Eurabia Alert: Pamela Geller has a useful roundup of battles for the freedom of speech, all revolving around Islam in one way or another, that are currently raging all over Europe: "Free Speech Battles Rage in Europe," from Atlas Shrugs, February 15. One of the most outrageous challenges to this freedom comes from the unlikeliest of sources: Motoonist Kurt Westergaard has successfully sued Anders Gravers of our sister organization, Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), for unauthorized use of his Muhammad cartoon in a demonstration:
Denmark: Quisling Kurt Westergaard sues and gets "political judgement 100,000 Danish crowns" imposed on SIOE and Anders GraversPolitical Judgement SIOE
On 15th February 2008 SIOE held a demonstration in Aalborg to defend free speech in Denmark and the rest of Europe here and here.
This demonstration was also intended to show solidarity with the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who was under police protection at the time due to death threats from Muslims across the world following the publication of his Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon.
This internationally famous cartoon may be seen all over the internet and has been seen in various places for various reasons, including demonstrations. It really became public property, morally speaking and is still an icon for free speech.
However, Kurt Westergaard took exception to SIOE using his cartoon, even when the demonstration concerned was in support of him and free speech in general. Therefore, SIOE was taken to court to prevent the use of the cartoon. The court case was a farce as the prosecution did not understand the difference between SIOE and SIAD, and this was made perfectly clear by SIOE representatives.
The court ruled that Kurt Westergaard's Mohammed cartoon may not be used by SIOE and SID for any political purposes including demonstrations....
There is much more, including updates on the legal ordeals of freedom fighters Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Lars Hedegaard. Read it all.
This prediction for civil war in France is dead-on. It is the Muslim who wants it. The French reaction will be simply one of self-defense.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/02/coming-civil-war-in-france.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1fcgSvu6xM
The French have done this to themselves.
I think that Westergaard is pulling a Molly Norris.
Some of these artists are initially outraged when their free speech rights are threatened, but when push comes to shove, they run from the issue with their tails between their legs.
That makes them cowardly, in my book.
Shame on those who won't defend their right to free speech. They are a part of the problem.
In my opinion, using that guy's cartoon for public political purpose would be, in legal parlance, expropriating someone else's property, intellectual property, or artistic property. I'm sure it was not intended as such, that using his cartoon was done innocently, but the guy has a right to complain about it. It's his property (as understood in US law). And also he's the one more likely to suffer violence from Muslims because of that, which should be his own choice not someone else's. It was probably an innocent mistake at first, since then apparently causing ill will.
I must disagree with you.
If Westergaard did not wish for his creation to be used publicly, then why make it public to begin with ?
It's not as if somebody sneaked into his studio, took a few pictures with a hidden camera, and ran out the door like a thief.
No, HE made them public.
And now Westergaard wants to claim " copy right infringement "
Please..the man is a coward, who will not stand up for free speech.
Thank God we have the likes of people like Robert Spencer, who will not allow death threats to stop him from exercising his God given right to free speech.
This internationally famous cartoon may be seen all over the internet and has been seen in various places for various reasons, including demonstrations. It really became public property, morally speaking and is still an icon for free speech.
......................
I really hate weighing in here, since I am in general agreement with the above.
That Westergaard chose to go after SIOE—*a group that was supporting him*—is especially unfortunate.
It may be too much to call him a *quisling*, though.
I may have another perspective on this, since I'm an illustrator. While the internet has, in many ways, proven an excellent tool for artists—your work can be seen by a much larger audience, including potential clients and buyers—it also means that virtually *anyone* can use your work, without recompense or even attribution.
Every artist I know is paranoid (for good reason) about their work being swiped. I have a number of colleagues who resort to legal action on a fairly regular basis.
A lot of people who use the artwork don't even consider that someone actually *created the work*—they tend to regard anything accessible online as free clip art.
That being said, I used Kurt Westergaard's image *myself*—I downloaded the image and blew it up (in the photographic sense) and used it on a poster for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week a couple of years back. Clearly, it's a complicated issue.
I've found my own work turning up in a number of places—it is much worse those whose work is more widely known. I only had one instance where I threatened to take legal action over its use.
I don't know if Westergaard sued SIOE because of what they represent, or if they were merely a high-profile user of his work.
If it was the former reason, then I retract what I have said above. Even if the latter, it must be seen as foolish in this case.
fom: Islam:Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time
BLOGGING ELISABETH SABADITSCH-WOLFF’S TRIAL, UPDATE: PARTIALLY GUILTY…….!
http://tundratabloids.com/2011/02/blogging-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolffs-trial.html
You people just can't belief how crazy things are here in Europe. A judge (female!) in Austria just gave us a new defenition of pedophilia.
Verdict in the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Live from the courtroom:
On the count of “incitement to hatred”: Not guilty.
On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: Guilty.
The judgment against the defendant is a €480 fine.
The judge second-guessed the Koran by saying Aisha was 18. She evidently noted that Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died, which is factual. The implication is that because he did not divorce her after she became above legal age, he was not a pedophile.
She says it’s not pedophilia, because Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he wanted any female he could get his hands on.
By implication, the child marriages so prevalent in hardcore Islamic countries cannot be legally categorized as “pedophilia” either.
Elisabeth said: “This is a sad day for my daughter and all girls.”
Convicted for speaking out against sex with minors. How’s that?
Because she insisted that sex with minors is pedophilia, she is guilty of denigrating religious teachings. Well, that tells us all we need to know about Islam, doesn’t it?
http://english.savefreespeech.org/
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Who cares what she said about Islam; she should be able to say anything she wants about it. However, as in Geert Wilders' case, "the truth is no defense," regardless of the overwhelming evidence supporting her statement.
Ima
Hi gravenimage - I have a brother who's an artist, a graduate of NYCs School of Visual Art. He's especially adept at sketching and cartooning. But he has a real job as his source of income. Welcome to the real world.
Freedom of speech is a human right. Islam prevents freedom of speech by its nature, European courts are enforcing Sharia, while engaging in some pretty interesting mental gymnastics. This government has just violated its mandate to rule, by denying the right of the individual as a sovereign to his, or her right to self expression.
In the western world freedom of speech is the relief valve to our cultural pressure cooker. Close the valve, and pop! Free people, historically go for their guns, and become irrational when muzzled. Freedom of speech does not cause violence, censorship causes violence. This is the rule for free societies.
"If Westergaard did not wish for his creation to be used publicly, then why make it public to begin with ?"
Such reasoning would extinguish all private copyrights to anything and everything. It is preposterous. If the instant someone publishes something they simultaneously dedicate it to the public domain then what incentive does an individual have to create anything. Such is the same motivational weakness in Communism.
Well, in the US:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
Bhobby wrote:
I have a brother who's an artist, a graduate of NYCs School of Visual Art. He's especially adept at sketching and cartooning. But he has a real job as his source of income. Welcome to the real world.
...........................
Thanks for letting me know about your brother, Bhobby. From what I've heard, SVA is an excellent school. There are a lot of "artists" out there who are not much good at sketching—it's an important skill and a sign, generally, of real talent.
Most of the artists I know who actually make a living off their work are older artists who have spent years building a portfolio and work history—and virtually all of them had "real jobs" of one kind or another for quite some time.
Not an easy field. But if he is talented and dedicated it is not impossible. The real pitfall is getting discouraged when things are slow going.
I hope no one minded the off-topic post.
I think Robert qualifies most uniquely as a person who has earned the right to call any damn person he likes a "quisling".
I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing
Till they got a hold of me
I opened doors for little old ladies
I helped the blind to see
I got no friends 'cause they read the papers
They can't be seen with me
And I'm gettin' real shot down
And I'm feelin' mean
No more Mister Nice Guy
No more Mister Clean
No more Mister Nice Guy
They say he's sick, he's obscene
I got no friends 'cause they read the papers
They can't be seen with me
And I'm feelin' real shot down
And I'm gettin' mean
No more Mister Nice Guy
No more Mister Clean
No more Mister Nice Guy
They say he's sick, he's obscene
My dog bit me on the leg today
My cat clawed my eye
Mom's been thrown out of the social circles
And dad has to hide
I went to church incognito
When everybody rose the Reverend Smithy
He recognized me and punched me in the nose
He said, no more Mister Nice Guy
No more Mister Clean
No more Mister Nice Guy
He said you're sick, you're obscene'
Beat me up all you want, this is the response that comes to my mind, like it or lump it.
--
Be nice to Muslims? I'd rather burn my brain out on crack and French-kiss Deathwing til I die!
Westergaard's a tool; he discovered a neat juxtaposition of images which can be - and is being - used to show up the religion of creeps for what it really is; because he published it in a news-paper (not in a book you'd have to go buy), and it got international attention from the muslims he'd meant to offend in the first place, SO it IS in the public domain. He can't take it back and charge money for it.
But, since he's trying to do so... he's a tool.
He's acting like a muslim, trying to play the victim.
So - simply put - if I knew where he was, I'd tell the muslims.
;-)
The Europeans are exhibiting lemming-like behaviour and who can stop that? They are going to Halal in a handbasket.
The elites have gone mad.
Western Europeans are exhibiting lemming-like behaviour. And who can stop the rush to the cliff let alone understand it? They are going to Halal in a handbasket.
Oops. An accidental double post.
More information about Islam's war on free speech under CENSORSHIP at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html
In the big scheme of things, this is much more than an issue of free speech. It is a seminal moment in the twilight of Europe.
Definition of twilight: a terminal period, especially after full development and success.
Europe descending, Islam ascending.
Good and evil are the most powerful forces in the world, and the will to evil is the path of least resistance.
Free speech is our fire alarm. Ban it and the house burns down.
Vlad Basarab wrote:
Westergaard's a tool...He's acting like a muslim, trying to play the victim.
So - simply put - if I knew where he was, I'd tell the muslims.
.............................
I was going to address the issue of "public domain"—but then that comparatively minor, legalistic point was made moot by the way you closed your post.
*Really*? You'd enable Kurt Westergaard's *murder by crazed Jihadists* because you find his behavior annoying?
Remember, the last time a member of the "religion of peace" came after him, he broke into his home home and tried to *axe murder him and his five-year-old granddaughter*.
There are lots of people I find annoying—there are Westerners who are full-blown dhimmi tools, and there are even Westerners who are Jihad deniers and clueless Jihad enablers—but I wouldn't sic homicidal Muslims on any of these people, either.
Kurt Westergaard is, as noted, an imperfect poster boy for freedom of speech. That's often what happens in real life.
But not only did he create an absolutely iconic image of Jihad violence vs. freedom of speech, he refused to repudiate the image—he has described himself as "an old man with a stiff neck, who will not bow his head to anyone".
Whatever his shortcomings, that, in my book, makes him much more a hero against Jihad than someone who would give him up to the very people who want to murder us all, because they felt he fell short of their "lofty" ideals.
Who's the "quisling" here?
How about Josef Fritzl, the Austrian who imprisoned his 11 year old daughter in his basement and "fathered" seven children by her. Because she was held for 24 years would that also not be paedophilia?
I'm baffled by the Danish court. What puzzles me is the merit of a claim for damages for infringement of copyright on a work that the artist does not at all wish to have published in the foreseeable future. Where is the damage? Where is the loss of income for which he must receive compensation? How do you quantify the loss?
Perhaps my opinion is coloured by the legal system of England and Wales in which a claim for damages must be for a provable loss or injury and in which, unlike the US system, a punitive or exemplary element is not allowed except in certain specific cases (Rookes v Barnard 1964) that would not apply here. The "grey" areas in the UK system arise when judges must refer to precedent in setting appropriate compensation for intangibles such as pain and distress, or for defamation.
In the US, punitive damages while allowed are also generally limited to some multiple of the compensatory damages to avoid conflict with constitutional rights. The provable injury or loss for assessment of compensatory damages here would be quite small. Also, punitive damages are usually awarded where there has been some breach of trust which is not the case.
In Europe, punitive damages are not generally available. In Scandinavia including Denmark they are typically restricted to non-pecuniary loss associated with a personal injury case.
Is Westergaard suggesting that continued display of his cartoon is prolonging the risk to him from enraged muslims and therefore his emotional distress caused by that threat? Is he claiming for the costs for upkeep of his panic room (the one that isn't big enough for him and a child) or for a bodyguard's future wages over an extended period? Such arguments don't hold water, given the length of time the faithful are known to hold a grudge against an insulter of Mahomet (forever).
No Stranger to Islam "its past and or persent, made me decide that all in all it is an extremely deceptive & violent religion whose time has come to clean its skeletons from its closet. Islam/Muslims are still stuck in the 5th century - it needs to be completely exposed so it can be reformed enough that it is compatible enough for at least the previous century. Or else another 9/11 type attack and they will get nuke especially if it is a “no nonsense / no PC” country like Russia or China"!
Truth is not hate, and deception is not love.
Trust that, 'you can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality'.