OFFENSIVE speech is a difficult thing to discuss in America. In most parts of the world -- even Europe -- the right to free speech has significantly less protection than in our own country. Thus, it is common for discussions on offensive speech to go no further than a simple defense of the First Amendment. What often goes unspoken is the fact that just because something can be said does not mean that it should be. The flip side of the First Amendment's limitation on government regulation is the responsibility of citizens and private organizations to monitor their own speech. The need to implement this principle is illustrated perfectly in the controversy brewing right now at the University, which concerns two recent Cavalier Daily comics.
This controversy centers on two comics, published on Aug. 23 and 24, drawn by third-year student Grant Woolard. The first, titled "Christ on a Cartesian Plane", showed Jesus crucified on a mathematical grid. The second and more offensive comic, titled "A Nativity Ob-scene," pictured Joseph asking the Virgin Mary how she had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. After reading those descriptions, it should not be difficult to understand the widespread outrage at the comics. The University has received nearly 2,000 letters about the comics, and the Catholic League's president, Bill Donohue, even issued a critical statement on his group's Web site.
The Cavalier Daily's most recent policy for columns and comics was published in a lead editorial on April 24. Since several comics had elicited controversy during the 2005-2006 school year, formally publishing a policy was a wise move. The editorial stated three criteria of censorship: The first criterion was whether "the author truthfully depict[s] a verifiable historical or contemporary situation." If this is not the case, then the second criterion is raised: whether there is "a serious, intentional point, the censoring of which would constitute viewpoint discrimination." The third and final consideration is whether "the author criticize[s] or make[s] light of a group of people for any reason other than their own opinions or actions."
In light of this new comic controversy, however, the Managing Board ought to consider revising the policy on comic censorship. The first and second criterions should remain unchanged since thoughtful and historical viewpoints deserve a high degree of protection. Cartoons not intended to be serious, though, should be subject to a higher standard of editorial oversight than they currently are. The first question that should be asked for that kind of comic is whether the comic actually contains any humor other than its offensive element. Since the only attempt at "humor" in the Woolard comics is the targeting of religious figures, neither one manages to pass that test. On the other hand, light-hearted comics that employ religious figures in disrespectful ways as just one part of their humor are fine. The best example of this is "TCB," which has a long-running plot in which God is a mobster, but relies on more than just religious irreverence for its humor.
Many critics of The Cavalier Daily have contrasted the newspaper's position on the Woolard comics with the paper's Nov. 30, 2005 apology for a comic that offended gays. That comparison is worth remembering, but the more relevant one is to a Feb. 23, 2006 "Redux" comic. That comic showed an "American Idol" style show with Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad as judges. The focus of the comic seemed to be the Muhammad character, whose face was blocked out by a black box as he said"You will burn in Hell along with everyone watching this show." Five days later, the paper printed an apology for the comic, saying "The Cavalier Daily regrets the publication of this comic and apologizes to those who were offended."
The hypocrisy in The Cavalier Daily's differing actions is clear. When a comic portrayed Muhammad as violent and intolerant at the same time the Middle East was embroiled in violent riots over cartoons, it was worthy of an apology. However, when comics mocked two of the sacred events in Christianity, one in a vile manner, the only response was a bland defense of free speech. In a September 12 Cavalier Daily article on this controversy, Editor-in-Chief Michael Slaven said "We cannot apologize for something that did not violate any policies that we have." That is a fair position, but if that is the one the paper chooses to hold, at least let it be applied consistently.
Stephen Parsley's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
