The Case of Swedish Cartoon Artist Lars Vilks

In the past, freedom was not being persecuted for having different opinions and it was a new start, where everyone is equal. Freedom wasn’t in most parts of the world; in fact Freedom House showed the statistic of the freedom of the press from 1987 and 2014 and in 1987 fifty-seven percent of the worlds freedom of the press wasn’t free and in 2014 only thirty-two percent of the press wasn’t free. This show that people are learning the importance of freedom

What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression

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

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 cartoonists are the main social group portrayed in the cartoon “On Satire” by Joe Sacco, which is published in The Guardian. “On Satire” portrays other cartoonists as obnoxious, insensitive cavemen who often cross the line between satire and just outright offensive mockery of the religious beliefs of Muslims. The purpose of the cartoon is to ridicule the black and white way of representation of all Muslims as terrorists. Also he is aiming to get cartoonists to convince governments and news outlets to consider ways in which to stop terrorism by understanding why terrorism exists instead of just eradicating all Muslims and hoping that terrorism dies with them.

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 media in the United States of America has grown on a massive scale in the form of the Liberal Model. This of course entails market-dominated practices and professionalization in journalism in all adequate media aspects. The First Amendment has provided the American citizens with the freedom of speech ever since it was established. This privilege is very evident in today’s society as news media on all sides of the political spectrum gets mass amounts of coverage throughout the country. The U.S. observes never-ending debates going on in the political atmosphere everyday because of the countless issues occurring in the country including the management of the economy, handling of taxes, and many more. Although it is nearly impossible for the media to please everyone in society as a

The drawing were quite vulgar and explicit but still caught the eyes of the comedy seekers. Times went for a turn when three Muslim extremist killed twelve people. Their goal was to “make justice” for their savior because they didn’t like they way the humor was portrayed. If jokes were only jokes then the Muslim extremist wouldn't have done anything about the satirical humor in the cartoons. But there was a definite message. The people of France unified as one and defend the cartoonist because of their nation’s freedom of speech and was covered because it was comedy and meant for

In our world at this particular time people are overly sensitive to what is published in the media, mainly about anything to do with religion. I believe that it is a first amendment right for newspapers to publish cartoons even if it is viewed as offensive to a certain population. What is not acceptable is the way it is handled by society. Things have been taken way out of proportion. It is unjust and goes against the Constitution of the United States if anyone has to suppress their opinions just because it might offend a community.

Satire and controversy never really exist without each other, every article that is written, every image that is taken and every cartoon which is drawn, somebody with a slightly different interpretation may take an element of offensive. Charlie Hebdo continually exercised their right to freedom of speech and pushed boundaries that no other publication dared to but they did not single out and or target Islam or the Prophet Muhammad, they targeted pretty much anything that was relevant.

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.

In 2007, in Russia, the owner and the editor-in-chief of a daily paper, was condemned for incitement to hatred through the means of media (European Court of Human Rights, 2015). He wrote and published some articles

The Muhammad cartoon contest organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and held in Garland, Texas, was an insult to over a billion good Muslims. It also put innocent Americans in danger. This irresponsible contest will give the Islamic State (IS) justification to kill more Americans, and will motivate many fanatic wealthy Muslims from the Middle East to donate millions of dollars to IS to fight this blasphemy.

Sweden’s constitution consists of four fundamental laws. The first, Instrument of the Government, affords citizens the right to freely obtain information, hold demonstrations, form political parties, and practice any religion. Another, Act of Succession, pertains to the members of the House of Bernadotte and their right to accede to the Swedish throne. The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression greatly prohibits the censorship of news media such as radio, TV, and film. It also allows for the free communication of information and the right to anonymity. The last law, the Freedom of the Press Act, grants the public access to official documents and the right to communicate information to the

The controversy in question is simply a series of cartoons which were first published in a Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) in 2006. This controversy has recently been stirred by a reprinting of the article in many European newspapers in a stand of solidarity for freedom of speech. The original (and subsequent) publication(s) led to a public outcry, and sparked violent protests in the Islamic world. Danish Muslim organizations staged protests, while the cartoons were being reprinted in more than 50 other countries. Critics of the cartoons call them “culturally insulting,” “xenophobic,” and even so far as “blasphemous.” Supporters claim that the cartoons simply illustrate an issue important to current events, and the publications of such