'The right to offend'

The editorial cartoonist and his or her editor make an odd couple: One doesn’t like getting censored, the other doesn’t like getting sued. More intriguing, however, is the relationship of a cartoonist to the people, groups and ideas he or she satirizes, if not the government that punishes him or her for doing so.

Gregorius Nekschot (the pen name of an anonymous Dutch cartoonist) was arrested two months ago for his possible violation of an anti-discrimination law. A staunchly secular-minded critic of his country’s religious and political tendencies, he has gleefully lampooned Muslims in much of his work, taking particular aim at the prophet Muhammad. Following his arrest, jailing and the confiscation of his computer and drawing materials, however, authorities have failed to bring any specific charges against him.

The incident echoes the Danish cartoon crisis of two years ago, in which multiple cartoonists portrayed the Islamic prophet in a series of 12 equally unflattering drawings for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. At that time, Muslims inside and outside of Europe clamored against their publication, at first nonviolently. One cartoonist even fled his home in Denmark after authorities told him he was marked for murder.

Viewing Nekschot (literally, Dutch for “shot in the neck”) as an underdog bearing up against censoring, if not repressive, government forces would not be too far-fetched. While protests in his defense continue to pervade Europe, from blog posts expressing sympathy to local cartoonists expressing outrage, his lawyer remains cautiously optimistic. He believes the most serious penalty possible for Nekschot would be two years in prison and a fine amounting to almost $30,000.

Roger Fischer, in his book “Drawn and Quartered: The History of American Political Cartoons,” once defined the basic challenges facing someone of Mr. Nekschot’s ability and attitude as: “(to) establish audience recognition of his or her visual symbol, make a political statement, and sell newspapers or magazines.” Which of these job criteria has Nekschot failed to live up to? Moreover, what self-respecting editorial board of any successful publication would disagree with this definition?

Yet while the IDS Editorial Board believes Nekschot’s arrest symbolizes a certain level of intolerance and censorship, the controversy should not be viewed too simplistically. Not all Muslims have applauded his arrest and some have even spoken out against it, citing the hypersensitivity of Holland’s authorities to the merest threat of discrimination instead of their own personal feelings of being offended.

Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the drawings, believes there is “a serious struggle of ideas going on for the future of Europe”  but believes in “the right to offend” of people of Mr. Nekschot’s attitude and ability.

It’s true that many in the Islamic world take offense to visual depiction of Muhammed. But in the Western world, the right to say whatever one wants has long been a treasured belief. The question is how to redefine that balance in an age marked by increasing cultural contact, and no proposed solution can be a cure-all. But while the world figures out what it is to do, it should let Nekschot go. He shouldn’t be held accountable for a conflicting worldview.