Sunday, May 17, 2015

The Cartoon That Must Not Be Shown

...according to most of the major news networks. And even the most popular talk show hosts, those who fancy themselves "truth-tellers", haven't posted my prize-winning Mohammad cartoon on their websites or on any of their social media accounts. But a number of websites and blogs posted my cartoon, including Tammy Bruce, who had me on her radio show, and displayed my cartoon on her site. And for TV, the Blaze (who showed it in their full, long version for subscribers) and Rebel Media had me on and showed my cartoon/s. I decided, after FOX reneged on showing my cartoon, that on this story, I will not appear on any TV show without my cartoon appearing. So CNN, NBC, and others who wanted me on wouldn't agree to show it, so I didn't appear.  I won't take part in their hiding of The Symbol of the story. So here is The Cartoon That Must Not Be Shown


Sajid said...

I love your cartoon and am glad you were not hurt in the attack in Garland, TX. I have long supported the drawing of Muhammad and took part in the original "draw Muhammad" contest in the year 2008, I believe.

That is my entry, not as professional as yours I fear.

However, in your drawing Muhammad clearly looks quite bestial. Don't the networks have a right not to show that cartoon? For sure, you have the right to draw that cartoon, but is it really necessary that people must show that cartoon? After all, whosoever wants to see that cartoon can easily google the image on their own. Most newspapers treat offensive speech in this manner. They refer to it but don't actually display it on their web pages.

You've already done a number of interviews but I think it isn't correct to hold a newspaper morally responsible for not publishing an offensive cartoon.

After all, the issue was never the cartoon itself, but your right to draw it. In fact, that is the very subject of your cartoon. Why require networks to publish your cartoon?

PRODOS said...

Bosch, I support your policy.

It's a position of moral clarity.

The media are either FOR free speech or they're AGAINST it.

If they're FOR it, let them PROVE it.

If they're so big and tough, let them PROVE it.

The Jihadists are against free speech and they'll drive a thousand miles with guns and a head full of Hadith to PROVE it.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, PRODOS. It's the only way to ensure that my TV appearances are truly worthwhile, for me And others.

PRODOS said...

Sajid writes: "Don't the networks have a right not to show that cartoon?"

Do the networks have the right to show the cartoon?

"Most newspapers treat offensive speech in this manner."

But the illustration is not offensive.

I don't feel offended by it.

Americans and Australians (where I'm from) don't find it offensive or shocking.

c papen said...

Certainly the networks have a right not to show the cartoon.

And Bosch has a right to decline to associate with their dhimmi position of moral cowardice.

Bosch Fawstin said...


PRODOS said...

When Sajid wrote: "Don't the networks have a right not to show that cartoon?"

I replied: "Do the networks have the right to SHOW the cartoon?"

And c papen writes: "Certainly the networks have a right not to show the cartoon."

How do you know that?

My point is: The networks are acting as if they DON'T have this right. And that nobody else does, either.

Their "right" to NOT show the cartoon means very little. There is no threat of coercion in NOT showing the cartoon.

Their "right" to NOT show the cartoon is indistinguishable from fear of coercion, cowardice, or surrender. It is meaningless and untestable.

I'll believe the networks have the "right" to not show the cartoon when the show they have the right to SHOW it.

Rights are not tested by consent and compliance, but by dissent and defiance.

Does a black man have the "right" to sit at the back of a bus?

We don't know, until he shows that he has the right to sit wherever he damn well pleases.

Then we'll know he happens to be sitting at the back of the bus because he CHOSE it.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks for pushing the issue, Prodos

Liz Wagner said...

Isn't it interesting how things change? Back in 1977, when neo-Nazis announced plans to parade through Skokie, IL, the left, led by the ACLU, rushed in to defend the neo-Nazis' right to do so. The ACLU lost some members at the time, who were outraged by its decision, because Skokie was a largely Jewish town. But many more stuck by the ACLU, proud to be defending unpopular speech. Fast forward to today, and where are all the lefties now? Apparently, they had no problem insisting that Jews put up with neo-Nazis parading through their town, but insisting that Muslims put up with cartoons of Muhammad is too much to ask!

PRODOS said...

Replying to Liz ...

I haven't seen any statement from the ACLU about the Draw Mohammed contest and the Jihad attack.

But I do note the following statement by them from 2010, regarding a planned Koran burning:

"As the Constitution protects the right to burn an American flag as a political protest, for the Ku Klux Klan to rally at a state capitol, for neo-Nazis to march down an American street, then surely there is a right to burn a Quran or any other sacred symbol."

Liz Wagner said...

Reply to Prodos: That's my point. They defend neo-Nazis and Koran burners, but they can't bring themselves to defend, or even comment on, Pamela Geller and the Muhammad cartoon contest. The atmosphere is so toxic that even the ACLU keeps mum about one of the world's most visible champions of free speech, today.

PRODOS said...

Howdy Liz,

I get your point, and am not disputing your general argument.

I suppose I'm more sympathetic towards the ACLU than you are.

For instance, they were critical of the UK for not allowing Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller to enter the UK and meet up with the English Defence League.

And they opposed the Metropolitan Transport Authority's move to stop all "political" advertising on their buses -- which had been used by Pamela & Co to criticise Islam and defend Israel.

If there was an attempt by the Texas state government or the US federal government to prevent the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, they would be more likely to step in.

That's the sort of thing they specialise in and are best equipped to handle.

There is no existing or proposed law banning the depiction of Mohammed.

What there is, however, is a lack of reliable protection for those who want to draw -- or criticise or mock -- Mohammed.

I don't know if the ACLU is equipped to deal with that sort of thing.

Which brings us to those who ARE equipped and should be going ballistic about it ... but aren't. The media.

I've been very surprised by FoxNews in particular.

I welcome your further thoughts, comments and criticisms.

nacanacazo said...

Would you allow to post your winning drawing in wikipedia? Can you put a copyright notice in your article?

Something along the lines of reproduction allowed as long as the author is listed or something like that. Then, I could point to this article as reference.

Bosch Fawstin said...

If you can get it on there, sure

nacanacazo said...

They put Bosch's drawing in the wikipedia entry. Take a look before they take it away:

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, nacanacazo, I got a screenshot of it

PRODOS said...

Howdy nacanacazo.

I checked the behind-the-article discussion (in the "Talk" tab if one is logged in) amongst Wikipedia's volunteer-editors.

There is some discussion about merging the article with one that covers similar events and incidents. Doing so might or (more likely in my view) might not lead to removal of the illustration. The conclusion was to wait another month before re-considering this.

There's a lot of back-and-forth between editors whether or not Southern Poverty Law Center should be treated as reliable (a "neutral authority") or biased, and whether Pamela Geller's organisation should or should not be treated as a "hate group".

There is a suggestion from at least one editor to remove the Wikipedia article completely because it refers to a "non-notable" event. But that editor's own NPOV (Neutral Point of View) was quickly brought into question.

No editor - not even those proposing the article be merged or deleted - have specifically proposed removal of the illustration.

Comparisons were made with the Charlie Hebdo incident and I note that the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed depiction is still up on WIkipedia's "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article.

PRODOS said...

Oh ... and I also want to note that the Wikipedia article on "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" has a copy of all the Mohammed cartoon entries. They have remain untouched.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks for the inside look, PRODOS, appreciate it.