In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten shocked the Muslim world by publishing 12 cartoons (see below) that negatively depicted the prophet Muhammad and Islam. Several Muslim groups in Denmark sued staff members at the newspaper for libel claiming the publication violated Danish racism and blasphemy laws.
Though this particular libel suit occurred outside the U.S., it demonstrates the importance of ethical journalism regardless of whether the plaintiff fails to prove libel.
The Danish Penal Code Section 266b states: "Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation, shall be liable to a fine, simple detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
Because the aforementioned section applies only in criminal law, the plaintiffs could not sue the paper for these violations, but instead sued the editor-in-chief and cultural editor for publishing "offensive and insulting" material. With such vague language, the court had a difficult time assessing whether these standards constituted libel.
The judge ruled in favor of the staff at Jyllands-Posten and said, "There is no sufficient reason to assume that the cartoons are or were intended to be insulting... or put forward ideas that could hurt the standing of Muslims in society."
Multiple other European papers reprinted the cartoons to "celebrate" the victory of European freedom of expression. Despite dodging libel, the publication of these caricatures provoked serious acts of violence throughout the world. The newspaper's cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and other staff members received numerous death threats and Danish embassies were attacked by protesters. As of 2008, at least 50 people have been killed at protests.
Ultimately, Jyllands-Posten readers should question the purpose and intent of these cartoons. Though these actions were not ruled "libelous," can one argue against their inciting nature? At what cost does the European press prevail over personal rights? Americans should research issues concerning libel and discrimination if they plan to work for media in other countries.
To my fellow classmates: how would American courts treat the Jyllands-Posten case if it occurred in the U.S.? Is the publication of these images ethical?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's absolutely no way this cartoon would ever be considered libel in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIt fails pretty much every criteria needed for libel, including identification. The only person really identified is Muhammed, who has been long dead, and even if he were alive, he would surely be considered a public figure. To say that this cartoon identified the Muslim people as a whole is far too broad and would never hold up in court. In addition, an actual damaged reputation would be basically impossible to prove. And as the Danish Court had ruled already, there's no clear evidence of actual malice. Though it is in no way illegal, the cartoon can be argued as somewhat unethical as it pokes fun at a widely accepted religion and associates Muhammed as a terrorist, which would obviously be offensive to many people. But what people fail to understand is one very simple fact: it IS A CARTOON! It's shocking that people would respond to a drawing with such violence, people were actually killed over this. Just goes to show the stupidity and immaturity of the human race.
^^Maybe "human race" was too much of a generalization. But you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteMarianne,
ReplyDeleteYou raise several excellent questions in your post. Although, as you note, these cartoons raised concerns over libel, they also raise more questions over the ethical responsibilities of editors. What impact did reprinting these cartoons have? Did it reify racist rhetoric?
Reprinting these cartoons did not reify racist rhetoric, but served as a symbolic gesture in favor of free speech in Europe. This is an excellent question to ask, as many citizens outside of Denmark were unsure of why their local newspapers reprinted the cartoons. According to another BBC article in 2006, publications in Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain reprinted the cartoons and said they were exercising their right to free speech. Many European publications saw the potential censorship of the cartoons as a damaging blow to free speech, affecting the democratic and social abilities of the press.
ReplyDeleteTo address the overall impact of these cartoons is very difficult because many people were brought to action and protest while others may have thought they were distasteful, but never publicly expressed it. In my opinion, the original release of the cartoons as well as the reprinted versions adversely altered the world's perception of the European press. Of course, the impact of the cartoons were vastly different in predominantly Islamic countries and communities, yet it's hard to understand exactly how Americans or non-Muslims felt about it. The physical impact still resonates violence, protesting and death. The intellectual impact is far more elusive. Overall, I think American publications understand the ethical implications of publishing the cartoons and the controversy has since shed light on the importance of sound, ethical judgments in any newsroom.