Journalists and academics are once again intensely discussing the merits and limitations of press freedom in the wake of the recent controversy surrounding a cartoon published in a weekly newspaper.
Journalists and academics are once again intensely discussing the merits and limitations of press freedom in the wake of the recent controversy surrounding a cartoon published in a weekly newspaper.
The cartoon in question represented the prophet of a religion that specifically prohibits any artistic representation of the prophet.
The heated exchange of viewpoints that followed did not shed any new light on the debate about whether the cartoonist was merely exercising his constitutional right to freedom of expression or whether his drawing was so offensive that the usual death threats are perfectly in order.
While closely following this dispute thanks to online media, we had to ask ourselves whether Grocott’s Mail would publish such a cartoon – and the short answer is no, we wouldn’t.
The longer answer is that we do not see any value in offending any religious groups in this town, or any other town for that matter.
It would not provide new information to our readers nor would it help build a stronger community. Such cartoons are divisive and run counter to the aims of this newspaper.
However, our editorial policy does not imply that we are against other newspapers publishing such cartoons. We recognise that exercising the right to freedom of expression can get ugly but every now and then and someone needs to push that right to the limit to make sure that we can still make use of it.
There is always a risk that, like a muscle, if a right is not exercised regularly it can atrophy and fall into disuse.
So does this mean that occasionally it is okay or perhaps commendable to write or say something really offensive just to make sure that we retain the right to be blasphemous or obnoxious?
Does it mean that there should be no restrictions at all? Not at all. There is always a line in the sand beyond which freedom of speech is no longer tolerable, it just depends on where this line is, and whose line is it anyway?
