{"id":49890,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/a-cartoonist-faces-backlash-in-sweden-and-the-us-for-depicting-mohammed-as-a-dog-the-first-amendment-lessons.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"a-cartoonist-faces-backlash-in-sweden-and-the-us-for-depicting-mohammed-as-a-dog-the-first-amendment-lessons","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/a-cartoonist-faces-backlash-in-sweden-and-the-us-for-depicting-mohammed-as-a-dog-the-first-amendment-lessons.html","title":{"rendered":"A Cartoonist Faces Backlash, in Sweden and the U.S., for Depicting Mohammed as a Dog: The First Amendment Lessons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n
\"Marci<\/a><\/td>\n\n

A Cartoonist Faces Backlash, in Sweden and the U.S., for Depicting Mohammed as a Dog: The First Amendment Lessons<\/h1><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n\n

By MARCI A. HAMILTON<\/h2>\n

\n <\/p><\/a><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

Thursday, May 13, 2010<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n\n

On Tuesday, Muslims peacefully protested outside Uppsala University in Sweden against a speech to be given by Swedish artist Lars Vilks.\u00a0 The protesters had been angered by the publication in the local newspaper Nerikes Allehande<\/em>, on August 18, 2007, of a single cartoon by Vilks that depicted Mohammed as a dog.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n

\nVilks had drawn a series of such cartoons and had attempted to have them displayed at local art galleries, but concerns regarding security led the galleries to decline.\u00a0 As has become all too common, Vilks was subjected to death threats from Muslim extremists and went into hiding at one point.<\/p>\n\n

\n The controversy occurred about a year-and \u2013a-half after the discord over 12 Mohammed cartoons that were published by Jyllands-Posten<\/em> in Denmark in early 2006.\u00a0 In response to the cartoons’ publication, two Danish imams demanded censorship and an apology, but they later softened their position sufficiently to have meetings with the newspaper.\u00a0 Meanwhile, a number of international Muslim organizations condemned the cartoons and demanded violence.\u00a0 Moreover, on January 1, 2010, an Islamic fanatic attempted to break into the home of the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was the most memorable and most widely-copied of the cartoons.<\/p>\n

\nUppsala is one of the most distinguished and oldest universities in northern Europe, and this pairing of peaceful protest and a speech by a controversial artist illustrated the best of what universities can do for societies.\u00a0 But sadly, that was not the whole story at Uppsala.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

\nDuring his speech, after Vilks showed parts of an Iranian film about Islam and homosexuality, a member of the audience leapt up, yelled “Allahu Akhbar,” (“Allah is the greatest”) and advanced toward Vilks.\u00a0 Security personnel leapt up, and in the ensuing scuffle, Vilks was head-butted and his glasses were broken, but he was not otherwise injured.\u00a0 When the organizers announced that the event had been cancelled, several members of the audience cheered in Arabic.\u00a0 The police took three individuals into custody.<\/p>\n

\nThere is a United States connection to Vilks, as well.\u00a0 He is the cartoonist who was the target of “Jihad Jane,” the Pennsylvania woman, Colleen LaRose, who hatched a plot to kill him.\u00a0 She pleaded not guilty in response to a federal indictment.<\/p>\n

\nNo Matter How Offensive Speech Is Perceived to Be, Violence and Threats Are Off Limits<\/strong><\/p>\n

\nLet us first say what must be said:\u00a0 This is scary.\u00a0 We have created in the United States, as well as other western cultures, a widely shared principle of peaceable disagreement.\u00a0 Viewed through one lens, the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence consists of case after case in which the line to be drawn is between the freedom of speech and violence.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

\nThere is robust protection for troubling, unpopular speech, like the burning crosses in Virginia v. Black<\/em>, or the flag-burning in Texas v. Johnson<\/em>, or the hate speech in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul<\/em>.\u00a0 But there is also a healthy respect for the need to avoid violence and illegal activity, as in Brandenburg v. Ohio<\/em> (which held that advocacy of violence is protected, but not if there is an imminent threat of lawless action) and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire<\/em> (which held that fighting words are not constitutionally-protected speech).\u00a0 Thus, we know full well where to draw the line in such circumstances \u2013 arrest and convict the violent provocateur, and protect the speaker.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

\nThe Court’s doctrine has meant that Americans are expected to have thick skins when it comes to criticism of their beliefs and faith.\u00a0 Lively, and even loud and lively, debate is encouraged.\u00a0 If one’s feelings are hurt, or one’s most precious beliefs brought into question, then one has access to the public square to push back, but not to fight or physically attack.\u00a0 Frankly, that is why I can do the work I do for clergy child sex abuse victims, which requires saying in public what many believers may not want to hear. <\/p>\n

\n“Jihad Jane” Deserves a Lengthy Sentence, and Artists Who Draw Mohammed Need Avid Police Protection<\/strong><\/p>\n

This free speech line needs to remain exactly where it is in the United States, and a hefty sentence for Jihad Jane will reinforce the violence\/speech distinction.\u00a0 There is a larger point here, though.\u00a0 Americans need to understand the particular Islamic worldview that is fueling the likes of the Jihad Janes:\u00a0 It recognizes no middle ground.\u00a0 From this perspective, the kind of liberty that permits criticism of Mohammed or Islamicism or of the most revered imams, is to be suppressed, censored, and punished severely.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We cannot back down in our opposition to this kind of censorship– at our universities in particular, or anywhere else.\u00a0 Already, we’ve seen capitulation:\u00a0 Yale University Press’s past decision not to print provocative cartoons involving Islam due to security fears was a huge error in judgment, one that should lead all serious authors to think twice about publishing with that particular press.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

There also needs to be a shift in professors’ syllabi.\u00a0 We need to tell the Vilks story in every First Amendment and constitutional law classroom.\u00a0 It is no longer enough to teach the First Amendment with just American cases.\u00a0 Our most treasured principles are at risk worldwide, and we need to educate our students on the attacks on our most treasured constitutional values that are coming from around the globe.\u00a0 If we do not do so, then we will have been partially responsible for creating more Jihad Janes, because we will not have sufficiently educated the American people on what is really at stake:\u00a0 It is our entire culture.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>Marci Hamilton, a FindLaw columnist, is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children<\/i> (Cambridge 2008). A review of Justice Denied<\/a> appeared on this site on June 25, 2008. Her previous book is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback. Her email is hamilton02@aol.com<\/a>.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n <\/div>\n

\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n