophet Mohammed in a derogatory light, fine by me... stoning women to death for adultery, not fine by me). I understand when the faithful demand that others of their faith respect such an edict. That's their business. But when people demand that those who *don't* share their faith also respect those edicts, that's where they lose my support.
It's the same reaction I had when Giuliani and some Catholic groups temporarily
went ape-shit over a painting of the Virgin Mary that incorporated elephant dung (which is sacred in the part of Africa that inspired the painting) back in '99. The big difference is the degree of the overreaction, but the nature of that overreaction is the same. It's irrational to expect people of other religions (or no religion at all) to obey the rules of your own. People of any religion need to be disabused of the notion that their orthodoxy can be forced on outsiders. I think Lynn's approach - and the
condemnation so quickly handed out by our government, does the opposite -- it only reinforces that deadly notion.
A couple of the cartoons are ok, but the offense committed by the majority of them is that they're boring. I wish the images at the center of this controversy were better cartoons (click on the image to the right to see them), but I don't believe you can effectively defend free speech if you only stand up for it when you agree with it. I also don't believe that suggesting something has the right to exist but shouldn't be shown to the public is the same thing as defending free speech.
And it's an odd suggestion that papers should stop reprinting the cartoons as part of their reporting on the story. Papers have to balance their mission against the desires of their communities, but their mission remains one of educating the public. You don't educate the public by hiding important facts. And speaking as someone whose cartoons have been misinterpreted by reporters, I believe when the story is about reaction to a cartoon, you have to show people the cartoon so they can decide for themselves.
Lynn and others who share her argument are essentially using the "
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater" rationale. But that assumes that the cartoonists didn't believe what they were saying. How could they possibly know what those cartoonists believed? They forget that people have every right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if they really think there's a fire.
•
•
•
