Freedom Of Expression And The Politics Of Satire

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

The editorial, “weaponized words” written by Kate Manne and Jason Stanley is a cry for help in the world of politics, which argues that the freedom of speech laws allow for the voices of dominant social groups to overpower those that are inferior. This opinion is also shown in the third political cartoon provided, that shows two different social groups under the same “freedom of speech” umbrella, who have to deal with each other constantly trying to oppress the other. These laws make it hard for any advancement of the lower-class societies.

It is very important to be aware that the media is capable of controlling the flow of information that citizens receive. Furthermore, much of the content suppressed in this country is for fear of retribution from others. When governments and other institutions suppress information, citizens are not able to address matters concerning their country, as well as around the globe. In ‘The Decline of American Press Freedom’ by Anne Applebaum, Applebaum explains a recent controversy with Yale University and the publishing of a contentious comic in a scholarly report on the global consequences of political comics. The comics in question were satirical in nature and displayed the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner. In an aniconic religion where visual depiction of the prophet is inherently blasphemous, the Islamic response to these comics were violent. When an analysis of the comics and the cultural backlash was written, instead of publishing it, Yale University swept it under the rug for fear of offending Islamic extremists. Applebaum argues that if “Yale University Press refuses to publish [the comics], then that makes it much harder for anybody else to treat the cartoon controversy as a legitimate matter for scholarly and political debate” (Applebaum 640). By not allowing the publishing of this analysis, Yale University is censoring what the American populace have access to in terms of global controversy. The issue becomes trivialized because institutions fear retribution from extremist groups. Without these scholarly points of reference of this issue and others, it is difficult to have a serious conversations about the ramifications of political and religious satire. This leads to people remaining uneducated and ignorant of these serious issues, and liable to repeat these same actions that so sorely offended an extremist

Humorists are present through multiple mediums such as talk shows, blog columns, and political cartoons. The different platforms humorists’ use lends different purposes for their content. For example, political cartoon artists have the creative liberty to create offensive content on certain political issues. The political cartoons

Glenn Beck, a renown conservative with extreme political theories, is included in the cartoon as a book to learn from as well, further emphasizing ideologies like his plot against government and numerical claims that “10 percent of all muslims are terrorists,” . In an analysis of the textbooks passed by the board, reviewers found that the books do not have any negative attitudes towards capitalism, viewed christianity as a harmless takeover of indigenous culture, and racially categorized many diverse african groups as one unity, calling them “negros”. World history textbooks emphasized the violence in Islamic countries, and related it to the terrorism and additional issues western countries have today. The statement, ““Much of the violence you read or hear about in the Middle East is related to a jihad,” is an example of the racism and bias towards Islam. From a developmental age, reading about these ideas will encourage racist attitudes and negativity towards certain ideals in the student’s future. Through political cartoons, artists attempt to persuade readers to their standpoint, and to go against the idea portrayed in the cartoon.

The topic we decided to cover was a topic that may not be perceived as an issue to some but to us we see it as an issue. This is of course “Safe Space” and how it is viewed bipartisanly which was exemplified when the left wing college student comes across the conservative Trump supporter. We chose this topic because within the past year or so we have all come to the realization that we believe many left wing stereotypical millennial college students believe that they have it all figured out because they’re going to an expensive college, and their professors spit out biased statistics at them. To quote political commentator Tomi Lahren, we believe that many of these students are “Snowflakes”. This is describing them as soft, weak and vulnerable

People question more hateful satire and ask “if we must use satire, can we not be gentler and more subtle?” (Ward). Religious hate does more than hurt the feelings of those it is directed towards; it also contributes to discrimination. Perhaps satire that is especially vindictive toward religions, particularly minority groups, should face consequences. Imprisonment for producing satire would be unreasonable, but small fines would be appropriate. Discrimination and hate deserve punishment, because free speech has its limits. Charlie Hebdo faced criticism from politicians who attacked what they believed were reckless and irresponsible drawings, although the magazine’s editor, Charbonnier, claimed that he is “not putting lives at risk” (Greenhouse). However, there is irony behind his statement. Just years after Charbonnier defended his illustration, the office of Charlie Hebdo was attacked by terrorists and eight people were murdered, including Charb himself. They say that hindsight is 20/20, but once lives outside of the satirist are put in danger, it is the duty of this artist to do what is safe for

The dictionary definition of satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices. Particularly, in the context of contemporary politics or other topical issues. If one were to examine contemporary culture today they would notice that it is becoming more and more satirized. One could argue this by turning on any program and listening for hidden messages alluding to some cause or political reference. Satire appears in many forms and may be used to shock the reader or targets into changing their behavior.

only a form individual freedom but it is also a form of freedom from a religious doctrine. If these cartoonists were to not express themselves because they fear they are disrespecting other people’s religion, then they themselves are also giving concessions to the principles of that religion. Thus if one views infringement of liberty by the definitions set through the harm and offense principle, it is clear that the interest of a civil society is to protect freedom of speech not to block or regulate it. The state has a role to protect liberties of all individuals not to define what should and should not be tolerated. Just as it is not the job of the state to institute policy on religion, it is not the states’ responsibility to regulate what freedoms of speech individual may and may not express.

The First Amendment of US constitution safeguard the individual’s right of press, freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion and freedom of people’s peaceful assemble. Furthermore, the untextual first amendment gave the freedom of association also. Since, the first amendment is the greatest privilege of the American citizens, it is light of democracy to the world. Within it, the most significant one is the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. In reality, we were not even bothered about our opportunity of association for a common welfare. This paper will be a visual analyzes of political cartoons to show the similar and difference ways the cartoonists use the ‘Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association’ to show that the public voice is better than an individual voice.

“Freedom of expression has been especially challenged by the adoption of new laws on prohibiting speech that is considered 'extremist' or supporting of terrorism. These new laws in many jurisdictions are used to suppress political

Here is why: when teenagers and young people all across the world decide to tragically take their lives away due to matters such as cyberbullying, we, as members of society, come in support for them and say that “words hurt” and that “words matter” as we condemn the bullies and defend the victims concerned. In fact, the phrase “words do hurt” has been part of many anti-bullying campaigns in the past years. In Charlie Hebdo’s case, we have caricatures and words, that even though are from a satirical standpoint, also hurt the many members muslim community to their core. So why aren’t people saying that words hurt now? Is it because it’s not a big deal as it’s simply “a joke”? because it’s from a professional newspaper? because it’s against a religion? This is why I believe their hypocrisy in some people’s reactions. We can’t say that words hurt in some instances and don’t hurt in another. Words are words. They’re powerful and whether their used satirically or jokingly, can hurt. Words and drawings are indeed the source of all creation and expression but they’re also a weapon of mass destruction. That is why, in this Charlie Hebdo affair, I’m against depicting pencils and pens as just a small, harmless tool that won’t offend anyone when it has so much more power than

Although the French satirists challenged free speech and lampooned certain aspects of the Muslim religion when they published their cartoons, they did so believing in free speech and their actions and difference in opinion should not be punishable by death (Fassin, 2015). Kirchick seems to agree with this sentiment and disagrees with the worldview proffered by the New Yorker and Teju Cole:

Parody has been a debated issue for a while. On the one hand, the reason that why parody have privileged point is that critical expression is crucial and necessary in a vigorous community. On the other hand, because parody is commonly assumed as an imitation which expect to make humor in order to comment critically or mock the existing work, such freedom to express parodist’s idea might harm copyright owner in some circumstances. This paper discussed and analyzed the problem of definition, the nature, and the significance of parody. However, when we consider the aims of copyright which is an exclusive right of copyright proprietor, human right as freedom of expression can be oppressive by copyright. Therefore, this paper also discussed

This incident is concerning the French magazine entitled, “Charlie Hebdo”. The magazines they publish are satirical in nature and generally have an anti -religious or secular undertone, mocking many religions through its artwork and the words of the magazine itself. Recently, on January 7th of this year, brothers of an Islamic extremist regime shot and killed 11 members of the magazine and a French policeman. Further, an additional 11 members of the magazine were injured. The message of “je suis Charlie” which, translated from French means “I am Charlie” became a world wide statement used in rallies and in social media to show solidarity with those killed essentially expressing their agreement with the magazine’s right to exist and the importance of freedom of expression.