tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post113888390889222910..comments2024-01-16T22:44:45.454-05:00Comments on The TransAtlantic Assembly: The Mohammed Cartoon ControversyScott M. Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02806282026211879465noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138986511470540742006-02-03T12:08:00.000-05:002006-02-03T12:08:00.000-05:00I have deleted the comment left by "Anonymous". I...I have deleted the comment left by "Anonymous". It lacked the substantive material necessary to justify offensiveness.Scott M. Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02806282026211879465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138967640895347382006-02-03T06:54:00.000-05:002006-02-03T06:54:00.000-05:00I'd like to thank Srdj and Jacques for their thoug...I'd like to thank Srdj and Jacques for their thoughtful comments, and distance myself from the anonymous contribution...<BR/><BR/>Regarding the first two, there are some points I agree with, and others that I disagree with. The most important thing to stress here is that I was primarily concerned with the ethics of publication of such images - not the legality. Nor should it be assumed that a finding that it was unethical should lead to support for making it illegal.<BR/><BR/>Srdj, I would be very concerned about leaving censure to the market, as to me it is the central ethical issue. In a similar fashion, I would not like to leave censure to a democratic majority - to do so seems to substitute the legal fetishism of some for the majority fetishism of others; hardly an advance, in my view. Laws, again, are a different matter; and this is why I spoke of censure, not censorship.<BR/><BR/>This is why I think an examination of the satire and the politics behind the cartoons essential. If we can agree that the cartoons were potentially dangerous from an incitement standpoint, it is another balancing consideration that can lead us to the conclusion that they should have been published. Freedom of speech is one such consideration, but is never unlimited. The quality of the satire and political comment behind the caricatures forms, in my view, another, central consideration; which is why I would have been far more vociferous in my defence of the cartoons had I seen in them particularly witty or insightful comment. Again, though, this is in terms of censure, not censorship.<BR/><BR/>Jacques, you are of course correct to state that humour is subjective - different people find different things funny - but it also, I think, contextual - in that the same people may find the same thing either funny or unfunny depending on context. Much, if not all, of this has to do with the audience, intended or foreseeable, that the joke will reach.<BR/><BR/>This, however, was not my main point; rather, it was that humour, like everything else, must be open to ethical interrogation; and in this regard, I must say that i find it difficult to talk of anything as being in principle limitless. I agree wholeheartedly that some of the very best satire and caricature offends, and should not apologise for this. But it is not its offensiveness that creates the humour; it is the sharpness of the wit and the import of the comment. As I'm sure you'll agree, we must not get to the stage of defending something as satire purely because it was, in fact, offensive.<BR/><BR/>That even humour must be ethically interrogated also, to my mind, imparts an inescapably contextual element to the process of judgement. Whiel we can both agree in principle that there was nothing unethical about the comments made by the French stand-up comedian, we would, I suspect, feel differently had they been made before a 9/11 victim's families group. (I do not want to take this analogy too far - my point is not to suggest that the publication of the cartoons was tantamount to this, but rather the general point that context is essential in the ethical interrogation of humour).<BR/><BR/>I, then, am quite happy with the view that publication of such images must be legal, but that ethical censure as to their quality and their message, in the context in which they were published, is appropriate. Having said that, perhaps I have been too harsh on some of the cartoons; this one, for example, seems quite to the point given the armed occupation of the EU offices in Gaza yesterday:<BR/><BR/>http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_9.jpgEuan MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06191651493895392340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138961392609434252006-02-03T05:09:00.000-05:002006-02-03T05:09:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138961228416969822006-02-03T05:07:00.000-05:002006-02-03T05:07:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138961184362541412006-02-03T05:06:00.000-05:002006-02-03T05:06:00.000-05:00thank you very much for your comment Jacques. I ag...thank you very much for your comment Jacques. I agree with you the very nature of satiric humour is offensive and this is the beauty of it, we laugh because of this. I fear of future where such satirical humor will be banned. We cannot compensate for our racist policies towards the muslims in Europe and towards the muslim world by being politically correct towards the cartoons...this is an easy and dangerous way out, a Prime Minister of a democratic country cannot and should not appologize for the satirical drawings, despite the bad taste, essential lack of humour etc.Srdjan Cvijichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17554799586994194939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138897448194693612006-02-02T11:24:00.000-05:002006-02-02T11:24:00.000-05:00I guess that you are saying that humour is not uni...I guess that you are saying that humour is not universal - that it is extremely dependent on context. I am not so sure. I think it is more of a case of humour being subjective. At home I have a stand-up comedy show of French comedian D'Aleveque and one of his sketches (openly declared as très noir) pokes fun at the 9/11 tragedy. Although America has a strong comedic tradition itself I am not so sure how much such sketches would be accepted even in the most liberal of societies.<BR/><BR/>My point is that comedy itself is a bit like a sword being brandished, it is always more comfortable to be either behind the handle or watching the action rather than being at the pointed edge. The best humour tiptoes a fine line without being too apologetic for doing so. <BR/><BR/>At the end of the day I find it difficult to speak of limits to freedom of expression where humour is concerned. The very nature of humour (caricature and satire) is offensive and it is only a good sport and not a good censor that will solve the problem. <BR/><BR/>http://akkuza.blogspot.com/2006/02/blasphemy.htmlJacques René Zammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04881306009904413979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1138890233763395842006-02-02T09:23:00.000-05:002006-02-02T09:23:00.000-05:00I generally agree with your rationale Euan, althou...I generally agree with your rationale Euan, although I must say that I would tend to leave it to the market to censure such caricatures. I agree with you, the caricature is not at all funny to me and I do not see what did the author want to accomplish with it. Nevertheless, to delve into the debate whether the intention was ironic or not seems quite meaningless to me, rather I would suggest that those who violently or otherwise criticize this caricature accept that currently (and much to my personal liking) laws in most of the European states favour freedom of expression. Some day this might change under the pressure of the public opinion and democratic vote, however, today laws are such...those who feel ofended should avoid reading these newspapers and engage in political (democratic) debate to reshape the public domain... <BR/><BR/>Some European governments (read the current Italian government) justified their censorship of political adversary comedians by arguing that political satire should be clearly distinguished from news reporting, this is an absolute nonsense...trying to figure out whether the intention of the author is ironic or good quality should be left aside.Srdjan Cvijichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17554799586994194939noreply@blogger.com