MONKEYS, WATERMELONS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A recent front page cartoon published by the New York Post has much of the liberal world screaming for blood! The cartoon in question showed two police officers who had just shot and killed a monkey. One officer says, "They'll have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill".

Liberals immediately screamed "racism" and the Post insisted it had nothing to do with Obama. Protests began outside the offices of the Post, eventually they issued a rather wishy-washy apology which only increased the intensity of the protests. Finally a new apology came direct from the top.

In another case, the mayor of a small California town, sent an e-mail with a picture showing the White House lawn filled with watermelons. The caption read, "No Easter Egg Hunt this year". A very predictable uproar began and the mayor has promised to resign because he believes the act has "compromised" his ability to lead effectively.

In both cases, the Right has called the reaction to these images an infringement on Freedom of Speech. "This is America and as Americans we have the right to express ourselves without constraint."

Whether these images are intentionally racist is debateable. The fact that they are perceived as racist by a large segment of the population is not! It is generally considered impolite to intentionally offend people with your speech...but it is still your right to do so. Polite people also hope that if you unintentionally offend people, you can learn from your mistake and not make the same mistake again. But there will always be those people who just don't care.

Rupert Murdoch (Owner of both Fox News & the New York Post) wrote,

"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

The apology from the owner of the Post was unexpected. His analysis of problem was also extremely insightful. Even if you buy the fact that the slur was unintentional (which I don't), the images evoked for many an extremely upsetting storyline. It not only reminded us of the past when the monkey was a symbol for African Americans but it also seemed to suggest assasination of the President.

The cartoons, whether racist or not, are covered under Free Speech. But those on the right need to understand that Freedom of Speech is a two-edged sword. If Al Sharpton doesn't like what he reads in the Post, he too is free to exercise his option of speaking out against what he reads. If he wants to boycott the Post, he is free to do so and to convince as many people as he can to also exercise thier right to free speech.

That's what FREE SPEECH means! That's what makes America so great to live in!