Although there have been no riots, death threats or demonstrations of protest, a cartoon published in a satirical Spanish magazine lampooning Spain’s Crown Prince and Princess has been banned and the author faces possible prison time. I suspect that the idea of "freedom of speech", even in progressive Europe, is sacrosanct as long as it is someone else’s holy ox/cow that is being gored.
Spain’s High Court has ordered the seizure of all copies of a magazine that carried a cartoon of Crown Prince Felipe and his wife having sex.
The cartoon on the front page of the weekly satirical magazine El Jueves depicted Prince Felipe saying sex was the closest he would come to working.
It was published after the government announced it would pay couples nearly $3,500 for each new baby born.
The high court judge ruled that the cartoon insulted the royal family.
Judge Juan del Olmo ruled that the cartoon "struck at the honour and dignity of the people represented". He also ordered the magazine to identify the author of the cartoon.
Slandering or defaming the Spanish royal family carries a two-year prison sentence.
Accidental Blogger 
6 responses to “Another “Offending” Cartoon”
well, europe is a big continent and mores differ across nations. so i don’t think you can compare denmark (which is notorious to allowing extreme porn) to spain, which is more conservative. i think only denmark and holland are like the USA in their absolutism. you would get into the same trouble in france if you mocked the president. and europe is on average a lot less into free speech than the USA. most of europe also has tougher abortion laws than the USA (sweden has extreme sin taxes re: alcohol), people should be cautious about generalizing from social democratic tendencies toward cultural liberalism in general.
LikeLike
Razib:
Granted that generalization is not always accurate, the fact of Muslim conservatism is a well known quantity. Denmark took the liberty to offend the Islamic world (even though Jylland Posten had refused to publish similar cartoons about Jesus because that might “offend” some). My point is not that Spain (or France or anyone else) should or should not place limits on free speech. That should be up to individual nations to decide. But why was all of Europe so “surprised” about the Islamic reaction to the cartoons? Now we see that Europeans themselves draw the line (royal families, presidents and religious blasphemy laws) on what and whom you can publicly mock. Read my original commentary (the second link in the post) as to why I found the European Muslim bashing hypocritical then, as I do now. Ironically, the US, which is the leading champion of free speech was more “understanding.” I doubt that the possible imprisonment of the Spanish cartoonist is going to raise many eyebrows among EU nations. That’s okay with me as long as the Europeans realize that other communities too hold certain ideas sacrosanct even if they don’t agree with them. The matter is not so much one of free speech as of common decency. Surely we all recognize the fine line.
LikeLike
The matter is not so much one of free speech as of common decency. Surely we all recognize the fine line.
but the laws against insulting monarchs or presidents are trivial* (you can’t talk about assassinating the american president either, it’s illegal). the customs & traditions protecting the good name of religion are, and were, not trivial, and their eventual overturning during the 18th and 19th century were epochal. so an appropriate analogy would be taboos and laws blocking the blaspheming of “indigenous” european religions. these still exist of course, and in some nations they are being extended toward islam.
* the principle is not trivial, but its quantitative social effect is minimal.
LikeLike
But why was all of Europe so “surprised” about the Islamic reaction to the cartoons?
i think the quantitative reaction was what was surprising. angry protests are fine, but it did seem ludicrous that riots resulted in more muslims being killed in the muslim world than anyone in europe. if an alien had viewed the reaction they certainly would have thought it was absurdist theater.
LikeLike
During the greater part of last week, Slate’s sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for “moderate” versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most “offensive” part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation? Read more: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims? – By Christopher Hitchens
LikeLike
FLAGRANTE NO DELICTO?
So a cartoonist gets a fine
In Spain, because he drew a line:
The Royal Couple, in flagrante–
But is this such a crime for Dante?
Where common folks are paid for birth
Of heirs, love ought to be a mirth:
“This is the nearest,” King to wife
Declares, “I´ve worked in all my life.”
There is a bit of humor here,
But rulers often find things queer,
As even in the old US
Free speech now counts for less and less.
But I say: “run it up the pole
To see if anyone salutes,”
A people ought to have more soul
Than merely humorless galoots:
America, it is a test,
Free speech–if you can´t take the jest
(As is a rarity) the shame
Is you must exit from the game.
LikeLike