Introduction
Imagine if you looked in the mirror and saw a caricature image of yourself? That is what cartoons do. Or say someone skits your religious affiliation in a way that suggests ridicule. This article titled “Cartoon Wars” avidly reflects upon lawful feelings towards Muhammad caricatures that were published in a Danish newspaper. Thus, contemplation should be addressed to have a positive essence of free speech in expression using cartoons and should rarely consider if there would be any uproar between the Muslim world and Western democracies.
Cartoon Wars
The first paragraph of the article gives a reaction towards the caricature of Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper. The cartoons stimulated Muslim aggression across the globe until it forced American State Department to vehemently comment that it was insensitive and unacceptable to incite religious uproar by using such cartoons. Well, to caricature a religion this way is wrong, but a few arguments from the article make one to change his mind when it comes to terrorism.
As a matter of fact, a few conventions in Islam advocate for terrorism. Thus, the cartoons were focusing on this caucus about terrorism. As a result, it became offensive because it depicted Islam with terror. A caricature in a newspaper should not at all costs defame any religious society but the freedom is not encased in any government law Act. Thus, it is solely a decision by the newspaper publishing company. However, no country permits a hundred percent freedom of speech. Legislations should not go beyond defamation or obscenity. For example, a few European countries accept that it is illegal to say Hitler is not guilty of killing millions of Jews during the Second World War. Therefore, it is clear that before claiming a cartoon is blasphemous or defaming, lucid legislation should be put into consideration Therefore, severity in speech legislations should be stopped. The article argues that the limits that protect persons from murder are justifiable than those which control obscenity. Thinking in this dimension, the cartoons that depicted Muhammad were lawful in the Europe continent. This can be said that it was a poke on the Islam religion but it falls under human rights that advocates for freedom of expression. Most importantly, one has to agree that if such freedom of expression is vulnerable to be thwarted, the government should come into immediate rescue without much ado. No wonder several politicians including Nicholas Sarkozy defend the publication of caricature and their rightful freedom of artistic expressions (The Economist 2 Nov).
One may argue that the cartoons may evoke certain uproar like in the case of the Muhammad caricature. So, the media should be interested in the potential sensitivity related to any uproar that may result. However, protection of the media houses should be adamant because expression may hurt a religion or social fabric but convey an imperative message like in this case of Muhammad’s Cartoon published by the Danish media house. Few media houses in Britain and America feel that their freedom of expression is at dire risky situation. However, a few newspaper companies in the European mainland publish their cartoons and caricatures because their freedom of expression raised eye brows. For example, one Netherland film maker lost his life for daring to critic Islam religion. Another Danish journalist has encountered several death threats. This clearly shows the over control of media by government and religious settings. This in turn has jeopardized the sole function of media in expression and limits the ability to enjoy freedom of expression. If we do not critic our lives, social aspects, government administration like Obama’s administration, and religious foundations how can we ever learn and change? Therefore, the article advocates that freedom of expression should lie with the media. This is disagreeable because this freedom can be abused.
As a matter of fact, several wars towards terrorism have ensued and it has been confused to be wars on Muslim religion. Therefore, even if the caricature evoked uproar among the Islam nations, a soft approach is advised. That is, instead of shutting up media houses, a consideration should be put into place because it is a fundamental aspect in Muslim and Western democracies. Hence, expression should address worries concerning terrorism and globalization in order to better lives and avoid contentious conflicts.
Conclusion
From the article’s argument, the freedom of expression using cartoons should not defame the religious or social attributes of persons but rather address issues that affect them. This should not be restricted by individuals who have malicious interests. The media should be given full mandate to govern freedom of expression. This is disagreeable because it is tantamount to be abused.