Re: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
Freedom of art is not the freedom to stir up hatred against a people because of their religion or nationality or sex, etc. -F gotcha also cause drawing is now some 'populist' art, i mean art for the hoi polloi then its leonardo of carnival fartmen michelangelo are out of any protection care, they are no more arty fetichised clergymen but secularised producer aktivizt, that could be sacrified for the 'harmony of civilisations sake' or worst that have to selfcensor their 'heavy stupid' envy.. i even read as we are under war (yaa terror) we could have some exceptional restrictions...merde ! the harmony of civilisation need respect first of all, selfrespect, to each one to be up to his own : so i wish long live to all caricaturists i propose they could engrave on their bucle of their belt 'gott mit uns' what could impress men girl when in holliday in texas. i suppose europe for being united need to restore its family fortune, it's a good occasion # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
The responses of Ronda Hauben and Florian Cramer essentially recapitulate that of the Vatican, which released an unsigned statement that The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion. I could not disagree more profoundly with such a position, and see it as seeks to privilege religion and religious prophets as being beyond critique, satire or parody. It is particularly disturbing to watch how easily some elements of progressive political thought capitulate to claims for the sacralization of civic discourse, as if the principles of free expression could be sacrificed because some legally-protected expression alienated millions of adherents to one religious faith or another. There are many of us who view religious faiths as atavistic, fictive, erroneous, patriarchal, violent, class-ridden, and alien to humanistic values. In their humanity, these faiths simultaneously are capable of ethical wisdom, beauty, and moving works of art, music and literature. Works of art, such as the Danish cartoons, that puncture through the negative ethos of a religious faith do not invalidate its positive social and cultural contributions. Progressive politics function under obligations of democratic courtesy and a modicum of tastefulness, but that is not an obligation that extends to imposition of censorship by those who view anti-religious expression as illegitimate. Blasphemy is, at root, the name for critiques that religious faith and theocratic authority cannot abide. Blasphemies and heresies -- including antagonistic representations of prophets, saints, or religious symbols (viz. Piss Christ) -- are the stuff of human progress. A newspaper's political history or current conservatism has no relevance to this argument, especially as the history of the European press will reveal significant social ugliness in almost any newspaper with a sufficiently lengthy history. The Times of London could be condemned on similar historical grounds as Jyllands-Posten, none of which bears on a legal right to publish freely in the twenty-first century. Much of this present argument recapitulates ground covered regarding publication of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, as if nothing has been learned in the interim.20 What does bear immense relevance lies in the social context of this cultural conflict in the specificities of anti-Moslem discrimination in Europe and the United States, and the growing global antagonisms between the Islamic and an amorphously-defined Western world. For discussing these specificities, the Danish cartoons are only one starting-point. Joe --- Joe Lockard Assistant Professor 209 Durham Languages and Literatures Bldg. English Department POB 870302 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 Tel: (480) 727-6096 Fax: (480) 965-3451 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.asu.edu/english/who/lockard.htm Antislavery Literature Project http://antislavery.eserver.org/ # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
There are three issues that need to be addressed when discussing this matter which is generally neglected 1. Christians criticizing Christianity is one thing, Christians criticizing, Jews, Muslims, Gypsies is another. Europe had learnt that with one of the hardest lessons of the history. 2. The representation code is differ rent in different religions and imposing the codes of Christian iconography over other cultures is a violence that is an extension of Orientalist motives. 3. Larger context. Denmark is one of members of the holly alliance that is currently invading Iraq. If this caricature had published somewhere else its effect would have been different. So, let's drop this freedom of speech pedantry and try to look closely what is really happening. Our concepts of discussion should be based on the examples of Nazi era caricatures that represents Jews, which also could be discussed under the terms of freedom of speech, but we don't do that. Because freedom in democratic countries is not the freedom of the powerful to oppress the weak. The meaning of democracy is to give the weak a voice and secure it in every condition. In Denmark the freedom of minority is being oppressed with this example. Ayhan Aytes # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
Am Donnerstag, 09. Februar 2006 um 14:27:51 Uhr (-0800) schrieb Ayhan Aytes: No I mean the violence in its literal sense, in this case through cultural means of political oppression of minorities. We should remember that Muslims in Denmark are minorities. The Atheist response to Christian majority culture can be supported when they use the Jesus cartoons to stand against this oppression. But when the majority uses the same method against Muslim minority it becomes a totalitarian tool to oppress Muslim minority. Allow me to disagree. Totalitarian implies that it's more than just symbols, but a physical oppression program. If the latter were the case, then there would be a justified reason to consider it political oppression of minorities. In any case, I am an atheist, and I wouldn't consider it oppression if Christians in Europe, Muslims in Arab countries or Jews in Israel would depict atheists in the way Muslims have been depicted in Denmark - although I might not be amused. Protest against these caricatures is fine by me, but it's never okay to deny other people the right to draw such caricatures, or even worse, hold whole nations responsible for them. You may support the Nazi era propaganda cartoons but I hope not in the mainstream media for the purpose of oppressing Jewish people in Europe and creating the propaganda platform to exterminate them. See, I consider the politics of extermination the crime, but not the propaganda. Of course, I find the propaganda despisable and would criticize it in every aspect. But it's a difference of considering something unethical - but not illegal - and considering something a crime that should legally prosecuted. This is why I am opposed to the fact that a film like Triumph of the Will is banned in my country. If this is the case then I hope Muslims are not the new Jews of old Europe. I agree. But banning caricatures doesn't help a bit - in fact, it makes matters worse because it would camouflage those sentiments. Yes. Denmark has a law providing for fines and up to four months in jail for anyone who publicly offends or insults a religion that is recognized in the country. Sorry, I probably mixed it up with the Netherlands. I am strongly opposed to such laws - and even more to the fact that some religions are recognized by the countries and apparently some others not. If this newspaper had earlier rejected publishing Jesus cartoons based on the same law they should have acted consistently in this case too. I agree. But this is a matter of editorial policy and its ethics - which might be questionable -, but not of legal prosecution. Their double standard is the sign of their insincerity in their excuse on behalf of freedom of speech. I agree, too. I know that they aren't a good ally for my own views. But as Rosa Luxemburg said, freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently, too. To believe that a drawing oppresses the freedom of people means to leave the grounds of rational discourse. To believe otherwise with no discrete sense of the political use of representations is welcoming Nazi era propaganda as freedom of speech. Not welcoming, but tolerating. That's a very important difference. The freedom of speech can only be protected when its meaning is preserved against this erosion through Orwellian totalitarian rhetoric. Not rhetoric, but politics. If freedom of speech can be eroded through rhetoric alone, then the concept is meaningless. If you want to capture the true meanings of things always mind the subject. I find the concept of a true meaning of things highly problematic by itself. -F -- http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70 gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. - 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
Whatever the reason for the republication and defense of the cartoons, in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, newspapers which republish them in the name of freedom of speech or freedom of the press are seriously misrepresenting what freedom of speech or freedom of the press mean. The publication and republication of the cartoons are an example of sensational journalistic practices, an effort to use the press to provoke people, which is traditionally something that the press has been used for. Freedom of the press is not the freedom to stir up hatred against a people because of their religion or nationality or sex, etc. It is not satire to misrepresent religious symbols of a people as a terrorist with a bomb. These cartoons were commissioned and printed by what traditionally had been a right wing Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten. There is obviously some fight going on in Denmark that the commissioning of these cartoons was connected to. According to a wikipedia entry on this, the newspaper has played a right wing role in Danish politics. The entry states: The paper is historically known for taking a clear right-wing line. Thus, the popular Danish nick-name Morgenfascisten Jyllandsposten (the Morning-fascist Jyllandsposten). (1) During the 1920s and 1930s the newspaper supported the rise of fascism, of Hitler and Mussolini, according to the Wikipedia entry. Also the newspaper welcomed the fascism into Denmark in the 1930s. While freedom of speech and the press is to be protected, it is important to understand the difference between such important rights and the effort to provoke people against each other. In the US the right to freedom of speech and the press is contained in the Bill of Rights. This is because there is a need to protect journalists to be able to critique corrupt government practices. If newspapers are supporting the provocation of the people of one religion against the people of another religion, this may very well have its roots in government activity. It would be an appropriate role for a newspaper to try to unmask which government officials are supporting such activities. It would be a proper journalistic role to support a debate about views, that explores the issues behind the differences in the views. But all this is different from a newspaper commissioning cartoons that are intended to be offensive about the religion of a set of people. If other newspapers want to help to sort out the issues in this problem, they can do so. But to reprint the offending graphics in the name of protecting the so called right to freedom of the press or freedom of speech does not help to identify the issues involved. Instead it only seeks to provoke a further inflaming of an already harmful situation. Newspapers in various countries have been used to try to inflame people against other people, or to invite people to attack others. To encourage ridicule of the religious beliefs of Muslim people is to act in a way so as to encourage attacks against them. The problem then is only deepened. While debate over various ideas is important, it is important to determine how to encourage such debate rather than to try to inflame those on opposing sides. In the 1940's there was a rank and file newspaper among the auto workers in Flint, Michigan. Someone submitted an article to the newspaper praising the Klu Klux Klan. The editor-in-chief, George Carroll, was a catholic trade unionist. He published the article but also published his refutation of the article. He didn't solicit the article. He didn't solicit inflamatory material either pro or contra the Klu Klux Klan. Instead he tried to encourage an environment in the newspaper where constructive debate and discussion would occur. This is the challenge for journalism. It is ever more important that there be serious discussion and clarification of what freedom of speech and the press mean in a time when the terms are being so abused. Distinguishing the practices of yellow journalism from the practices of responsible journalism is a serious challenge for society. Publishing news that is sensationalism and intended to enflame people against each other is a form of yellow journalism not an appropriate practice of those who support freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Notes (1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten (2) See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism -- ronda # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime publication of Jyllands-Posten cartoons is not freedom of thepress
Am Sonntag, 05. Februar 2006 um 13:14:28 Uhr (-0500) schrieb Ronda Hauben: Whatever the reason for the republication and defense of the cartoons, in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, newspapers which republish them in the name of freedom of speech or freedom of the press are seriously misrepresenting what freedom of speech or freedom of the press mean. The publication and republication of the cartoons are an example of sensational journalistic practices, an effort to use the press to provoke people, which is traditionally something that the press has been used for. Freedom of the press is not the freedom to stir up hatred against a people because of their religion or nationality or sex, etc. Whatever the reason for the reproduction and defense of Robert Mapplethorpe's Piss Jesus, media which republish the picture in the name of freedom of speech or freedom of art are seriously misrepresenting what freedom of speech or freedom of art mean. The publication and republication of Piss Jesus are an example of sensational artistic practices, an effort to use art to provoke people, which is traditionally something that art has been used for. Freedom of art is not the freedom to stir up hatred against a people because of their religion or nationality or sex, etc. -F -- http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70 gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
