Blog: Chimp cartoon illustrates First Amendment at work
The controversy over an editorial cartoon printed Feb.18 in the New York Post is a good example of how the First Amendment protects the free-speech rights of all sides in a dispute — without government involvement.
At issue is a cartoon showing a chimpanzee that had been shot dead by two police officers, leaving two obvious bullet holes in the animal’s chest. One officer is saying, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
The cartoon by Sean Delonas was published about a week after Congress adopted President Barack Obama’s much-debated economic-recovery legislation and a few days after a chimpanzee mauled a woman in Connecticut before being shot to death by a police officer.
Post editors and Delonas said the image was intended to link those two news events in a satirical reference to the slipshod method in which the economic legislation had been adopted. But to many Americans — particularly African-Americans — the cartoon was a racist image of Obama. To others, it was an oblique if not overt call for presidential assassination. Still others faulted it for making light of the attack while the victim was still undergoing intensive medical treatment.
The First Amendment’s provision for a free press certainly protected the Post’s right to publish the cartoon. But within hours, the amendment’s provisions for free speech, as well as assembly and petition, also came into play. In New York and elsewhere, Post editors, Delonas and Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., which owns the newspaper, were condemned as racists. Pickets appeared in front of the newspaper’s headquarters.
The Post initially defended the cartoon as a satire about Washington politics. On Feb. 24, Murdoch accepted responsibility and personally apologized to “any reader who felt offended and even insulted.”
Political cartoons have had a long and controversial history in America.
But cartoons and illustrations of African-Americans uniquely touch the bitter U.S. history of race relations. Past portrayals used apes and monkeys and were replete with drawings that employed gross distortions of facial characteristics.
The nation’s founders envisioned free-speech rights as providing for a robust and lively exchange of views. But when some critics called for a review of Murdoch’s application to the Federal Communications Commission to waive its restrictions on owning a certain number of broadcast and print outlets in a single city, they raised the specter of government-as-censor — and that’s in direct opposition to what the First Amendment preserves and protects.
There is nothing in the 45 words of the First Amendment that requires Americans to speak politely, civilly, positively or negatively, or in good taste. The amendment protects the speech of those whose words — or images — repel or please American sensibilities.
In fact, the First Amendment is predicated on the idea that disputes like the one over the Post cartoon are best settled through free and open exchange — the “marketplace of ideas” — rather than through censorship.
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted in a 1927 opinion: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, [then] the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”