04 August 2008
freedom of criticism
Cartoon caricatures have become a political issue, ranging from the depictions of Allah in the Danish press, to the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of The New Yorker, to a recent cartoon concerning the son of Nicolas Sarkozy in a French magazine, which was criticized as anti-semitic and which led to the firing of the cartoonist "Bob Sine". The defenders of these cartoons have raised the banner of free speech and freedom of expression and denounced critics as enemies of speech. This is profoundly muddled thinking on the part of free speech absolutists. Freedom of speech carries a risk, the risk of a negative reaction, i.e., criticism, which is also a form of speech that presumably is protected. I don't believe Sine's 'speech rights' are violated in this case. He published his cartoon. His firing does not prevent him from publishing similar cartoons in other venues (he just won't be able to do so in Charlie Hebdo). 'Anything-goes' libertarian absolutism often degrades into passive-aggressive claims of victimization. This appears to be the case with Sine and his supporters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well except that the charge of anti-semitism would not stand in court, and that the cartoonist was fired. I am not sure what your argument is here. And we're talking about someone who denounced preferential treatment by the police (including dismissing charges) concerning the son of the president. So, one's comments can be interpreted as anti-semitic (although it would not be so according to the law) and that can lead to one losing their job. Who is getting the negative effect here? The son of the president (exonerated from charges he should have faced) or the cartoonist (paying for charges he would not have faced)?
I agree: his firing may not be justified from the standpoint of labour law. I am also not questioning his right to criticize Sarkozy and preferential treatment given to his son. I am only commenting on the question of 'free speech' with respect to the employment of imagery and language that is generally understood as anti-semitic. Presumably this situation with Sarkozy's son could be treated critically without the use of this imagery/language. My point is this: if one engages this imagery/language then there is a risk of a reaction (which, to be sure can be violent physically and symbolically).
Post a Comment