We have a number of regular guests on the talk show. When they're not talking, many of them are writing. This is where you'll find their stuff.

The views expressed by our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of sane, moral and/or reasonably intelligent people. Jesus may or may not be pleased (or even care). And what's more, they certainly don't reflect the views of Steve Brown (I'm not even sure he knows any of this is going on).

Blog DescriptionThe Guest Room

The Chimp Cartoon and the Death of Free Speech

John W. Whitehead February 24th, 2009

"There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist / Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib / Republican, Mattachine / FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme."–Ray Bradbury

In Ray Bradbury's futuristic novel Fahrenheit 451, the state burned all books in order to hide the truth from the people. In the coda to a 1979 edition of the book, Bradbury wrote: "Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever."

New York Post chimp cartoonToday, the forces of political correctness have managed to replace actual book burning with intellectual book burning. For example, take the recent firestorm over a New York Post editorial cartoon by Sean Delonas depicting a chimp, alluded to as the author of the stimulus package, being gunned down by police officers.

The day after the piece was published, 200 protesters picketed the Post's offices, enraged over what they considered a racist slur against President Obama. The Post apologized, pointing out that the cartoon was an allusion to a much-publicized incident in which a chimp that had badly mauled a Connecticut woman was shot to death by police.

Refusing to be mollified, the NAACP has called for a boycott of the paper and its parent company News Corp and for Delonas and editor-in-chief Col Allan to be fired. Not to be outdone, the Rev. Al Sharpton has launched a petition campaign to urge the FCC to step in and take away the waiver allowing News Corp to operate two newspapers and two TV stations in the same city. His rationale, as he explained to CNN, is essentially that News Corp shouldn't have the waivers if they "don't understand what would offend a large amount of African-Americans — and whites, by the way."

Fired up by the black leadership's charges of racism, students at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn have actually resorted to burning copies of the Post and have called on their classmates to shut down their MySpace pages.

This type of reaction is typical of the totalitarian democracy in which we now live, and the chimp cartoon is a perfect microcosm of what is happening across the nation. While the notion of free speech remains enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution, censorship is no longer a bad word. Instead, it is what so-called responsible adults must now do in order to ensure that no one is offended.

The real issue here has little to do with racism and everything to do with free speech and our commitment, as a free and open society, to tolerate offensive ideas. Yet when we suppress controversial ideas, we deny free speech. And when we deny free speech, we cease to be a free society. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once noted, "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

No doubt Delonas' cartoon was crude and lacking in sound judgment. Yet don't we have a particular duty to protect those like Delonas–those politically incorrect few who, while they might be perceived as irresponsible and lacking in judgment, are in fact testing our constitutional fortitude?

The sensible response should have been to use the Delonas incident as a springboard for a meaningful discussion on race relations. However, what we got were knee-jerk reactions by people who were quick to take offense and slow to find real solutions to the underlying problems. The consequence of such behavior is an increasing tendency to pre-censor unpopular and detested ideas instead of discussing them and, thus, dealing with them head-on.

However, by allowing the monster of political correctness to trash our First Amendment right to free speech, we slam the door on open debate and dialogue. Ultimately, intimidating people into silence will lead to more grievous problems. Delonas' cartoon was crude. But to totally dismantle a newspaper or destroy Delonas' life is inimical to democracy. Call for an apology. But don't suppress free expression. And, above all, don't annihilate the man or the free press.

If people fear losing their jobs or having their lives ruined for uttering offensive remarks, they become afraid to speak. Without a public outlet for their thoughts–hateful or otherwise, they fester in secret. This is where most violent acts are born. And that is why the First Amendment in its protection of speech is so important. It acts as a steam valve to let those who hate release their pent-up anger.

The First Amendment also protects against the mob mentality. In fact, the backlash against Sean Delonas represents our politically correct society's constant attempts to control the minds of those who persist in thinking that we are a free people. Censoring unpopular speech sends the message that if we don't toe the line, our lives can, and will, be ruined. As a consequence, it not only destroys human beings, it tells us that we can't think for ourselves, we can't hold certain views and we can't speak freely.

Ray Bradbury was right. There is more than one way to burn a book. In writing about his own experiences with "butcher/censors," as he termed them, Ray Bradbury remarked, "[I]t is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws." Did Bradbury dare use such words as "dwarf," "orangutan" and "simpleton"? Who will be offended by that?

This overblown debacle clearly illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. America once symbolized the very essence of free speech, where society's most arduous and insidious ideas could be put to the test in what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coined as the "free marketplace of ideas." Today, however, America has been captured by the chains of political correctness and polite society, or what we might call fascism with a smile. At least some will go to the guillotine grinning.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Print This Post | Email This Post | Digg This!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm and is filed under , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Responses to “The Chimp Cartoon and the Death of Free Speech”

Erik February 24th, 2009

I have a hard time believing that anyone would see this cartoon and think, "That cartoonist is calling Obama a monkey." It seems obvious to me that the stimulus package is the intended recipient of derision in the context of the recent story about chimps gone wild. It's saying, "The stimulus bill sucks so bad, a monkey could have written it. In fact, maybe a monkey did. Maybe it was the one that those cops shot in Connecticut."

Am I so hopelessly insensitive that I don't get it? Is there really a problem here?

Thomas February 24th, 2009

Oh yeah Eric there is a serious problem here, and it's one of disconnectedness…. First of all , I don't need Al Sharpton to think for me and most Blacks/ minorities don't. The first thing that I thought of when I saw that pic in the post was, oh yeah the editors thought long and hard before they released that photo, and it was meant to warm the fire of racism that lurks in the minds and hearts of fallen white men. I'm a light complected Puerto Rican, and I've been around Whites at the workplace and heard them make derogatory comments about blacks, behind there backs of course; apes, gorillas, monkeys… Not that your going to take my word for it, because most whites always think that minorities have a hidden agenda or ax to grind, but historically the New York Post has always tapped into the racist mindsets of it's White readership, because they know that these ignorant poor saps are gonna eat it up. Eric, don't front ,you know at one time or another you've made the ape racist joke, so if you were doing this cartoon, knowing the possible connotations, wouldn't you stay clear of giving the impression your making a racist remark?.. Let me say it another way; Obama is Black, Obama is responsible for the new stimulus bill, Black people are regarded as apes by Whites, at times, depending on the time of the day… As for Mr. Whitedickhead, oh, I mean Mr.Whitehead. Your bullshit argument about free speech for the media is totally inconsistent with wanting to inhibit activists rights to protest… Man I can't believe it one minute I was feeling all warm and fuzzy about my white brothers (Arthur Ashe video) and the next….

Thomas February 24th, 2009

"I have a hard time believing that anyone would see this cartoon and think, "That cartoonist is calling Obama a monkey." Well Eric, let me be the first to tell you,practicaly all my Christian Black relatives and Christian friends believe that the post intentionaly, under the guise of monkey attack jokes of course, meant to dehumanize Obama. And if Black Christians, who by the way have a lotta love for White people, are offended, imagine how the unregenerate blacks feel. Oh yeah, I forgot silly me, rascism is a thing of the past, why by golly we have a Black President now, how could I think such a thing! Because we have evolved you know….

Erik February 25th, 2009

Let me be clear…

If there weren't an outcry against this cartoon, I would never have looked at it and made a connection to Obama.

Given my oblivious perspective, I had a hard time believing that anyone else would look at this cartoon and make a connection to Obama.

That's not right. It's insensitive, but it's a fact. I see the world through my eyes.

Now, at this point, I of course see why people who see things through the lens of a painful history would be offended by this cartoon. Given that fact, I'm embarrassed by my obliviousness.

But the fact remains, I was oblivious. Please forgive me for any offense.

Do I think the cartoonist intended anything more than a jab at the stimulus package? I can't say, I'm not in his head. It's possible he was just as oblivious as me. Then again, it's possible he wanted to be famous and he was willing to stick it in the mashed potatoes to cause a scene. Again, I don't know about that.

What I do know is this, the reaction of the black community is proof that there is a wound here.

Here's an example from my counseling process…

I've been in therapy, seeking healing from the pain that stokes the fires of my anger and addictive behavior. I've seen these things as minor issues that should be resolved with some light counseling. My therapist, on the other hand, has had to spend a good bit of time convincing me of how serious my problem is. The way he's done that is by pointing out how inordinately massive my reactions are to common slights.

At one point, I asked my wife to join me in the counseling sessions. She said she would. As the day approached, I asked if she had the appointment on her calendar. She replied that she had an obligation with one of our daughters and some other pressing commitments that day and that she didn't think she could make it.

I got pissed. I was sure that she didn't see my counseling as a priority. As that thought festered it moved to, "She cares more about these kids and whatever other bullshit commitments she has than she does about me…or our marriage. In fact, she's totally selfish…totally insensitive. Where the hell are her priorities?!" My soul mate had become my enemy.

Was she deficient in clearing time for something that was very important to me? Maybe. But she sure as hell didn't deserve my reaction.

So why was my reaction so over the top? Because I've been hurt in the past. I've been disvalued and neglected and I have had to put up walls to keep from experiencing that kind of pain again. Anything that smells of a rejection is on par with a physical attack that threatens my life. The result? A preemptive strike to protect myself…even if the one I'm protecting myself from isn't attacking me at all…even if she's actually my devoted wife.

Of course, there isn't a one-to-one parallel to the wound left by slavery and racism in America, but there's an instructive similarity for me personally. The reaction from African Americans is huge because there's a huge wound that hasn't healed and I've played the roll of my wife in this drama. I've been going about my business, oblivious to the pain of my fellow image bearers.

Maybe the cartoonist was like me. Then again, maybe he had an agenda.

I can only speak for myself. I'm sorry my insensitivity hurt. Please forgive me.

Kathleen Mancuso February 25th, 2009

I find it hard to believe that this cartoon could be a springboard for any "meaningful discussion". Though Sharpton and the NAACP reacted unwisely by asking for the newspaper to be closed down or censored, the reaction from readers was entirely justified and a perfect example of the free market and first ammendment having an impact on the media. As a conservative, right-wing Christian, I found this cartoon appalling. First of all, I immediately associated the chimp with President Obama. Second, it had overtones of assasination. Third, it took advantage of one of the most horrific maulings of a person by an animal in our modern history. Nothing like taking advantage of another person's crippling pain…maybe the cartoonist should have gone through her pockets while he was at it. I thought the cartoon was sickening and was stumped as to why a editor would ever think it was appropriate or even insightful. Not only did it offend, but that is all it did. It was not clever in the least. And, I might add, I LOVED the Far Side, Doonesbury, Bloom County, etc…
As Christians, our response to this cartoon ought to have to reject it outright, and to denounce it on many levels. Would Jesus have found this insightful or funny? How would He have responded?

Thomas February 25th, 2009

That was good Eric. Like I said before, love what you do man….

estuardo February 25th, 2009

Regardless of the intent of the cartoon, Mr. Whitehead makes a very valid point. I know Jesus wouldn't have found the cartoon insightful, much less funny, but I do feel he would have done what Mr. Whitehead is attempting to point out, and that is free speech, like free will, must be free or we lose. The nature of humans in our fallen world will offend someone, but if we are not entitled to our opinions, then ideas, opportunities for understanding each others views, etc. are stiffled, and prejudice continues.

(BTW Erik, the description you gave about your wife is very insightful and helpful in me understanding my reactions to people as well. Kudos to your therapist)

Obed February 25th, 2009

Look, I understand anger, etc. at something like this. I can understand protests. I can understand calling for boycotts, apologies, or even possible resignations. That said, the reaction to the cartoon reminded me of the knee jerk reactions that the Danish cartoon of Muhammad got a few years back. Granted there was no violence over the monkey cartoon. But if we can't be civil in our exercize of free speech, how long will it be before we either see violence or fascist repression? Or maybe both?

We need to take our cues from folks like Dr. Martin Luther King. Even when we're fighting mad, we need to be civil. We need to be reasonable. As our mammas all told us, two wrongs don't make a right. Or as Scripture said, "Be angry and do not sin."

Thomas February 25th, 2009

As far as free speech, Estuardo the problem I had with with Whitehead was that he contradicted himself when he reduced the rights of protesters, who were practicing the right of free speech by boycotting advertisers, but upheld the rights of an obviously malicious press.I live in New York and the New York Posts is considered, among Blacks and Latinos, a rascist newspaper..Everytime the cops ( mostly white suburbanites) kill UNARMED blacks and Latins, the Post always slants there story in the favor of the police. Oh it was too dark, they should'nt have been outside hanging out in thier neigborhood, it was a mistake stop complaining, etc.. I personaly want to know what my enemy is thinking, so I affirm the right of the media to report the news as they see it, but to impede the rights of American citizens to protest is fascist to the highest degree. Especially when you consider that this government selectively targeted Blacks,who were American citizens mind you, and withheld there constitutional rights.So with that in mind , Whitehead has the nerve and audacity to trivialize these activists right to boycott, is he friggin serious?!I felt like I was reading the Orwell novel 1984

Thomas February 25th, 2009

As far as free speech, Estuardo the problem I had with with Whitehead was that he contradicted himself when he reduced the rights of protesters, who were practicing the right of free speech by boycotting advertisers, but upheld the rights of an obviously malicious press.I live in New York and the New York Posts is considered, among Blacks and Latinos, a racist newspaper..Every time the cops ( mostly white suburbanites) kill UNARMED blacks and Latins, the Post always slants there story in the favor of the police. Oh it was too dark, they shouldn't have been outside hanging out in their neighborhood, it was a mistake stop complaining, etc.. I personally want to know what my enemy is thinking, so I affirm the right of the media to report the news as they see it, but to impede the rights of American citizens to protest is fascist to the highest degree. Especially when you consider that this government selectively targeted Blacks,who were American citizens mind you, and withheld there constitutional rights.So with that in mind, Whitehead has the nerve and audacity to trivialize these activists right to boycott, is he frigging serious?!I mean c'mon,felt like I was reading the Orwell novel 1984,and Whitehead was the one engaging in doublespeak. This dude starts out the blog by referring to a novel that depicts minorities persecuting the majority! To use that novel to draw a contrast of the rights of the media and free speech against black activists playing the role of fascist power mongers is absolutely insane!…

Thomas February 25th, 2009

Yo Obed "But if we can't be civil in our exercise of free speech, how long will it be before we either see violence or fascist repression?" Obed what do you mean by 'civil'? And are you saying that if you don't communicate right to protest in a docile, don't look your master in the eye method, then it is acceptable to EXPECT fascist backlash? If you listen or read MLK speeches, MLK was far from docile. He also advocated boycotting big business and Government to make the the powers that be conform to a more humane social ethic. Boycotting is a big part of the methodology of Black activists who subscribe to a Christian ethos. It's a whole lot more 'civil' than burning stores or beating up unsuspecting Whites on the street Obed.

Obed February 25th, 2009

From dictionary.com:

7. adhering to the norms of polite scial intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial

8. marked by benevolence: He was a very civil sourt, and we liked him immediately

That doesn't mean docile. That doesn't mean being a door mat. But that does mean that we shouldn't do this in such a way that the response is just as wrong as the initial offense. Response, not reaction. Nothing wrong with boycotts… they just need to be civil. Any time rhetoric is used that's designed to fan the flames of hate, we've crossed the line. Any time protests and boycotts start threatening to become riots rather than peaceful gatherings, we've crossed the line. The goal is to be righting the wrong, not vengeance. Look 'em in the eye. Stand firm. Don't back down. But don't cross that line of civility and reasonability. MLK, not Malcom X. That's what I mean.

Fascism is never an acceptable response… but it could be an inevitable one. Whether that's a facsism built on descrimination or a facsism built on enforcing political correctness, it's still facsism. And that's what scares me.

estuardo February 25th, 2009

As many like to tell me, when something like this enrages passions, I can either ignore it, or rise above it. The more anyone points to something in this cartoon that may or may not be the issue the artist was trying to inject-the more we feed into the frenzy, and become just like the ones we're angry at. Maybe this is one aspect of what Jesus was referring to when He said even though we live in this world, we're not to be like it. Just a thought.

I will reinterate again, free speech, like free will, must be allowed to be exercised freely, or we don't have it. John Whithead's comment about "minorities" (meaning anything or anyone not in the majority) controlling how the rest of us must respond, is what I believe he was referring to, but he can speak well enough for himself (and I believe he was quoting Ray Bradbury)

Thomas February 25th, 2009

Its all good, it's my opinion that's all.

Forwarding Andrew February 26th, 2009

I never got why some people associate monkeys with blacks. Monkeys have white skin, hairy bodies and thin lips. Hello? Caucasian features anyone?

Anyway, I suspect that all the furor is people projecting their own hidden racist beliefs onto a cartoon. Unfortunately many blacks secretly believe they are somehow inferior. Getting mad at a cartoonist and his employer is a convenient way to avoid introspection. I submit that those who read the cartoon and didn't immediately think monkey=Obama are either politically conservative, non-racist or both.

All fans of comedy and the artists who work hard to invent funny for a living must stand up for the right to make jokes out of news headlines. It's hard work, sometimes the jokes fall flat but it's an occupational hazard.

Thomas February 26th, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6- If you ever have a problem with troublesome Negroes and Latinos, who might have been shot just for living by the police, call Robert Murdoch, and he'll help shape public opinion just for your established power mad institution just for you! Bothersome pesky anti-war demonstrators getting you down and messing with your plans of world domination? What are friends for! Give your boy Rob a call and we'll have our fox affiliates mesmerizing the masses first thing this evening!….Seriously though Check out this video of Robert Murdoch being interviewed in 2005 by Charlie Rose and you'll see why the New York Post is so adored by people like me.

Thomas February 26th, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g oops, Sorry about that, here's the correct video.

Steve Brown Etc. » Blog Archive » Etcetera - 02.2009 - Ashe Wednesday February 26th, 2009

[…] - Check out the blog post from John Whitehead that we discussed, The Chimp Cartoon and the Death of Free Speech […]

Steve March 5th, 2009

Thomas: you've really got to take a long hard look in the mirror–you are an angry man and that is really the issue here. Until you get past your deep anger you'll never solve anything or have a meaningful conversation with anyone. You are currently part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution.

Hurk March 5th, 2009

Steve, your psychoanalysis of someone you have never met adds a lot to the discussion. In fact, you could say it really puts the "ad" in ad hominem.

Thomas March 6th, 2009

Well, people who resort to straw man arguments are usually in some form of denial. Anyway, truth hurts, but you still gotta deal with it Steve!

Leave a Reply

Most Popular Stuff

Comments

davidjames

What struck me the most about Casper’s insights...

Jim & Casper Go to Church - Matt Casper on SBE

Marcel up north

NIce work you guys. Again you demonstrate grace...

Jim & Casper Go to Church - Matt Casper on SBE

bigredjeff

@AJ its not we atheists that need to explain our...

Jim & Casper Go to Church - Matt Casper on SBE

AJ (the resident Papist)

Steve, I love you, but this fellow...

Jim & Casper Go to Church - Matt Casper on SBE

G-Sauce

even though i don’t agree w/ driscoll and could care less for what he says, i...

March Program Lineup