It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Down with Political & Personal cartooning!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
We've all seen them jammed into newspapers, online and on television. Cartoons depicting real life people saying and doing things that they didn't/won't say and do. We find this to be perfectly acceptable under the guise of "free speech"...but my question is, when does "free speech" become slander? It doesn't take a doctorate degree to figure out that when you depict real people falsely, then putting words into their mouth it is turning them into puppets for not just a laugh, but a subversive agenda. It's not limited to politics but any leadership role up to and including real teachers, historical figures, church leaders, and so forth. If the character is based on a real person, they're looking to tear that person down. Deny ignorace, don't buy it. To clarify, when I say "down with" I mean to not use your economic authority to fund this activity. Just like everything else in capitalism, if people don't buy it the ones who are out for the buck will go somewhere else. (That's a much bigger percentage than one may guess)



You, mr./ms. socio-political cartoonist are the one with the agenda. It's not funny, and it's not going to work on me.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
A political cartoon is an opinion. Which journalists and individuals have a RIGHT to express. It IS free speech, and essential in democracy for us to mock and use sarcasm to poke fun at or criticize that which we do not agree with.

If you don;t like political cartoons, dont look at them, pure and simple. But to ban them would be totolitarian and oppresive.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfBut to ban them would be totolitarian and oppresive.


Not to mention that there are cartoons, political or not, that are brilliant and highly amusing. When you think about it, comedians who impersonate public figures are also making these public figures say things they did not say. Should we ban them too? I would hate for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and deprive ourselves of an opportunity to poke fun at ourselves or at politicians. I think the world is a sad enough place without us banning laughter in the name of political correctness.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts

Not to mention that there are cartoons, political or not, that are brilliant and highly amusing. When you think about it, comedians who impersonate public figures are also making these public figures say things they did not say. Should we ban them too? I would hate for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and deprive ourselves of an opportunity to poke fun at ourselves or at politicians. I think the world is a sad enough place without us banning laughter in the name of political correctness.


Exactly! Only someone braindead actually thinks cartoons are representating literal reality.

Banning political cartoons makes you no better than those muslim extremists who wanted violence against Denmark because of its Mohammed cartoons.

Youre right. The too many people take everything so seriously. Let them run amok and have their way banning this and that, the world will be more humorless and depressing than a crowd of Germans at a funeral.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads beyond the thread title. Feel free to address anything I've actually talked about.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
when does "free speech" become slander? It doesn't take a doctorate degree to figure out that when you depict real people falsely, then putting words into their mouth it is turning them into puppets for not just a laugh, but a subversive agenda. If the character is based on a real person, they're looking to tear that person down.


The point on the graph depicting a slippery slope has the wrong coordinates by you.......instead try this: Where does the exposure of hypocrisy morph into slander anywhere else besides a totalitarian state? Or, when do cartoons have more power to control lives than signed into law legislation?

My opinion, besides the asthetic or cathartic, Poli cartooning serves as a genesis point for the otherwise preoccuppied masses to go back and revisit their unresearched opinions of their leaders, and see if their "Maverick, middle of the road, grand compromiser, getting both sides to the table" shtick is warranted, or as my example below shows, that they're just another power mad politico willing to do whatever it takes to sit at the big table......





posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
The point on the graph depicting a slippery slope has the wrong coordinates by you


How so? Please explain, the following doesn't seem to relate:


Originally posted by Bout Time
.......instead try this: Where does the exposure of hypocrisy morph into slander anywhere else besides a totalitarian state?


In answer to this non-answer to a question with a question, these cartoons are not a valid case for hypocrisy exposure. It's a court case based on claim alone. If there was preceding evidence, that evidence necessitate any cartoon. The facts and truth stand on their own merit. Opinion afterwards only serves to ingrain an exaggeration of the author's perspective.


Originally posted by Bout Time
Or, when do cartoons have more power to control lives than signed into law legislation?


Huh? Sounds like a different thread entirely.


Originally posted by Bout Time
My opinion, besides the asthetic or cathartic, Poli cartooning serves as a genesis point for the otherwise preoccuppied masses to go back and revisit their unresearched opinions of their leaders, and see if their "Maverick, middle of the road, grand compromiser, getting both sides to the table" shtick is warranted, or as my example below shows, that they're just another power mad politico willing to do whatever it takes to sit at the big table......


I do believe cartoons incite paranoia and fear of elected (you know, the people WE put into office) officials and other leaders. As far as taking interest in politics, I'd be curious of a person who had no interest what their government was doing until a cartoon popped up about them.


Originally posted by Bout Time


Case-in-point

[edit on 14-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
You, mr./ms. socio-political cartoonist are the one with the agenda.

I'll admit I'm not really sure what you're on about.

I just wanted to point out that Anthony DiBerardo is a very talented young man, and an equal opportunity cartoonist. He's made fun of the last three PM's we've had. I can't really blame him for not going further back than that, he's only 27.

Do his cartoons of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin bother you as much as this one of Stephen Harper did?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I'll admit I'm not really sure what you're on about.


Depicting real people saying and doing things they did not/would not say and do. Laughter at the expense of others. That expense is through misrepresentation, implication of deceit, stupidity, crime, and other intentional malignancies.


Originally posted by Duzey
I just wanted to point out that Anthony DiBerardo is a very talented young man, and an equal opportunity cartoonist.


Does that mean he's draw his grandmother lying/cheatin/stealing/subverting (even if she does none of these things) if it were funny and/or was a source of income?


Originally posted by Duzey
He's made fun of the last three PM's we've had. I can't really blame him for not going further back than that, he's only 27.

Do his cartoons of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin bother you as much as this one of Stephen Harper did?


They all bother me. Do Jean, Paul, Bush, etc. find these funny? I highly doubt it. I also find it very inconsiderate to their spouses and children who have to deal with it in their daily lives with people they meet. It's not as easy to "turn away" or "laugh it off" as it is for those who've never met these people.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Ok, disturbingly enough (because I really didn't think I'd get it), I think you have a valid point. I had never really thought about it like that. I'm sure nobody wants to see their loved ones made fun of.

But with the whole freedom of speech thing we have going on, there's not much that you can do about it, expect for choosing not to buy publications that run the cartoons. They are public figures, by choice, and they have put themselves in the spotlight.

I have to say that the original cartoon you posted is what many, many Canadians think about Harper. There is no need for DiBerardo to incite any kind of paranoia about Harper and his agenda; there's plenty enough to begin with and there has been for some time now. That's why we don't have a majority govt.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
WHat is the problem with a cartoon? Why do conservatives only believe in free speech when that speech is "Conservative X is a God who can do no wrong! Execute all liberals!"? Free speech in America and most countries is just that, free speech. Not "You have free speech as long as you say what we want you to." That is how it works on Fox News. A man, one of your very important high ranking generals was on, and was told to shut up by Bill because the guy did not praise Bush he scolded Rumsfelf for his mistakes, and was cut off by Bill.

Who wants to live in that country? Might as well move to Iran or Iraq or China if that is what you want.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
Ok, disturbingly enough (because I really didn't think I'd get it), I think you have a valid point. I had never really thought about it like that. I'm sure nobody wants to see their loved ones made fun of.


Thank you very much for this, Duzey. It's a true mark of wisdom to be able to see something from someone else's perspective I think.


Originally posted by Duzey
But with the whole freedom of speech thing we have going on, there's not much that you can do about it, expect for choosing not to buy publications that run the cartoons.


That's all I could ever ask, and more than enough as I see it. "Taking the high road" as they call it.


Originally posted by Duzey
They are public figures, by choice, and they have put themselves in the spotlight.


Which is a good point, and why I think many in the arena are fairly resilient. I do think, however, that many people who could do a lot of good in public office have refused because, "I can't put my family through that". Politicians are civil servants and you know what it's called when you abuse servants, verbally or otherwise. It extends even further for soldiers, policemen, and other servers of the general public.


Originally posted by Duzey
I have to say that the original cartoon you posted is what many, many Canadians think about Harper. There is no need for DiBerardo to incite any kind of paranoia about Harper and his agenda; there's plenty enough to begin with and there has been for some time now. That's why we don't have a majority govt.


I was specifically looking for a case that best illustrates "the pot calling the kettle black". It's like holding up a sign that says, "School is propaganda" when the sign itself is propaganda.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
In my opinion, what you're asking for is totally unrealistic. You're asking for people to be nice, respectful, politically correct and courteous all the time.

The fact that these people are depicted doing and saying things they would never do or say is what keeps it from being libel (slander is spoken, libel is seen). It's called political cartooning and the fact that you don't find it funny, doesn't mean others don't. Plenty of people do find it funny and are not at all offended by it.

I understand that you don't like it, but many people do. And you're right. That's what keeps it going. People who like it.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my opinion, what you're asking for is totally unrealistic. You're asking for people to be nice, respectful, politically correct and courteous all the time.


LOL! Woot! Minus the "politically correct" pseudo-phrase, I think you're right on target. I feel like saying, "my work here is done" and flying off into the night sky.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The fact that these people are depicted doing and saying things they would never do or say is what keeps it from being libel (slander is spoken, libel is seen).


Okay, so if they would say or do it, it's libel/slander? I'm not sure I understand. No law degree in my pocket, sorry.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's called political cartooning and the fact that you don't find it funny, doesn't mean others don't. Plenty of people do find it funny and are not at all offended by it.


I'm sure...that's what's disturbing. The "laugh without thinking thing" was part of my m.o. too, but working on changing it. Here comes the jab that will launch a thousand punches. I used to watch South Park when it first came out, thinking it was fun, funny, harmless humour. It wasn't until they had to out-do the previous episode each week that I saw a gradual deconstruction of the word "funny" into disintegration. In retrospect, not even the first episode is funny. Okay, lay it on me how much everyone likes South Park and I have no right to speak against it (oppress, repress, infringe upon, totalitarian regime-backing, blah blah blah). On the contrary, I'm exercising the SAME free speech enjoyed by us all.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand that you don't like it, but many people do. And you're right. That's what keeps it going. People who like it.


Agreed. Hence the need for a persuasive argument discussing the impact and demonstrating the reasons why we should change.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I was specifically looking for a case that best illustrates "the pot calling the kettle black". It's like holding up a sign that says, "School is propaganda" when the sign itself is propaganda.

I'm a little slow today, but I finally figured out what you were alluding to here. Now that I see it, it is kind of ironic.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I'm a little slow today, but I finally figured out what you were alluding to here. Now that I see it, it is kind of ironic.


No worries! I know I'm not the clearest person in relaying points all the time. Glad you're willing to explore the paradigm.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Okay, so if they would say or do it, it's libel/slander? I'm not sure I understand. No law degree in my pocket, sorry.


I don't have a law degree either, not even close, but if the information "negatively influences a reasonable reader's opinion of the person, or reflects badly on the character and/or harms their reputation" it could be considered libel or slander. The thing with political cartoons is that people know what they are. They know not to believe them, so they don't reflect badly on the subject. They're not portrayed as truth.

If I were to announce publicly that I slept with Colin Farrell and he beat me up going a little too far with the S&M, that would be a clear case of libel. Because people might believe me and it would fit all the criteria above.

More about libel and slander



I used to watch South Park
...
Okay, lay it on me how much everyone likes South Park and I have no right to speak against it


You have EVERY RIGHT to speak against it! I totally support your right to speak against it and campaign to get it taken off the air. I do hope you're not successful though, not only because I love the show, but because it would indicate a society that I'm not eager to live in.



Hence the need for a persuasive argument discussing the impact and demonstrating the reasons why we should change.


I don't think we should change. I think if you hate something, if you're offended by something, you shouldn't watch, listen to or look at it.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Glad you're willing to explore the paradigm.

I'm always willing to explore new options and try to see the other person's point of view. That's how I learn things. And I did learn something from you, I got to see something in a way I never had looked at it before.

That being said, I wish you well on your campaign to make people think about what we find funny, and humour at another's expense. While I would not support any kind of legislation to restrict things like political satire and South Park, I can't really argue against politeness, respect and having consideration for the feelings of others.

Feel free to write the advertisers and tell them what you think. That's your right and I encourage you to exercise it.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Wow.
Just wow S4G. That reminds me of a really rippin' Jesus cartoon. nah...j/k
Is there even a way you could possibly get it more wrong?
I don't remember you getting THIS pissed when the Allah cartoons broke.
Backyards kid.. backyards
Oh well, me Jesus (pronounced HEY ZEUS), Allah, Buddah and the boys gotta roll,
thanks for playing anyway. We're gonna go tip a cow -Jeez! I hope it ain't sacred!
But then again, those suckers make the tastiest burgers



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't have a law degree either, not even close, but if the information "negatively influences a reasonable reader's opinion of the person, or reflects badly on the character and/or harms their reputation" it could be considered libel or slander. The thing with political cartoons is that people know what they are. They know not to believe them, so they don't reflect badly on the subject. They're not portrayed as truth.

If I were to announce publicly that I slept with Colin Farrell and he beat me up going a little too far with the S&M, that would be a clear case of libel. Because people might believe me and it would fit all the criteria above.

More about libel and slander


Solid answer! Well done
. Dunno if I agree or not just yet. I do think even though people know they are a cartoon, still there is that message getting through that "hm, jokes are based on a piece of truth" which may or may not be true. The result is forming a person's impression, pre-conceived notions and judging persons not known personally.

I'd like to look more into this link as it's a bit confusing for the layperson. For example, it does mention about being insulting/defamation as in a cartoon, on the other hand, it discusses representing something as fact and not opinion. It looks like it gets complicated when one individual's opinion is being depicted flying out of someone else's mouth. Nevertheless! Much to digest and I'd have to run this litmus test a number of times to fully comprehend.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have EVERY RIGHT to speak against it! I totally support your right to speak against it and campaign to get it taken off the air. I do hope you're not successful though, not only because I love the show, but because it would indicate a society that I'm not eager to live in.


Thank you for that acknowledgement. I'm not interested in "tearing down South Park" but rather helping others see why it should be disinteresting due to its mean-spirited, inflamatory heart of presentation that appeals to many who are bent upon shock-culture (including pre-teens and teens, no sense in saying they don't watch it or parents are at fault). The backlash is this. What shocks us today, will not shock us tomorrow. This appetite will demand more severity to be temporarily fed.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think we should change.


You've said you can see how it's harmful to those being depicted and their families and that it is hypocritical, so why not advocate change?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think if you hate something, if you're offended by something, you shouldn't watch, listen to or look at it.


I don't hate it, nor am I personally offended. To say I should gouge my eyes out is bit unreasonable so that everyone else may enjoy their freedoms. If you have a right to see it, I should have the right to not see it. So, why is it piping in when I flip my channels, website, and paper pages when I did not request it? Totally right though that I'm not gonna support it, I'll pass the channels, bypass the webpages if I can, and not buy a paper that runs them if I can discern in advance. That's what I'm advocating. Save the bucks, save your eyes, save your mind, and eat a healthy diet of truth.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join