Gary Trudeau, creator of the cartoon strip Doonesbury, gave a speech this week at a ceremony at Long Island University as this year's recipient of the George E. Polk Career Award. The George Polk Awards in Journalism are a series of prestigious American journalism awards presented annually by Long Island University in New York.
In his acceptance speech, Trudeau expounded on the recent slaughter of 12 staff members at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by Islamic terrorists over a series of unflattering cartoons of Mohammed. According to Trudeau, they bear the brunt of blame for their own slaughter.
Below are some of the more disturbing cuts from the text of his remarks delivered on April 10 - [Click on the link for the full text]
The Abuse of Satire
Needless to say, this has been met with much criticism. The obvious criticism was how he blames the victims for being hateful and got what they asked for. But most importantly, the criticism was along the lines of who gets to define "free speech". If we define hate speech as anything that is offensive, then we must give up the concept of free speech altogether. Because there is nothing that cannot be is not offensive to someone.
Honestly, the gall of Gary Trudeau who has spent his career in offensive political and social satire having the nerve to define free speech down to what is safe and inoffensive. Yes, the "free speech absolutists" as he calls them deserved what they get because these "powerless, disenfranchised minorities" must express their outrage and pain over cartoons with indescriminate slaughter.
Being outraged over a offensive cartoons is one thing, but expressing that outrage by slaughtering people is inexcusable. And accepting that we must shut up or die is unconscionable.
[+] Read More...
In his acceptance speech, Trudeau expounded on the recent slaughter of 12 staff members at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by Islamic terrorists over a series of unflattering cartoons of Mohammed. According to Trudeau, they bear the brunt of blame for their own slaughter.
Below are some of the more disturbing cuts from the text of his remarks delivered on April 10 - [Click on the link for the full text]
The Abuse of Satire
By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence...Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks."[Emphasis added]
"What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism."
"It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it."
Needless to say, this has been met with much criticism. The obvious criticism was how he blames the victims for being hateful and got what they asked for. But most importantly, the criticism was along the lines of who gets to define "free speech". If we define hate speech as anything that is offensive, then we must give up the concept of free speech altogether. Because there is nothing that cannot be is not offensive to someone.
Honestly, the gall of Gary Trudeau who has spent his career in offensive political and social satire having the nerve to define free speech down to what is safe and inoffensive. Yes, the "free speech absolutists" as he calls them deserved what they get because these "powerless, disenfranchised minorities" must express their outrage and pain over cartoons with indescriminate slaughter.
Being outraged over a offensive cartoons is one thing, but expressing that outrage by slaughtering people is inexcusable. And accepting that we must shut up or die is unconscionable.