A German court has ruled that the far-right group Pro Deutschland may display cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed during planned demonstrations outside mosques this weekend. The act is viewed as an effort to provoke Muslims. Past publications of the cartoons led to riots and the killings of Christians around the world.
The cartoons were first published in 2005 before the infamous riots. While I find the effort to provoke to be obnoxious and juvenile, I agree with the Court. Such displays are in my view protected by free speech and that the threatened response of third parties should not be the basis for censorship on speech.
What is striking about the ruling is that the court ruled that this was a matter of “artistic freedom” and not anti-religious speech. We have been following the trend in the West of prosecuting cases of blasphemy and anti-religious speech. The Court drew a line in favor of free speech in this case and ruled “Simply showing the Mohammed cartoons does not qualify as a call to hatred or violence against a specific segment of the population.”
It is an important victory for free speech even if the defendants are far from inspiring. Civil libertarians are often left fighting for those who are themselves intolerant or prejudicial as in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). Yet, a court should not force speech to conform to the demands of every group or individual. In a pluralistic society, groups must learn to live in the midst of unpopular and at times insulting speech. The Muslim groups in this case would be equally protected from non-Muslim groups seeking to silence the Islamic community in their own forms of speech.
The German court made a tough call but the right one in this case, in my view. What do you think?
Source: Tribune
“are the pun police anything like the dream police.”
They pull double duty, pete.
i don’t draw cartoon pictures of other peoples religious figures out of simple respect, but i can’t and won’t force someone else to have the same view.
are the pun police anything like the dream police.
Shano, this is happening in VIRGINIA.
That has great explanatory power.
Perhaps some great constitutional scholar in the beautiful commonwealth will bring on a habeas corpus?
After all, to confine someone in a psych ward against their will, you’re supposed to have professional evidence (from the psychiatric profession, not Amway Distributors) that he’s dangerous to himself and others.
AND that has to be danger of harm, not danger of exposure for corruption.
What’s happening is that the world I have lived in for 30 years is slowly becoming a bigger world and many other people are starting to live in it…wow, not a good thing.
I’m not certain there is “any controlling legal authority”, one of my favorite Orwellian phrases.
Is this legal? Can we arrest people and send them to mental wards for facebook posts?
http://www.businessinsider.com/former-marine-brandon-raub-is-being-held-in-a-psychiatric-ward-over-facebook-posts-about-911-2012-8
As long as there are no cariactures of Buddha, I’m ok w/ this decision.
Dredd: If you wanna go to the Dogs then call on HumpinDog who sometimes talks on this blog.
Well, it’s good to see that a Court isn’t pandering to the Muslim Maniacs. If this had come before Judge Mark Martin in the United States, as a big fan of Sharia Law he would have ruled against artistic freedom on the grounds that any attempt to criticize, denegrate, or insult Islam in any shape or form is forbidden.
See the following. Sorry, they spelled your name wrong, Jonathan:
http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html
No one or noones imaginary friend should be immune from ridicule.
A welcome ruling. Maybe this might be one of the fractures in the mantra of appeasement when dealing with radicals in the Muslim world.
To those who vow to murder people in response to the “Great Cartoon Threat of the West” perhaps it might be time for some reflection as to one’s outlook on the world. That is, maybe having an epiphany that you might not be welcome in the ranks of civil society.
I agree with Gene that it was the correct decision and that AY’s pun was a good one! 🙂
Jonathon, the warmongering West should then set the example
When will the Muslims realize that violence is never no not ever good?
I’m all for artistic integrity.
What?
Oh … never mind.
The decision was the correct one even if it did make AY run the risk of incurring the wrath of the Pun Police.
I can understand that our host sees German jurisprudence with regards to free speech/blasphemy/anti-religious speech as somewhat flip-flopping, because from his position (“any and all speech falls under free speech”) it does.
In the German thinking however “free speech” is a *tool* to facilitate discussion. Which means that courts are much more lenient with offensive speech if that speech is used to make a point. Even if it is an illogical BS point like the “Islamization of Germany.”
They are much less tolerant of offensive speech “just for the lulz.” Just insulting someone isn’t a discussion.
And yes, that was a tough call for the Berlin court, because earlier this year another of these “pro” nutcase groups (“Pro NRW” I think) used such images in Bonn, and an angered Muslim injured two cops trying to separate the groups with a knife.
Oh, and the demonstrations the ruling refered to were this weekend. The pro-guys were seriously outnumbered by counter protesters (something like 100 to 1000), no violence.
Will this lead to a large increase of viewing the Prophet Mohammed on tacos, trees, and clouds?
The vision wars are emerging, due in part to all of this comic spirituality.
I say we need to go to the dogs.
They have the benefit of diagnoses for various forms of aggression, but there is no such diagnosis of aggression in human “whats-a-mattah-u” psychiatry textbooks:
(Diagnosing The Dogs of War). Canine psychiatry has advanced beyond homo psychiatry for the moment, but there is hope.
Obviously this spread of comic book figure warfare is based in some type of aggression, and in the present cases (Ukraine, Germany) it is a comic spiritual warfare of aggression.
Noting that naked GOP reps have dipped themselves into the Sea of Galillee where Jesus walked on water, but Peter couldn’t very well, and noting that a GOP senate candidate indicated that rape is a form of safe sex because doctors say so, we can see that this is a comically serious form of warfare.
What is next “War is a person”?
The fact that a cartoon is enough to provoke murder and mayhem in response speaks volumes about the “offended”. Unfortunately many “religious” leaders including the Pope have voiced understanding for those who killed because they were offended. The current move toward an international blasphemy code is very a disturbing development being supported by the US. While I hope that this decision by the German court is a trend, I doubt it.
All religions deserve endless ridicule and derision.
How one goes about it is probably open for debate, especially when your target has no sense of humour.
Finally they are getting something right… Or is that Reich…..