Brokeback, The Washington Post, Comics, and Comments

This cartoon, Prickly City, by Scott Santis; which according to John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog appeared in the comics section of the Washington Post recently, seems to have threaded a discussion about the first amendment as it applies to citizens and as it applies to the media.

Aravosis connects this printing of a curmudgeonly homophobic cartoon to the Post's recent decision to disable comments on it's reader response blog, which he thinks is questionable on 1st amendment grounds, and is actually reaction to criticism Post Ombudswoman Deborah Howell has been recieving in the comments section by from left of the aisle bloggers and readers.


While I agree with Aravosis on his two main assertions:

1) that the cartoon is problematic and likely a homophobic response to Brokeback Mountain's depiction of homosexuality through archetypes of conservative conceptions of masculinity, cowboys.


2) It is disturbing that the Washington Post's ombudswoman is refusing to adequately answer citizen's concerns about the newspaper's desire and/or ability to address apparent and alleged misleading reports by closing down one of the main highways of discourse between public and the person who is supposed to be the public's representative at the paper. This move seems to contractict and negate much of the intended purpose of an ombudsman/woman, a job that the first president of the Orginization of News Ombudsmen, Alfred Jacoby describes as being initiated to:

to set up a department or an editor who would act for the public, investigating errors, solving problems in the interface between press and public (though in those pre-computer days, neither would have used the term), and generally doing the job that needed done at a crucial time in press-public relations.

However, I'm not sure that I agree with Aravosis that the printing of Prickly City cartoon is an example of hypocrysy, in direct contradiction to The Post's decision to ix-nay the comments on the blog.

I suppose my objection mainly comes with Aravosis' closing statement, which posits the co-existance of a homophobic cartoon and a reactionary encroachment on free speech as an either/or dichotomy between whether "the Washington Post is really for freedom of speech, or just run by a bunch of conservative bigots."

While the cartoon does seem to imply an acceptance of conservative bigotry, and though the removal of a the comments section does imply the Post's less than stellar support of the 1st amendment when that amendment is being used as a critical tool against itself, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can be a homophobic bigot and a strong supporter of free speech at the same time, though that of course does not mean that all conservative bigots are in favor of free speech. If Stantis' cartoon had said that the film shouldn't be shown at all, instead of just childishly mocking the film from an archaic conception of masculinity, then that certainly would have been an example of conservative bigotry assaulting the 1st amendment.

Though Aravosis never explicitly states that the Post should not be able to or allowed to run bigoted comics, it seems that the underlying tone of his blog post is implying that a cartoon with such an editorial opinion should not be able to run in a paper. A position which does have threatening overtones for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is perfectly possible that I am reading into Aravosis' words when there is nothing to be found under the surface, but it is not too hard for me to concieve of that type of stance following from the premises Aravosis is setting out. But again, I do not doubt my ability to misinterpret someone else's words.

I guess my my most basic gut reaction to the 1st amendment and hate speech is best depicted by the cliched quote often attributed to Voltaire, though it may not have actually been written by him:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At the same time, I do find the sentiments expressed in Stantis' cartoon to be problematic, in a manner that is actually exemplfied by the tragic effect society's violent homophobia has on the lives of the two main characters of Brokeback Mountain. Homosexuality has a long history of forced silence as an oppresive tool wielded in defense of archaic and rigid conceptions of masculinity, such as the age old conceit that "real men" don't cry. I suppose this is one of those areas where I still feel a lot of internal tension in reconciling my beliefs and principles as I am still in the process of developing them. Hate speech is a problem, but I'm not sure yet how that problem can be addressed in a way that balances with 1st amendment concerns. Perhaps I just don't know how to strike the proper balance. At the very least, I do believe that 1st amendment concerns need to be heavily weighed when approaching problem solving around hate speech.

As a side note, though I don't doubt that the comic was found in the post, I haven't been able to find it directly on the Post's website. There is a link to Stantis'website archive of Prickly City comics in a section of the site titled "Other Comics", it explicitly states: "The following links will take you off our site. washingtonpost.com assumes no responsibility for the contents.

Whether the Post should be linking to that should be linking to such a comic is up for discussion. Too bad it can be discussed through the comments section of the Post's blog.


------------------------

On an almost, but not completely unrelated note. Stantis' use of John Wayne as the archetype of old time masculinity reminded me of this essay by Hunter S. Thompson.

- Glitter