OPINION & EDITORIAL
Sacred images, sacred rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Editorial: .... Or the free exercise thereof (February 21, 2006)
- Evolution not about free speech (March 17, 2005)
- Supreme Court affirms power of the purse (March 7, 2006)
- Muslims do not deserve stereotype (February 21, 2006)
- Questions emerge on marriage issue (September 4, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, February 13, 2006
The intellectual evolution of mankind best proceeds when conditioned upon the fundamental belief that there must be a marketplace of ideas, open to all forms of thought ranging from the agreeable to the offensive to the far-fetched. It is upon this premise that the First Amendment was so deftly scribed in the 18th century, and it is upon this premise that much of the maturation of the world has come to include similar declarations of a right to free speech checked only by decidedly minimal restrictions.
It is in this vein that we look upon a dozen controversial Danish cartoons, with an eye toward the cornerstones of a frank and free exchange of ideas, no matter how insulting or controversial such notions may be. We firmly believe the infamous plans for a Nazi parade in the Jewish village of Skokie, Ill., were thoroughly anti-Semitic, emotionally destructive and yet of the very caliber of speech that must be allowed for the so-called marketplace of ideas to flourish. We have similar views of those cartoons that have now surfaced throughout Europe and the Middle East.
Religion is so often that topic to which the most devastatingly hurtful of speech can be attached and yet it is a core rhetorical realm that any civilized society ought to protect. While this board is led to question whether The Badger Herald would have made the same decision had these cartoons originally been submitted here in lieu of to the Danish publication, such is not the matter we face today.
We are saddened that the University of Illinois student newspaper, in republishing the controversial cartoons, has come under fire on many fronts, including an admonishment from the school’s own chancellor. Other student newspapers have taken similar actions and been met by similar — and even harsher — reactions. When a parcel of dialogue causes portions of the world to respond not with superior ideas but, rather, violence, it would seem the most civil corners of the world ought to be fully informed regarding just what this parcel of dialogue is.
While the Danish cartoons in question are undoubtedly offensive, regrettable distortions of a predominately peaceful religion and illustrations that run against the teachings of Islam, they are also now the impetus of riots that have caused numerous deaths, reduced symbols of global peace to charred ruins and brought attention to a clearly unstable region of the globe.
As a result, the cartoons in question are clearly newsworthy and it is our firm belief that the media ought not be a gatekeeper guided by prude censorship, but rather a vehicle of facilitation in the grand marketplace of ideas. While one may aptly question the newspapers that originally ran these cartoons, it would seem that the illustrations have now become more than depictions of an unsavory nature and commenced to stand also for the very necessity of free speech.
People have a right to see these drawings and make their own impressions as to whether they are per se offensive (which we maintain them to be), sufficient grounds for bloody riots (which we firmly believe them not to be) or the sort of speech that is so frightening in nature a society cannot function if it is allowed (which we firmly believe them not to be).
As such, we feel the American readership — and, more precisely, that of Madison, Wis. — is sufficiently mature to handle these images. While they may be offensive, they are also newsworthy and the key to helping many form intelligent opinions about the international riots and ever-increasing destabilization of a volatile region of the world. It is in this spirit that the student newspapers have elected to share these images with their readers, and it is in this spirit that we make the same decision.
Printed below is one of the 12 cartoons in question — the image that many have deemed to be the most offensive. In sharing this, we seek not to offend members of the Islamic faith or insult those who see the image’s argument to be comprised of a fallacy. Rather, we print this as a symbol of our continued dedication to free speech and as a means of better informing the debate that has been sparked.
No form of speech, regardless of how vulgar or hurtful, should be grounds for a violent reaction, and a legitimate example of journalism should not warrant a chancellor lashing out against a school newspaper. We stand in solidarity with all media outlets that have elected to share the full story with their readers by printing these images, and we cannot justify proceeding in a manner so prude as to not offer you the same full spectrum of thought.
It is the duty of the press to inform, not censor, and when free speech is under fire that responsibility is only heightened.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 2:38am):
My position:
It is VERY poor manners to make fun of people's holy men, it shouldn't be done.
When one's holy men are made fun of though it doesn't give anyone the right to physically threaten the perpetrators. At the same time the government doesn't have the right to tell its people who they can and cannot make fun of.
For this reason I stand in solidarity with Denmark, since the response to the cartoons by many Muslims - sanctions and violence - to Jylland Posten's drawings has been completely unproportional and intolerant.
Buy Denmark. Support Free Expression!
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 2:47am):
Badger Herald, once again you just don't get it. People are not rioting solely because of the cartoon--to say otherwise is to deny hundreds of years of history. People in the middle east, and everywhere else in the world, are sick and tired of western oppression, either economically or culturally or politically. And publishing a cartoon like this is just the tipping point... think about the backlash that would happen if there were pictures of someone pissing on the pope John Paul II, with a caption about how the pope hated freedom because he supported US-led dictatorships in the 3rd world.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 8:12am):
Western oppression? way to make excuses for behavior that is taught and engrained in the minds of those people. No one is ever responsible for their own actions in your world, are they? And as far as pissing on the Pope, ever heard of "Piss-Christ"? Look into it. No riots or deaths after that.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 9:43am):
The defense of Free Speech and the ability of a free society to satirize any and everything, no matter how sacred, it fundamental to the liberty of all. If making light of religion is not allowed, then to what extent ought making light of politics be allowed?
Free speech has limits, no doubt, but it is primarily to the extent of incitement and obscenity, as the Supreme Court decided and laid out the standard in the paradigm Brandenburg case.
Unreasonable reactions to satirization of sacred figures is not justifiable grounds to censor or self-censor. Indeed, it is the very reason why offensive speech recieves a presumption of protection - offense is, by definition, relative to the individual. What offends you necessarily does not offend everyone.
The cartoons are not obscene, nor were they published for the purpose of inciting violence. Instead, these cartoons have been used merely to advance a movement seeking the destruction of the ability of individuals to freely mock that which they deem worthy of satirization - indeed, the destruction of liberty itself. If anyone truly harbor doubts as to the veracity of the hatred of all things related to freedom, the riots in relation to these cartoons ought to shine light where there once may have been darkness.
Kudos for your courage. May your bravery in the face of political correctness and fear of reprisals be remembered for its justness in the annals of American history. Needless to say, I am extremely proud.
Zach Stern
Associate Editorial Page Editor, 2004-05
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 11:29am):
Courage?
Hardly. Two weeks after the contoversy, after other domestic newspapers printed some or all of the images, the BH decided to joint the fray.
And the question of course, is why? Is it because the BH is strongly supportive of ideas of the freedom of speech? I'm not buying that. If the BH really cared about free speech and the "marketplace of ideas", for example, they'd probably print more than three letters to the editor each semester.
Instead, I see it as the BH is raising a ruckus now that they see it's safe to do so. At this point in the timeline, what can you bring to the table? The point that our culture of free speech is superior to militant Islam nations has already been proven. So, other than poking an angry bear with a stick, what are you doing?
Congratulations, BH, on belatedly joining the discussion! It's like you walked across the Edmund Pettis bridge two weeks after MLK did. I hope your "me-too" attitude carries you well in life.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 12:31pm):
I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the fact that one of the biggest books in the past decade tore apart a religion using "facts" and there was no violence, but laughable cartoons garner violence from crazies who still don't understand that their very reaction is the reason for the depictions.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 2:13pm):
I only have one question: why does a person go to prison if they make fun of the holocaust, or deny that it happened, and yet it is okay to blaspheme the prophet of Islam?
These cartoons look really similar to Nazi cartoons depicting Jews back in the 30's. Are we here in the Western world planning to exterminate Muslims like we exterminated the Jews back then?
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 2:52pm):
Who has gone to jail for it in the US, and be honest about the reasons. And on a side note, denying the holocaust ever happened isn't illegal, but it does make you one of the dumbest people alive.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 3:34pm):
No one goes to prison in the US for "making fun of" or denying the holocaust.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 6:21pm):
Given the recent revelations in the cartoon controversy, it now looks to be the case that most of the demonstrations were not spontaneous. Interestingly, an Egyptian newspaper republished the cartoons, way back in October. And...nothing happened. There were no riots in the streets, burning of embassies, mass demonstrations. The edifors of the Egyptian paper were not sacked. It seems that the Muslims doth protest too much. Just once, I'd like to see the Islamic "street" get in an uproar over other injuries that their fellow Muslims suffer, say in the Darfur region of Sudan.
In any case, while it is uncouth to go about making fun of other people's religious beliefs, I hardly think that we in the West need to be bound by Islamic taboos against depicting Muhammad in any form. Actually, I think that Muhammad would make a fine subject for a Hollywood epic Bio-pic: no doubt there would be many cool battle scenes.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 10:08pm):
Where are the artists?
Where is my "Piss Muhammed"?
Where is my "Elephant Dung Muhammed"?
I don't know art but I know what I'd like to see!
ps. Life of Muhammed would be banned unless the pedophilia scenes were left out.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 1:28am):
Freedom of speech needs to be respected in this country, but I think respecting humans are more important. These cartoons offend many people, and you know this- so why print them? This act may be legal, but incredibly insensitive to a group of people who are already so widely misunderstood and misrepresented.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 5:58am):
Dear members of the Badger Herald Editorial Board,
Well said. Thank you for informing us about this debate. You could have sent the same message, and the sufficiently mature people of Madison would have perceived the full message without having to print the pictures. Most people all over the world have already seen these pictures, and I wonder what added value printing this picture had brought to your article. You might need to stop for a minute and think if you should be followers or inventors, constructive or destructive in our actions. it is very disappointing to see how shallow the Badger Herald had become to show the freedom of speech, when its board could have done it in a better way showing more respect and dignity to everyone in this campus.
Thank you
Mazin Halawani
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 8:35am):
This is just history repeating itself. Muslims are the Jews of the 21st century, demonized everywhere, and especially in Europe anti-Muslim sentiment is spreading like wildfire. And just like it took some hundreds of years for people to curb anti-Semitism, clearly anti-Muslim sentiment is still lagging far behind. Yes, in this day and age Nazis are still allowed to parade in Skokie, but would any respectable newspaper or campus daily reprint Nazi rhetoric "in solidarity"? I don't think so.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:55am):
Best I could tell the cartoons are an accurate depiction of the current state of Islam. I don't believe that there is a silent moderate Islamic majority in the middle east. When Sinead O'conner ripped up a picture of the Pope I don't remeber any fire bombings occuring. The only protests against anti-catholic or anti-christian art has come in tax payers saying they shouldn't have to pay for some lefty idiot to create piss christ or dung mary.
As for Western oppression as posted by stupid people, they should choose to live in a fascist state or cuba so they can learn what real oppression is. The poor in the western world are far better off than the political disenter in the middle east or cuba.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 12:10pm):
I understand you reprinted the cartoon with the good intention of being informative, and with no harmful intention of being offensive, but I would like to point out that the main issue at hand was the Danish paper's printing of the cartoons, whose purpose, unlike yours, was to offend; not to inform. Since the issue is printing of the cartoon to begin with, your re-printing it here, I feel, thus serves the original purpose, although unintentionally on your part. Even on this website, the cautionary under the "Add a comment" heading reads: "...please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted."
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 3:49pm):
BUY DANISH GOODS
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:40am):
I just looked at the cartoon from Monday, with the bomb in the headdress. I had never seen it before now. For the life of me, I have NO clue why the Muslims are so upset. Do they get just as mad and destroy property, etc., when they see our journalists make fun of other religions' clergy? No. We cartoon every thing and every body in this country, so what makes the muslims exempt from that? They are not as special as they make themselves out to be. The real truth, is that the truth is these people ARE terrorists...and the ones who are not, aren't doing much that I can see to stop it. There are far more of them non-terrorists and since killing and such over there is commonplace, maybe the non-terrorists should just get together and get rid of those who are. THAT would show the nature of what they claim their prophet is about...peace, blah blah blah. It's our own fault all this crap is going on anyway--we had NO business over there in the first place. If they want to kill each other all the time, let them do it...but we need not be over there getting our people killed.
And as an aside to the Chaney deal: How come HE got off with a warning ticket?? Were it someone here hunting without a permit or license, and shooting someone on top of it, you can bet your @$$ WE'D GET A BIG FINE, priviledges removed, and maybe even jail time! Goes to show power can do what it wants without fear of retribution. Thank you
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:33am):
Reprinting this controversial subject does not illustrate free speech but rather stupidity given that the cartoon was inaccurate in the first place.
Its no wonder the Muslim community took offense since Islam itself advocates peace not war. Fanatics and not Muslims as a whole have wrongfully embraced terrorism, as it is not a cornerstone of the religion.
As a Christian I would certainly take offense to an illustration of Jesus portrayed with a pitch fork and forked tail. Would it be worth the level of violence seen in the Middle East? I don't think so, but is certainly worth demonstrating to show disagreement with such journalistic liberalism that no longer views certain topics as sacred.
Thankfully, everyone will have to account for their actions on judgment day including and especially the type of press that hides behind the 1st amendment to justify opening its mouth on inappropriate topics.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 11:47am):
You knowingly and deliberately offended members of our own UW family. People do not have to see the cartoons to discuss whether they are offensive to other people or not. What people who read your paper think of the cartoons is not the issue. Many people on this campus are trying to build a community atmosphere that includes all minorities - you intentionally went out of your way to offend them.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 2:54pm):
I am glad the Badger Herold did not succumb to the threat of violence that paralyzes the main stream news media. It is amazing how total the censorship is in this country - one would think one of the large news organizations would show a caricature. I guess when women are being stoned in this country for showing their faces or going to a co-ed school, it will not be news. William Sigmund
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 10:20am):
Though the argument for free speech makes sense it is not the complete story. Why is that European and American society not allow Nazi symbols. Take the case of the Prince Harry of England wearing the swastika OR the KKK members not allowed to wear masks in their 2004 NY rally OR the swastika symbol being covered when the eagle from the German World War II battleship Graf Spee was salvaged from the depths of the River Plate? In all these cases, sympathy was shown towards the beliefs and feelings of our fellow human-beings. Islam considers Jesus as a prophet too and according to Islam all caricatures of prophets is a sin. Why then does it then condone blasphemous depictions of Christ? Free speech is a right of the free press, but respect for each other is important too.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 7:13pm):
This is again another act of racism and hatred towards Islam. Why havent we seen Badger hearald publish pictures of prisoner torture in Iraq or will the badger herald publish the the cartoons from the Iranian newspaper's competition relating to the holucast. I don't think so, but yet they feel they can do it to muslims and Islam becuase they do not respect the religion. This is pure ignorance and hatred towards a peaceful and beautiful religion.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:12pm):
As a journalist, I was utterly offended by the actions of the BH. Yes, this country was built upon the ideas of free speech and an open marketplace of ideas, BUT not at the expense of others' beliefs and daily ways of life. The BH should have put a bit of thought into getting at the root of the current situation of Islam, as well as its followers. Islam is obviously seen as a 'volatile' religion by a good part of the Western world, and the BH's desire to jump the bandwagon and attempt to prove their journalistic chutzpah completely and utterly failed, as well as offended Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Because of this, I have never felt more ashamed to be a part of Madison's journalism community.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:17pm):
Your right we don't respect an ass backward religion. So some of your Muslim buddies got offended. Tell me Ashmir, were does it say in the Constitution YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED????? Cause gosh darn it I have read through the thing a few times and have yet to come across it. Funny only in America would we give Oscars to a film showing Gay Cowboys (how many did this movie offend) and have near riots due to a stupid cartoon of a Man in a turban with a bomb on his head. Looks more like Rasputin than Mohammed to me, I would tend to hope Mohammed would have been a little more awe inspiring but if that cartoon is supposed to be him he was a dorky looking thing to begin with.
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 10:20am):
I'm very offended by your postings and aim towards adding the oil to the fire regarding the cartoons. You don't just say your opinion but you are promoting disgust and violence. I have a question for you Sir, How do you feel if you faced very offensive postings and some one have no job but promoting it to get famous in a very cheap way.
Muslim American
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 12:48pm):
thank you for printing the cartoon. it took me forever to find it.
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 10:43pm):
I applaud your stand in support of free speech. Even irresponsible speech is not the same as physical violence, and should never be taken as the justification thereof. Sticks and stones...
John Fremont (February 18, 2006 @ 7:01pm):
Violent reaction to real or imagined offenses is not unique to Islamic cultures. Witches and homosexuals, scientists and people of color have been persecuted at various times. Illegal aliens are fair game in many places along the border. A jerk named Fred Phelps shows up at gay funerals with vitriolic buddies.
The depiction of Mohammad is offensive to Muslims, just as the depiction of the Virgin Mary having sex with a donkey would be offensive to Christians. This doesn't excuse mob violence,but mobs are irrational entities. Football mobs, spring flings, revival meetings, etc. deindividualize and demoralize otherwise rational beings and lead them to indulge in stupid and often dangerous activities.
How else can we explain why American soldiers torture prisoners or why some American voters continue to support a repressive administration?
Anonymous (February 18, 2006 @ 10:04pm):
I see no issue here. Cartoons were printed in Denmark that led to riots and bombings, making their existence a newsworthy item. I'd say the article prefacing the reprintings does a complete job of explaining that the intent was not to offend, but to inform.
I don't care how offensive the image is; if it motivates some people to kill and destroy, I certainly have the right to know what all the fuss is about.
Anonymous (February 19, 2006 @ 6:16pm):
DANISH CARTOONS AND THE AMERICAN "PISS CHRIST"
I was very surprised to get this letter published in the (Irish) Sunday Tribune recently. I actually addressed it to individual journalists rather than "Letters to the Editor" because my experience over the past 10 years is that it is practically impossible to get anything of this type published in my country.
Part of the explanation may be that journalists who were once the instigators of incitement to hatred have now become the targets? That may be too cynical and I would like to thank the Tribune anyway!
Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Dublin 15
Ireland
Catholics subject to insensitivity (The Sunday Tribune, 12 February 2006)
"ALL people, all religions, have to be open to criticism but it must be constructive and sensitive. [A debate] . . . cannot be achieved by extremism in either culture."
"We in the Sunday Tribune are against censorship and believe passionately in freedom of speech. But the publication of cartoons that Muslims find so offencive was not correct. For that reason we are not reproducing them today"
(Sunday Tribune Editorial 5 February).
Is the Tribune serious? Do you recall the obscene and vicious attacks on Nora Wall (Sister Dominic). "Vile Nun", "Pervert Nun", "I was Raped by Anti-Christ". Did you imagine that these came from people who were concerned about child abuse? Do you remember the article by the Sunday World 's crime correspondent Paul Williams "Rape Nun's Abuse Pact by Smyth". He claimed that Nora Wall had procured children for Fr Brendan Smyth! Nora Wall sued and got damages of 175,000. I don't recall the Sunday Tribune (or any "Liberal" newspaper) highlighting the issue. Did you even mention it and if so when?
Several years ago, The Irish Times did an article about "Piss Christ", an artistic masterpiece that showed a crucifix in a bucket of urine. American Christians who wanted to deny public money to the artist were called "fascists" by The Irish Times. What was the constructive and sensitive response by the Tribune?
Do you really think that liberals can (literally) spew vomit over Christianity and their own culture and then demand tolerance of Muslims?
Berthold Brecht was the leading intellectual in the Weimar Republic. He was also a Stalinist bootlicker. His own mistress Carola Neher, star of The Threepenny Opera, visited the Soviet Union, was arrested and disappeared forever into the Gulag. Brecht did not protest or lift a finger to help her (it would have meant allying himself with "reactionaries"). The obscene treatment of Nora Wall, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and Sister Xaviera by Irish "liberals" is on the same moral level and you are equally unfitted to fight against our modern fascists.
Rory Connor, 11 Lohunda Grove, Dublin 15.
www.tribune.ie
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 5:23pm):
The Sinead Pope picture bit actually works against your argument. First, Sinead hid her intent from the show, lied and said she would do something very different. She would have never gotten approval to do that. Second, when Sinead did the offensive act, those who were offended complained and there was all sorts of apologies from the network, and consensus was that it should not have been done. If no one apologized, and things were permitted to escalate, it probably would have gotten uglier.
Anonymous (February 21, 2006 @ 11:47am):
The radical element of Islam has whipped this up into a fury, trying to use the cartoon as an excuse for terrorist acts and rioting, and demand the destruction of Denmark, the US, and Israel. Moderate muslims, on the other hand, protest peacefully and don't demand the destruction of the US and Israel.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
