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.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfBut to ban them would be totolitarian and oppresive.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bout Time
The point on the graph depicting a slippery slope has the wrong coordinates by you
Originally posted by Bout Time
.......instead try this: Where does the exposure of hypocrisy morph into slander anywhere else besides a totalitarian state?
Originally posted by Bout Time
Or, when do cartoons have more power to control lives than signed into law legislation?
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......
Originally posted by Bout Time
Originally posted by saint4God
You, mr./ms. socio-political cartoonist are the one with the agenda.
Originally posted by Duzey
I'll admit I'm not really sure what you're on about.
Originally posted by Duzey
I just wanted to point out that Anthony DiBerardo is a very talented young man, and an equal opportunity cartoonist.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Duzey
They are public figures, by choice, and they have put themselves in the spotlight.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Hence the need for a persuasive argument discussing the impact and demonstrating the reasons why we should change.
Originally posted by saint4God
Glad you're willing to explore the paradigm.
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
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think we should 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.