And giving it a little more thought, it does seem to me that, while McNally didn’t technically cross the line, he did walk right up to it and stick a toe across it …
This is a something of a strawman. And if you look at it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. ‘The American media doesn’t support free speech (because these cartoons haven’t received tons of coverage), so why don’t the American people amend the Constitution so the government bans certain depictions of Muhammad?’ (Of course, under Islamic law any kind depictions of Muhammad are technically bad.)
It’s not true that banning depictions of Muhammad would be a small compromise because, as noted by other posters, there is no precedent for that kind of protection, and it’s a horrible precedent of its own. I can think of no justifiable reason to ban that kind of artwork.
On the other hand, it would dramatically reduce the respect Americans have for America. And justifiably so.
Which affects my life more: my cherished freedoms, or the world’s approval of my cherished freedoms?
Thought so. The world can learn to deal with it.
The fact that these cartoons have immediately sparked (among other things) death threats shows that there are people in the Muslim world who do have a serious problem with our notion of free speech. I don’t think they deserve to be accomodated.
Maybe these bastions of journalism and free speech are being pragmatic. As the fanatics are not specifically targetting attacks and instead are using them as an excuse to be fanatical, CNN decides it would rather stay in downtown Baghdad and doesn’t light another fuse to the tinderbox.
It’s probably only a matter of time, though, before some inconsequential paper or station reprints or displays the images, using the convoluted logic of preserving freedom of speech. And the fanatical fanatics will, of course, see it as an insult from all of America, because their logic circuits are twice as faulty.
Sure Polecat, I’m not claimng that these works aren’t provocative or shocking. They are, and they definitely invoke some potentially very repulsive concepts. Juxtaposing images like “Jesus and urine”, “Mary and dung”, “Jesus and promiscuous gay” is shocking, and to many people even offensive, no question.
But IMHO there’s a very important distinction between that sort of juxtaposition and showing actual contemptuous or degrading treatment of the religious figures, such as would be implied by sticking a crucifix in a toilet or smearing shit on a Mary icon or calling Jesus a man-whore. That’s not just provocative art, that’s explicitly and deliberately insulting Christian belief.
Just as (to bring this discussion back on-topic), I think portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a bomb-throwing terrorist is explicitly and deliberately insulting Islam. Yes, I support free-speech protection for even that kind of offensive insult, but I don’t think it’s a very admirable example of free speech.
Well, the Drudge Report published at least one of the images on its home page for a while. I’ve since found several other US-based web sites that are currently publishing the images.
I went to a site with the cartoons- only two were even mildly amusing (M stopping suicide bombers marching into heaven "Stop! Stop! We’ve run out of virgins! - and - M telling angry followers with drawn scimitars “Come on, when you get right down to it, it’s only a cartoon by a Danish unbeliever.”)
But in any society which claims to have free speech, an attempt to ban Islamic caricatures would incite me to wear them on T-shirts & write a comic strip called “L’il Mahound & the Jihad Kids”.
Well there is no need to apply it to other groups. During my lifetime, as far as I know,no other religion has gone violent over the exercise of free expression. Boycotts are fine, riots are not. I see nothing to prevent further violence over this issue in the future other than voluntary compliance by the media. Ultimately free speech will be affected.
I wonder how long it will take before the sculpture of the prophet in a US federal building in Washington will become a big issue around the world.
Did you miss where it WAS NOT IN A TOILET? Beyond that it was part of a series he did of religious icons in various substances…water, milk, blood. Serrano was raised Catholic. The point of the work was not “I piss on your god”. It was Serrano’s feeling that his church (former church anyway) was disconnecting god from the real world of blood and sweat and piss.
The fact that it’s a rather beautiful image regardless of the title, is part of the point.
Of course he was trying to be provocative. But Christains, I guess, could choose to be offended or they could choose to think about what his beautiful image is saying. Isn’t god the god of blood sweat and tears…and piss?
Unless you’re a very small baby, then you just haven’t been paying attention. I’ll point you to this post I made earlier. I chose a small sample for illustrative purposes, but there are dozens and dozens of other examples if you care to spend some time with Google.