You'll have to excuse me for the incorrect title of this thread as the original title on the website was too long to fit in the subject header above.
The true title for this article is:
This article is dated.Court’s decision to convict cartoonists “reopens debate on free expression in Spain”
It is from November, though I like to look around at different web sites and at times, I miss a few articles that I think may have been of interest had I seen them before.
Anyways...this article is about free speach and how at times it is muffled.
I guess some things are taboo, yes??Reporters Without Borders condemns yesterday’s conviction of two cartoonists on charges of insulting the Spanish crown in a front-page cartoon in the weekly El Jueves last July that showed Crown Prince Felipe having sex with his wife, Princess Letizia. The court fined cartoonists Guillermo Torres and Mantel Fontdevilla 3,000 euros each
Politicians are not taboo and when a newspaper cartoonist or journalist makes a caricature of a politician, most people laugh.
In my own country, politicians occasionally get caught and participate in a TV comedy show that makes fun of them.
Most see it as a good joke and laugh it off.
When a person makes a caricature of someone who's a crown member, it's a bit different, I guess.OFF TOPIC FYI; The TV show is called 'This hour has 22 minutes." / OFF TOPIC
Maybe it's b/c that crown member holds something akin to representation of head of state in that country and heaven forbid, be made a cartoon of.
For myself and my own opinion on this, the Queen of England is supposed to be my country's head of state, though I personally could care less for her.
And as such it's also a matter of free speech. As it should be. :
do you think that some laws are out-dated:“The conviction of these two journalists by the national court reopens the debate about free expression in Spain,”
Is it to protect the crown member if something should go wrong or they do something wrong??(The) National court....found Torres and Fontdevilla guilty under article 491.1 of the criminal code, which punishes “insulting the king or any of his ancestors or descendants.”
That is, too silence any critique of them.
Suppose the crown member of state did something illegal, was caught and everyone was shocked to learn so.
Someone published some news of this in the paper and was jailed for it b/c it went against the King's character or something like that.
Then what??
Should laws like this be considered antiquated and taken out of the law books??
I don't personnally believe that this is an issue of human rights as it would more so be a matter of a charter of Rights and Freedoms.Torres and Fontdevilla said they did not understand the verdict. Their lawyer, Jordi Plana, said they intended to appeal and, if necessary, would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Free speech is not a human right, but more so a matter of an issue of a country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Would you not agree??
still, they might lose such a case as someone could argue this issue based on Charter of rights' and freedoms vs. Human rights.
Here's the link:
Bookmarks