The Shotgun Blog
« Obama in Oregon. Feeds poor, heals sick... Ron Paul revolution continues. | Main | The Long Arm of Lawlessness reaches the US »
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Cartoonist convicted by Brussels court for caricature
No, it's not a depiction of a religious figure. Instead, the offending cartoon was a caricature of businessman George Forrest accompanying a cover article on "The Copper King of Congo" in the anti-globalist monthly magazine MO*. The Belgian court found that the constitutional right to freedom of the press applied to writers but not to "illustrators."
Read an article about the conviction here.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 20, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e552641c058834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cartoonist convicted by Brussels court for caricature:
Comments
A totally irrational decision:
“Judges Valvekens, De Ridder and Morel of the 20th Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Brussels ruled that ‘The cover illustration cannot be considered to be a direct expression of a thought or opinion’ protected by the freedom of the press...”
This is what happens when the law is divorced from reason and justice.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-20 8:01:43 PM
Are the Courts to apply, interpret or to make laws? What do the Canadian Supremes do? Do the lawmakers in Canada have the final word on the law? Is the whole thing a plot to give work to lawyers and put them in charge of everything? The Court in Belgium seems to have applied the law as written. Perhaps the Belgiques can fix it.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-05-20 9:29:42 PM
That does change things.
First, George Forrest is a great man bringing industry and jobs to the Congo via Katanga Mining among other interests. He didn't deserve to be caricatured as a tyrant.
Second, this is defamation and, assuming defamation laws exist in Belgian, should have nothing to do with specific laws protecting freedom of the press. Why did the courts have this discussion anyway? Are there no clear defamation laws in Belgian? Why not simply apply those laws? Perhaps MO* has an agenda and we’re not getting the full story.
By the way, EBT, not all of us believe defamation should be prohibited speech -- but that's another matter.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-21 1:24:09 PM
Thanks for that insight, EBT.
As for defamation being a "rich man's hobby," that doesn't sound like a very noble pastime to me.
However, while I oppose defamation law in principle, I don't typically feel very sorry for those who are sued, as these people invariably support defamation law but are simply unable to control their own slanderous speech.
Whatever happened to impulse control and civility?
Every time I lose my cool, I remind myself of the wisdom of Henry David Thoreau who wrote “I am as desirous of being a good neighbour as I am of being a bad subject.” Libertarians should be polite to their neighbours and hostile only to statists, I remind myself.
Thanks for your comment, neighbour.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-22 2:12:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.