Washington Post makes fun of kids with disabilities

Question:

The Post did not make fun of kids. They didn’t censor the Cartoonist. I didn’t like the cartoon, but I don’t think that the Post should censor syndiacted cartoonists except in the most extreme cases.

This cartoonist is not listed on the Post website as a regular cartoonist. That means they chose to run *this particular* cartoon. For me, even as a staunch First Amendment supporter with a journalism degree, that makes a difference. They didn’t choose *not* to censor a regular feature. They chose *to* run a specific cartoon that, in my opinion, demeans a specific group. Imagine if they had done that by saying "the US is like a desegregated classroom" and then depicted the Black kid in similarly stereotypic, degrading and buffoonish manner. -Dawn Mom to Henry, 12

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies. I’m not sure what you mean when you say "freedom of speech still applies." Meaning if one purports to believe in the concept, one should allow the expression of it without trying to run the guy (and the delivery mechanism) out of town on a rail.

I haven’t read any of the protest letters yet, so I don’t know if anyone’s trying to run the guy out of town on a rail. Have you? If one believes in the concept of free speech, then one should support free speech by those on both sides of an issue, even if one supports the idea espoused by only one side of that issue. So, the cartoonist gets to drawn ugly, offensive cartoons, and those offended by the cartoons get to protest, and they too have the right to say ugly and offensive things if they want. (I certainly hope the protesters don’t say ugly and offensive things, but they do have that right.) In theory, if the system works well, somewhere in that clash of conflicting points of view, the most worthy side ultimately will prevail. Or, after a time, a general consensus will evolve that the right position is somewhere between the two extremes. That system for sorting the good from the bad ideas doesn’t work when only one side gets heard. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs, But they’re responsible for publishing and distributing a cartoon which ridiculed kids with special needs to thousands of readers. That conclusion hinges on whether the artist was actually ridiculing kids, though. Why shouldn’t the Post be told that readers object to their publishing the cartoon? Didn’t say anyone couldn’t, just that doing so would, in my opinion, be a blow against the idea(l) of freedom of speech and likely not accomplish much.

I don’t agree. Voicing an objection to the cartoon is itself a demonstration of free speech, this time by those who don’t like the cartoon. Free speech and its exercise is a two way street. It’s not just the person who speaks first who has the right to free speech. And I don’t believe that those who are offended should forego a protest because the odds perhaps are against their accomplishing much. Sometimes, great changes result from the actions of those who fight for what they believe in, despite the odds being against them. And, what are the odds of anything being accomplished if they don’t protest? Also consider: Sometimes bad things continue to happen because people chose to remain silent and don’t protest. I find it very hard to credit that the Post would be unaware of the potential responses – outrageous and controversial was no doubt *exactly* the point.

I agree with that last point. Which is why sometimes protesting can be counterproductive, giving offensive viewpoints more legitimacy and a larger audience than they might otherwise had had. I can think of movies or art exhibits that would have closed quickly and quietly if those who found them offensive had simply ignored them. (As when raising children, sometimes ignoring inappropriate behavior is the best way to extinguish it, for even negative attention can provide reinforcement that rewards bad behavior.) However, those movies and exhibits ended up attracting huge crowds because protests drew attention to them. But OTOH, I also know that protest has often changed society for the better. Generally, I have no problem with individuals who may push the bounds of what society considers good taste, especially in the arts and writing. But, I draw the line at deliberate cruelty or abuse, especially when directed towards the most vulnerable members of our society who are often unable to mount a protest of their own. And, I’m a firm believer in trying to educate the ignorant as to what behavior is considered appropriate and providing appropriate consequences for bad behavior. When it comes to corporations, and some individuals, sometimes the only thing that grabs their attention is when the consequence for offensive behavior is a hit in the wallet. The tricky part is to plan any protest so that income of the offending corporation drops, and not increases. Even though I support someone’s right to draw a cartoon that offends me, that doesn’t obligate me to reward that person financially. the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids. So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means. I repeat, I don’t believe he was ridiculing children with disabilities, he was using an exaggerated stereotype to emphasize his political point.

And a very offensive, ugly, cruel exaggerated stereotype it was. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. I guess I am exactly the type of audience he had in mind – I certainly don’t believe he meant the stereotype literally, and it served its purpose of drawing a parallel in harshest possible terms. It can only be seen as ridiculing children if one believes that is how the readership of the Post generally feels about children with disabilities, and somehow I don’t think the majority of one of the most educated/literate overall demographics in the nation* truly feel that way. I could wish that he’d chosen a better way of delivering his message, because reactions such as you seem to be espousing/agreeing with are ultimately as damaging to his point as helpful if one persists in viewing it against his (probable) intention

I agree with you there. Even when someone has a worthy goal, he runs the risk of losing support if he uses inappropriate means to reach that goal. And, not only has the cartoonist perhaps turned off those very people who might have typically supported his political views, he may have alienated those who were "undecided," and he’s probably confirmed the belief that he’s an ass already held by those who disagree with his political viewpoint. Not a good result for someone trying to draw support for one’s political beliefs. … but that’s his choice to make, and I respect the right to express it.

Oh, I respect the cartoonist right to draw whatever cartoon he wants. But I also respect the right of readers to express their disgust at what he’s drawn. And, everyone–including those in the media–needs to be reminded that just because you have the right to draw or say something, no matter how hurtful and outrageous, that doesn’t mean you should always choose to exercise that right. As I tell my kids, "Everything that’s in your head doesn’t have to come out of your mouth." Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

I am referring to the policies that result in teachers who are already overworked having to deal with a different "education plan" for every student in the class instead of segregating the students by ability. Do horrific educational policies make ridicule of those with disabilities OK?

I didn’t see it as ridiculing those with disabilities, I saw it as ridiculing education policies. Does trying to make a political point about the US–which the comic purports to do ("The U.S. is like a classroom in which mentally handicapped children are ‘mainstreamed.’")–make ridicule of those "mentally handicapped" children acceptable?

Only if you interpret it as ridiculing the children, which I don’t. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm your name, address and phone number). Get a freaking LIFE. I see nothing "horrific" about it I don’t know if I’d call it "horrific," but I certainly think that the cartoon’s depiction of a child with disabilities is tasteless, insensitive, objectionable–and unacceptable. I thought we’d gotten past the point where ridiculing those with disabilities is socially acceptable. "Ha, Ha. Look at the funny looking, drooling, retarded kid in the wheelchair, spouting gibberish and peeing his pants. Isn’t that a just a hoot?" And, if we haven’t gotten to that point yet where making fun of those with disabilities is unacceptable, I think that good people expressing some outrage when such ridicule occurs may help move us to that point. And that would be a very good point to get to, in my bleeding heart liberal opinion. Although I am a bleeding heart liberal, I’m not a big fan of political correctness, and I even sometimes get a good laugh out of politically incorrect humor, but that cartoon is out and out offensive. –what’s "horrific" is the educational policies in the US that refuse to accept that there are people who can’t do certain things. You referring to the No Child Left Behind Act or ? ? I am referring to the policies that result in teachers who are already overworked having to deal with a different "education plan" for every student in the class instead of segregating the students by ability. I can’t tell you what goes on in public school systems across the US, but I don’t see what you describe happening in my local schools. You know, way back in the last century when I was a kid, except for the most profoundly impaired kids who were probably institutionalized or kept at home, uneducated, we weren’t segregated by ability level. We *were* all taught in one big classroom. The teacher had one or sometimes two grades in a class with up to 30 students in each grade (It was the baby boomer years, schools were overcrowded, and I lived in a poor area with not enough money to hire more teachers or build more schools.) Of course, back in those days, the teachers weren’t expected to teach students with differences in learning styles or abilities differently. The teacher usually taught one lesson, one way. You either got it or you didn’t. Learn or fall behind. Sink or swim. The exception was reading, at least in the early elementary years. Then we were divided into reading groups by reading level, and we all knew which group were the "dumb kids." Now, at least in my local elementary schools, while children of various ability levels are taught in the same classroom for part of the day and some of their classes, for classes like reading and math, the kids are grouped by ability level and are taught separately: The advanced readers go to one teacher, the kids reading on grade level go to another teacher, the kids who are behind go to a reading specialist, and the students who need special help go to the special education teacher. Once the students get to middle school, the separation into groups by ability is even greater. Students of varying ability levels are in inclusive classes for "specials" like music, art, tech ed, phys ed, but in those classes, the most impaired kids have a special ed teacher and sometimes an aide in the class with them to provide them with help. And there are also some students with severe cognitive or behavioral impairments who, while they are in the same school building, are not in any inclusive classes. But, for the academic classes, there are GT classes; classes for kids who are doing well in a particular subject, but not working at the level required in the GT classes; standard classes; remedial classes; and special education classes. Once the kids hit high school, there are GT classes, AP classes, honors classes, standard classes, and special education classes. Students may be in an AP class in one subject, standard classes in another, and in a special education class for yet another, depending on their ability level in a particular subject. Do horrific educational policies make ridicule of those with disabilities OK? I didn’t see it as ridiculing those with disabilities, I saw it as ridiculing education policies. I know you are not the only one interpreting the cartoon that way (I’ve also read at least three other, different, interpretations of what the cartoonist’s point was), but I can’t buy it. In the first panel, the cartoonist writes: "The U.S. is like a classroom in which mentally handicapped children are ‘mainstreamed.’" And, then he shows how he views mentally handicapped children as well as how "mainstreaming" works, which according to the cartoonist, is supposed to be analogous to what the US is like (not US classrooms, the US): Typical students are uncomfortable and their education is slowed down because they have a drooling, gibberish spouting boy in a wheelchair who pees in his pants sharing their classroom. Then the kicker in the last panel: the retarded kid who drools and pees his pants is placed in charge of the class, teaching the other students. With the point being, as I interpret it, that in the US right now, the retarded kids who drool and pee their pants are in charge of the country.

Now that you explain it that way, one might suggest that he was saying that George Bush is a "retarded kid who drools and pees his pants". Which is more or less how many of his opponents at least claim to see him. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi all, Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm name, address and phone number). Steaming mad,

Response:

How you say something makes a difference.

Especially if you are looking for reasonable response. — Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn’t.

Response:

Crap. He attacked the kids. Crap. What he does is attack every child who needs a little extra Crap. The same nonsense could be said about racist stereotypes. The Crap. Irrelevant. How you say something makes a difference.

Figured I’d reinsert snipped reasons for my attribution line in my other response and this one for those who may not have seen your original "reasoning". If your point was to show how something can be offensive depending on how it’s presented, you chose a poor example in addition to belaboring the obvious. If you honestly feel my responses were "crap", there’s no sense in trying to reason with you – you’ve then obviously made up your mind and choose to add denigration to your assertions, rendering them… well, CRAP. — Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn’t.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm your name, address and phone number). Steaming mad, The Post did not make fun of kids. They didn’t censor the Cartoonist. I didn’t like the cartoon, but I don’t think that the Post should censor syndiacted cartoonists except in the most extreme cases.

Then what in the H-E-double-toothpicks are you on about? Or are you just ranting to be ranting? _g

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

George, you’re being oversensitive. the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids. Crap. He attacked the kids.

No, he attacked the education system. So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means. I repeat, I don’t believe he was ridiculing children with disabilities, he was using an exaggerated stereotype to emphasize his political point. Which is that he and his kind is better than others.

Well, in terms of ability to perform in school they _are_ better than others, so where’s the problem? And the schools don’t deal well with that situation. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. I guess I am exactly the type of audience he had in mind – I certainly don’t believe he meant the stereotype literally, and it served its purpose of drawing a parallel in harshest possible terms. Crap. What he does is attack every child who needs a little extra help.

No, he attacks the policies that make it necessary for the teacher to try to provide that "little extra help" (which is sometimes a _lot_ of extra help) to a bunch of different students with different needs while at the same time trying to deliver an adequate education to those who don’t have that need. It can only be seen as ridiculing children if one believes that is how the readership of the Post generally feels about children with disabilities, Crap. The same nonsense could be said about racist stereotypes. The Post would never get away with that because they would have 1000 protesters outside their offices the next day.

Well, actually, it turns out that blacks seem to be doing better in all-black schools. Now you’re going to claim that that’s "racist stereotyping" rather than recognition busing kids all over creation is not the best solution to the problem of equality of education. and somehow I don’t think the majority of one of the most educated/literate overall demographics in the nation* truly feel that way. Crap. Irrelevant.

Well, either your interpretation is correct or the mainstream’s interpretation is correct, and we live in a democracy . . . I could wish that he’d chosen a better way of delivering his message, because reactions such as you seem to be espousing/agreeing with are ultimately as damaging to his point as helpful if one persists in viewing it against his (probable) intention… but that’s his choice to make, and I respect the right to express it. How you say something makes a difference.

So find a better way to say it and you’ll have a golden career as a cartoonist. It’s easy to criticize. _g

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

Terry, are you aware of the flap over a researcher referring to kids with autism as having Mad Child Disease He will not even apologize for saying it. This was the subject of a petition on neurodiversity.com/ mothers_for_dignity.html which is now strangely gone.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm your name, address and phone number). Steaming mad, Terry www.ADDconsults.com Got ADD? Get Help! www.myADDstore.com Organizing tools, fidgets, books and more ‘Simply everything you need for your ADD’ <a href="www.addconsults.com"ADD Consults</a www.myADDstore.com ’simply everything you need for your AD/HD’

Response:

I can’t tell you what goes on in public school systems across the US, but I don’t see what you describe happening in my local schools. You know, way back in the last century when I was a kid, except for the most profoundly impaired kids who were probably institutionalized or kept at home, uneducated, we weren’t segregated by ability level. We *were* all taught in one big classroom. The teacher had one or sometimes two grades in a class with up to 30 students in each grade (It was the baby boomer years, schools were overcrowded, and I lived in a poor area with not enough money to hire more teachers or build more schools.) Of course, back in those days, the teachers weren’t expected to teach students with differences in learning styles or abilities differently. The teacher usually taught one lesson, one way. You either got it or you didn’t. Learn or fall behind. Sink or swim. The exception was reading, at least in the early elementary years. Then we were divided into reading groups by reading level, and we all knew which group were the "dumb kids." Now, at least in my local elementary schools, while children of various ability levels are taught in the same classroom for part of the day and some of their classes, for classes like reading and math, the kids are grouped by ability level and are taught separately: The advanced readers go to one teacher, the kids reading on grade level go to another teacher, the kids who are behind go to a reading specialist, and the students who need special help go to the special education teacher. Once the students get to middle school, the separation into groups by ability is even greater. Students of varying ability levels are in inclusive classes for "specials" like music, art, tech ed, phys ed, but in those classes, the most impaired kids have a special ed teacher and sometimes an aide in the class with them to provide them with help. And there are also some students with severe cognitive or behavioral impairments who, while they are in the same school building, are not in any inclusive classes. But, for the academic classes, there are GT classes; classes for kids who are doing well in a particular subject, but not working at the level required in the GT classes; standard classes; remedial classes; and special education classes. Once the kids hit high school, there are GT classes, AP classes, honors classes, standard classes, and special education classes. Students may be in an AP class in one subject, standard classes in another, and in a special education class for yet another, depending on their ability level in a particular subject. Do horrific educational policies make ridicule of those with disabilities OK? I didn’t see it as ridiculing those with disabilities, I saw it as ridiculing education policies.

I know you are not the only one interpreting the cartoon that way (I’ve also read at least three other, different, interpretations of what the cartoonist’s point was), but I can’t buy it. In the first panel, the cartoonist writes: "The U.S. is like a classroom in which mentally handicapped children are ‘mainstreamed.’" And, then he shows how he views mentally handicapped children as well as how "mainstreaming" works, which according to the cartoonist, is supposed to be analogous to what the US is like (not US classrooms, the US): Typical students are uncomfortable and their education is slowed down because they have a drooling, gibberish spouting boy in a wheelchair who pees in his pants sharing their classroom. Then the kicker in the last panel: the retarded kid who drools and pees his pants is placed in charge of the class, teaching the other students. With the point being, as I interpret it, that in the US right now, the retarded kids who drool and pee their pants are in charge of the country. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

It was a stereotype. the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids.

Crap. He attacked the kids. So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means. I repeat, I don’t believe he was ridiculing children with disabilities, he was using an exaggerated stereotype to emphasize his political point.

Which is that he and his kind is better than others. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. I guess I am exactly the type of audience he had in mind – I certainly don’t believe he meant the stereotype literally, and it served its purpose of drawing a parallel in harshest possible terms.

Crap. What he does is attack every child who needs a little extra help. It can only be seen as ridiculing children if one believes that is how the readership of the Post generally feels about children with disabilities,

Crap. The same nonsense could be said about racist stereotypes. The Post would never get away with that because they would have 1000 protesters outside their offices the next day. and somehow I don’t think the majority of one of the most educated/literate overall demographics in the nation* truly feel that way.

Crap. Irrelevant. I could wish that he’d chosen a better way of delivering his message, because reactions such as you seem to be espousing/agreeing with are ultimately as damaging to his point as helpful if one persists in viewing it against his (probable) intention… but that’s his choice to make, and I respect the right to express it.

How you say something makes a difference. _g

Response:

xxxxx Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Excellent post, Nancy. The cartoon was nasty, unfunny, and repugnant. _g

Response:

Hi all, Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm name, address and phone number). Steaming mad, Terry www.ADDconsults.com Got ADD? Get Help! www.myADDstore.com Organizing tools, fidgets, books and more ‘Simply everything you need for your ADD’ <a href="www.addconsults.com"ADD Consults</a www.myADDstore.com ’simply everything you need for your AD/HD’

Response:

Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies. And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs, the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. — Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn’t. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, Someone just gave me the heads up on this horrific "cartoon’ that was just published in the Washington Post. Please consider taking action by writing to the newspaper and the cartoonist. You can see it here: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/11/08/ If you are so moved, here’s the address to the cartoonist, Ted Rall: http://www.rall.com/email.htm include your name, address and phone number). Steaming mad, Terry www.ADDconsults.com Got ADD? Get Help! www.myADDstore.com Organizing tools, fidgets, books and more ‘Simply everything you need for your ADD’ <a href="www.addconsults.com"ADD Consults</a www.myADDstore.com ’simply everything you need for your AD/HD’

Response:

<< Steaming mad, Terry

Terrence? That you?! _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! <A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A

Response:

<Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies. And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs, the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, No, that’s Not the new York Times, ca. 1977. give or take… Mama! Let’s go to Saks! << not About Our Kids. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn’t. Gotcha! Yes, I was abused, I told them so, My lawyer, too. What’s more, Dr. Pepper’s Gonna make it all right ! Mama, she’s tres kewl ~ Not too much Of this, not too much of that ~ Yeah, she’s alright… Cervantes, too! Pop Quiz: Upon witch shelf Was the Don Quixote book Kept? Near what Musical instrumental Succcess? _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! <A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A

Response:

PS. Get your head of the sand! _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! <A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A

Response:

Get a freaking LIFE. I see nothing "horrific" about it–what’s "horrific" is the educational policies in the US that refuse to accept that there are people who can’t do certain things. Steaming mad, Terry www.ADDconsults.com Got ADD? Get Help! www.myADDstore.com Organizing tools, fidgets, books and more ‘Simply everything you need for your ADD’ <a href="www.addconsults.com"ADD Consults</a www.myADDstore.com ’simply everything you need for your AD/HD’

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say "freedom of speech still applies." Is anyone calling for the government to prohibit the cartoonist from drawing the cartoon, or for the government to punish him because he drew it, or for the government to censor publication of it? Because, if you’re referring to the "freedom of speech" guaranteed by the US Constitution, that only restrains the *government* from abridging free speech. In the US, private citizens and companies are pretty much generally free to restrict speech as much as they want to (assuming that they have the ability to do so). So, while the cartoonist has the right to draw the cartoon–tasteless, insensitive, and offensive though it may be–without interference by the government, private citizens who find the cartoon objectionable similarly have the right of free speech–which they can use to tell the cartoonist that he’s a horse’s patoot. The right to free speech doesn’t protect a person from being criticized for what he’s written or drawn. The right to free speech doesn’t guarantee listeners (or in this case readers), nor does the right to free speech guarantee the right to be published by the Post or any other newspaper, let alone to be paid to be published. So, those who buy the newspapers who published the cartoon, can stop buying it–and exercise their right of free speech by letting the newspaper know why. And, those who advertise in the newspapers also have the right to refuse to spend their money advertising in a paper which published the cartoon. And the newspaper has the right to chose not to print the cartoon. And, nowhere along the way is the cartoonist’s Constitutional right to free speech being infringed. And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs,

But they’re responsible for publishing and distributing a cartoon which ridiculed kids with special needs to thousands of readers. Why shouldn’t the Post be told that readers object to their publishing the cartoon? the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids.

So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage.

Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

<< outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would. Nancy Unique, like everyone else I hear ya! YOU Go grrrrlll! _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! <A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A

Response:

I don’t know if I’d call it "horrific," but I certainly think that the cartoon’s depiction of a child with disabilities is tasteless, insensitive, objectionable–and unacceptable. I thought we’d gotten past the point where ridiculing those with disabilities is socially acceptable. "Ha, Ha. Look at the funny looking, drooling, retarded kid in the wheelchair, spouting gibberish and peeing his pants. Isn’t that a just a hoot?" And, if we haven’t gotten to that point yet where making fun of those with disabilities is unacceptable, I think that good people expressing some outrage when such ridicule occurs may help move us to that point. And that would be a very good point to get to, in my bleeding heart liberal opinion. Although I am a bleeding heart liberal, I’m not a big fan of political correctness, and I even sometimes get a good laugh out of politically incorrect humor, but that cartoon is out and out offensive. –what’s "horrific" is the educational policies in the US that refuse to accept that there are people who can’t do certain things.

You referring to the No Child Left Behind Act or ? ? Do horrific educational policies make ridicule of those with disabilities OK? Does trying to make a political point about the US–which the comic purports to do ("The U.S. is like a classroom in which mentally handicapped children are ‘mainstreamed.’")–make ridicule of those "mentally handicapped" children acceptable? Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

<< You referring to the No Child Left Behind Act or ? ? moi? _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! <A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A

Response:

Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies. I’m not sure what you mean when you say "freedom of speech still applies."

Meaning if one purports to believe in the concept, one should allow the expression of it without trying to run the guy (and the delivery mechanism) out of town on a rail. And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs, But they’re responsible for publishing and distributing a cartoon which ridiculed kids with special needs to thousands of readers.

That conclusion hinges on whether the artist was actually ridiculing kids, though. Why shouldn’t the Post be told that readers object to their publishing the cartoon?

Didn’t say anyone couldn’t, just that doing so would, in my opinion, be a blow against the idea(l) of freedom of speech and likely not accomplish much. I find it very hard to credit that the Post would be unaware of the potential responses – outrageous and controversial was no doubt *exactly* the point. the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids. So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means.

I repeat, I don’t believe he was ridiculing children with disabilities, he was using an exaggerated stereotype to emphasize his political point. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would.

I guess I am exactly the type of audience he had in mind – I certainly don’t believe he meant the stereotype literally, and it served its purpose of drawing a parallel in harshest possible terms. It can only be seen as ridiculing children if one believes that is how the readership of the Post generally feels about children with disabilities, and somehow I don’t think the majority of one of the most educated/literate overall demographics in the nation* truly feel that way. I could wish that he’d chosen a better way of delivering his message, because reactions such as you seem to be espousing/agreeing with are ultimately as damaging to his point as helpful if one persists in viewing it against his (probable) intention… but that’s his choice to make, and I respect the right to express it. As I do your right to object to it. I never advocated against your or anyone else’s right to object, just for his right to express himself. * Cites: D.C. 6th most literate city in nation, summary: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-08-02-literate-cities_x.htm or for the source study: http://www.uww.edu/npa/cities — Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn’t.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tasteless, yes, but freedom of speech still applies. I’m not sure what you mean when you say "freedom of speech still applies." Is anyone calling for the government to prohibit the cartoonist from drawing the cartoon, or for the government to punish him because he drew it, or for the government to censor publication of it? Because, if you’re referring to the "freedom of speech" guaranteed by the US Constitution, that only restrains the *government* from abridging free speech. In the US, private citizens and companies are pretty much generally free to restrict speech as much as they want to (assuming that they have the ability to do so). So, while the cartoonist has the right to draw the cartoon–tasteless, insensitive, and offensive though it may be–without interference by the government, private citizens who find the cartoon objectionable similarly have the right of free speech–which they can use to tell the cartoonist that he’s a horse’s patoot. The right to free speech doesn’t protect a person from being criticized for what he’s written or drawn. The right to free speech doesn’t guarantee listeners (or in this case readers), nor does the right to free speech guarantee the right to be published by the Post or any other newspaper, let alone to be paid to be published. So, those who buy the newspapers who published the cartoon, can stop buying it–and exercise their right of free speech by letting the newspaper know why. And, those who advertise in the newspapers also have the right to refuse to spend their money advertising in a paper which published the cartoon. And the newspaper has the right to chose not to print the cartoon. And, nowhere along the way is the cartoonist’s Constitutional right to free speech being infringed. And the Washington Post didn’t make fun of kids with special needs, But they’re responsible for publishing and distributing a cartoon which ridiculed kids with special needs to thousands of readers. Why shouldn’t the Post be told that readers object to their publishing the cartoon? the cartoonist did – as an obvious (to me, anyway) parody to make a point about the US, not about the kids. So? Ridiculing children with disabilities to make a political point doesn’t make the ridicule any more acceptable. The end doesn’t justify the means. Doubt you’ll have much luck in obtaining results other than expressing outrage. Perhaps. But expressing outrage when you’ve witnessed something offensive and unacceptable is more likely to get someone’s attention than remaining silent would.

I am coming to the opinion that far too much is considered "offensive". Certainly if you don’t like it write the paper and tell them. But don’t assume that others see it as being a particularly serious matter. It’s a funny thing though, people will write a letter to the editor about a cartoon who wouldn’t even think of writing a letter to their Congresscritter about a piece of legislation. Shows how far our values are skewed. Nancy Unique, like everyone else

– –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

Filed under: Protest Demonstration

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism