In the case of the Muhammad cartoon being published in the Danish newspaper I argue that the artist, Kurt Westergaard, is not responsible for the actions that his drawing caused, and therefore is protected under freedom of speech. The artwork that was done was done for a particular situation and for a particular audience. To further argue my stance I will address the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the case of Burstry vs. Wilson.
As we have all learned through our time as communication theory enthusiasts, the main rule in communication is to tailor your message to your targeted audience. The drawing that was done was meant for a particular audience and therefore was tailored to get as much attention and recognition from that audience as possible. As of now only 3.9% of the population in Denmark are Muslims.[1]As stated by Westergaard in his numerous interviews since the controversy, he continues to say that it was just another day at the office for him, he went about the drawing the same way he has for years, creating satire that will catch the attention of its intended audience. Since this piece of artwork was conceived to be published in a local magazine, Westergaard did nothing wrong. He had no intention of it getting out around the World. His purpose was for the local population, there was no way he could have predicted the actions and responses that came from groups around the globe.
Taking a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can see that freedom of speech is something that becomes a touchy subject. In certain places it appears that we are free to do and say what we want, and in others it is not so clear. If we take a look at Article 29 we can begin to understand where this line is supposed to be drawn. According to this article there are two ways in which most people can and will interpret freedom of speech. One way is that if the speech/ideas created harm or endanger others in a physical way, they are not protected. The other being is the speech/ideas harm or infringe upon others rights emotionally or mentally, they are not protected. In this case we need to look at the facts. Westergaard created this piece for his own local audience; here it would not harm anyone in a physical way. The harm that it did cause in a physical way was to groups around the World who he never intended to receive the cartoon in the first place. His intention during the conceptualization process of this piece was not to put Muslims in harm in any way. There was no way for him to foresee the actions and dangers that would follow as a result. As mentioned in his interview with Denmark Radio TV in 2008, different Muslim groups responded in their own ways. Not all groups went to the streets and began to riot and burn flags. Since the leaders of the countries around the World with large Muslim populations could not predict how their people would act, how was a man from Denmark who was just doing his job supposed to know?
Ok, so now lets take a look at the other part of Article 29 where people interpret it to mean that and speech/idea that harms or infringes upon others rights emotionally or mentally is not protected. Once again I have to argue the same point here. Westergaard had no intention of hurting anyone mentally or physically. The tragedies of loosing 100 lives around the World cannot be held against him, as they should be held against the leaders and police/authority of the countries they took place in.
Since the cartoon was published, nations all around the World have been saying that the artwork was blasphemy and therefore Westergaard should be held accountable for his actions. Pertaining to the United States and the court case of Burstry vs. Wilson we can see that blasphemy is not something that is nor should be punishable in all countries. Until the early 1950’s blasphemy was punishable in the United States. In 1950 New York banned the Italian film, The Miracle, as the plot of the film was believed to be blasphemy due largely to the fact that a woman claimed she was baring the child of St. Joseph.[2] A court ruling declared that blasphemy as, in historical terms, meant to literally go into a Church or place of worship and physical desecrate holy objects or religious artifacts. The court also upheld that it is not the responsibility of the State to deal with such matters, as they would be infringing upon the First Amendment rights.
This case was important for a few reasons, it affirmed that the State has no place to deem something sacrilegious or blasphemy. It also affirmed that the State must stay separate from the Church. This does not hold true in all nations. But for the ones in which it does, such as Denmark, there can be no restrictions placed on religious art/speech. If we use this case to look at the cartoon controversy, we can see that Westergaard should not be responsible for the actions of those around the World, since his work created in its original country should not be labeled as “blasphemy.”
The deaths that occurred as a result of the Mohammed cartoon are without a doubt a sad tragedy. But the blood from these deaths should not be placed upon the hands of Westergaard. As I have illustrated through this article he is protected under freedom of speech to create these types of cartoons. Although people disagree with his work, he has done nothing wrong, he simply did his job to the best of his ability and obviously did a very good job at it since you are reading my article about his situation. The argument about what freedom of speech protects will go on forever, as long as there is one document that tries to encompass all the nations and religions around the World within a single definition there will be controversy and disagreement.
