Their seems to be a large amount of discussion about a recent South Park episode showing a defecating Jesus and a "censored" image of Mohammed. For a more detailed explanation visit the Volokh Conspiracy.
The debate centers around the Muslim policy of never showing images of the prophet Mohammed. This infringes on the democratic principles of free speech, under which satirical images qualify. Compounding the problem is the threat of violence from extremists who are all too eager to claim their virgins. Americans loathe giving in to violent factions, so where and how do we draw the line?
Moderate factions of Islam apparently do not have the same issue with Mohammad's image as seen in this report on a truce with Jyllands-Posten (the Danish newspaper of original fame). So do we give in violent extremist wings out of fear/freedom of religion/respect of Islam? Do we demonstrate our belief in the freedom of the press and publish or broadcast what we wish? Do we adopt some sort of middle ground for visual media like an internationally accepted "Mohammad symbol"? (I think Prince is done using his...)
I think the best way to demonstrate our respect for Islam is to disrespect it just as much as Christianity and Judaism. Otherwise Muslims will be outsiders. But, considering this is a forum, I would like to hear your thoughts, also...
I suggest the ever-so-successful Doonesbury technique of drawing empty space.
ReplyDeleteI stopped reading Doonesbury in protest of its placement in the comics section.
ReplyDeleteWhich leads me to the question: How would you satirize drawing empty space?
I thought the current South Park episode worked on many levels as far as a smart and relevant social commentary. In an odd way, Comedy Central's restriction on airing a depiction of the prophet mohammed even seemed to add something to the cartoon.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the mohammed depiction controversy in general, we really need to exploit this as an opportunity to foster free speech as an alternative to "free violence" as a means of expressing one's views. Perhaps, we should suggest that those who were so outraged by the satyrical cartoons collaborate to produce their own collection of satyrical cartoons and shop them around to various newspapers( I'm sure Al Jazeera would be willing to publish them )
For the most part, the defense of the original cartoons in general has consisted of "free speech is a sacred right", and other papers have continued to reprint the cartoons for both solidarity with the Danish paper, and an explanation that by doing so they are helping to defend free speech. To many in the world though, free speech is a foreign concept, and these arguments hold little sway. It may even be argued that the continual reprints of the cartoons, are a bit irresponsible, as anyone who wants to see them can easily do so on the web, so what then is being gained by reprinting them other than further outrage.
We can defend freedom of speech until we are blue in the face, but most likely we will convince few of those outraged that our view is correct. Is there not a more productive way to bridge the gap? By helping facilitate the practice of free speech for those unaccustomed to it, allowing them to experience it for themselves, might we be more succefull in conveying our point?
Sure, the end result of soliciting the muslim world for satyrical cartoon's is likely to produce some art that the West in general finds quite offensive, but hey, that's what free speech is about...
I just submitted my idea to Al Jazeera - any bets on whether or not they act upon it?
ReplyDeleteOne of the key problems that Europe has with Islam, is a perceived double-standard by Muslims. Countries with high Muslim populations tend to have a blantantly anti-Semitic bias to their media.
ReplyDeleteSo, uberfreki, I bet al-Jazeera has no problems running political cartoons that are offensive to the West, as they have been doing so already (at least for Jews).