Thinking about the fracas surrounding The New Yorker cover reminds me of other political cartoons like, for instance, the cariacature of the Prophet Muhammad, in violation of Islamic law, which drew the wrath of the Muslim world.
I'm reminded, too, of a speech made by a young congressman, before the House of Representatives, on February 18, 1947; Richard Nixon:"Mr. Speaker, on February 6, when the Committee on Un-American Activities opened its session at 10 o'clock, it had by previous investigation, tied together the loose end of one chapter of a foreign-directed conspiracy whose aim and purpose was to undermine and destroy the government of the United States...It is essential as Members of this House that we defend vigilantly the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But we must bear in mind that the rights of free speech and free press do not carry with them the right to advocate the destruction of the very government which protects the freedom of an individual to express his views."
And, here we are, more than 60 years later, in the
same ballpark, with another pitcher, and dealing with the same mindset,
as reflected by President George W. Bush who observes that: "Every
nation in every region now has a decison to make--either you are with
us, or you are with the terrorists." All we need do is substitute the
word "Communist" for "terrorist," et voila! But, can we sit back, and
let the First Amendment be sodomized by those who understand control
better than consciousness, and allow artists to be called over the
coals for what amounts to a dumb joke?
The New Yorker
is a magazine, founded in the 1920's, which has been around longer than
the administrations of either Presidents Nixon or Bush. Notably, too,
in the 1920's, the greatest novel of the English language, James
Joyce's "Ulysses," was banned by the Tariff Act , and confiscated at
American borders, on grounds of obscenity. This was right around the
time that an organization of writers, PEN, was formed to protect
artists from the arbitrary stroke of the censor's hand.
Who can forget the memorable words of another president, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, about a decade after the launching of a magazine
whose name has become synonymous with quality, humor, satire, poetry,
political commentary, and first-rate cartoons: "We look forward to a
world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom
of speech and expression. The second is freedom of every person to
worship God in his own way. The third is freedom from want...The fourth
is freedom from fear."
Arguably, humor is optional with the vehicle, and it is subjective. One
person may feast on what another finds tasteless. While there may be
some who find a political cartoon disturbing, the ramifications of
self-censorship, as well as societal pressure to redact that which
offends, must be resisted as an outrage to all who view dissent as a
vital ingredient for democratic, and higher order, thinking.
Whether we think the Obama cartoon was satire, flawed or otherwise, or
simply over-the-top, we must agree with author, and past president of
PEN American Center, Salman Rushdie, when he asks: "What is freedom of
expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." When
public opinion dictates what is acceptable, there can be no art, and
without art, there can be no diversity.
MichaelJ Martin: It is better one day free than life in a cage.
My mother saw a bird in a cage and made this statement "It is better one day free than life in a cage". The bird end up dying a week later without that one day.
1
July 24, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
