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.
Jordan does an excellent job analyzing the Jyllands-Posten publishing of the satirizing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad utilizing a textual examination of the Declaration of Human Rights. Although I agree Westergaard’s art should be protected, I believe there should be a deeper reflection on the impact of one’s words/created images.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in multiple interviews, Westergaard did not intend to cause distress and hostility among the Muslim people. The cartoon was a job – a regular day at the office. However, does it change the situation if Westergaard believed in what he was drawing? If in fact Westergaard envisions the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim population as aggressive terrorists does it change how we feel about his right to be protected? Westergaard did in fact know he was drawing a controversial picture. He did know that the image could be considered offensive as the cartoons were supposed to invoke some sense of tension. What are the morals of acting on something you may or may not believe in? Westergaard could have said no to the job – he would have risked a pay cut perhaps, or maybe he would have risked his job, yet where does someone draw the line of their own morals?
If asked to do something at work that does not support your values do you act? If yes, then it is easy enough to say you still possess the same values, but you did not want to endanger your job. Yet, if one’s actions are continually misaligned with one’s stated values – is it still a value? Again, I agree that Westergaard’s individual rights to freedom of speech should be protected, as evidenced in many articles of the Declaration of Human Rights. What I am contemplating now is, where does personal responsibility fall within the scale of Freedom of Speech – whether protected or not, what is the impact of intention and ones visible actions?
Freedom of speech is indeed a touchy subject as Jordan rightly suggests in his analysis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I agree with the argument that cartoon artist Kurt Westergaard is not responsible for the actions that his drawings caused due to the protection of freedom and speech. There are many instances that I can imagine where our work interferes with what be believe to be right, but today, I question whether (under our current economical status) ethics would come before a paycheck? I would like to argue that most Americans would opt for their job and paycheck, even if it did not align directly with their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of that, we cannot blame Westergaard for simply “doing his job” as he mentioned on an interview. Obviously, we should not take this statement as an excuse, but if this is what Westergaard claims to have done, then perhaps we should just leave it at that and give him his share of protection under the Universal Rights. Did he physically harm (or intend to harm) anyone? From what I understand, he is not at fault for harming anyone. At the same time, he did not promote Muslims with respect, and I can see where one might think that because of this he should be punished. But I, along with Jordan must stand up for our individual freedom of speech. I would like to think of Westergaard’s case as one where an individual person demonstrates their means of the right to freedom of speech.
I agree with Jordan’s analysis of the Mohammed cartoon controversy. He also backs up his analyses very well. Since we’re mostly Communication majors in the class and knowing Westergaard was also a type of journalist, I thought pointing out the intended audience was a good way to tie theories we’ve learned these past few years to this case study. Knowing that there are only 250,000 Muslims out a population of 5.4 Million is very important when analyzing the intended audience of this cartoon. An area I found very interesting was how he used the Burstry vs. Wilson case to back his ideas. Using the idea that Westergaard should not be responsible for the actions of those around the World, which called the cartoon “blasphemy”, since the cartoon wasn’t considered blasphemy in the country it originated from (Denmark). With that in mind, it makes light of the fact that the world is divided. That the world isn’t one giant state, but instead several different cultures and that the world should be viewed as such (according to that section). This analysis of that section is confirmed in part, in Jordan’s concluding sentence, in which he basically explains that there will always be a freedom of speech debate as long as there is a singular document trying to define freedom of speech, cross culturally. With that in mind, I think Jordan’s analysis also brings to light, what even Westergaard was trying to explain about what the comic controversy really boils down to, which is the freedom of speech debate.
ReplyDelete