The Banned Cover of 'El Jueves' Magazine and Related Issues: July 2007


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But we're not talking about Israel or France, we're talking about Spain and it's archaic undemocratic laws.
 
But we're not talking about Israel or France, we're talking about Spain and it's archaic undemocratic laws.

:eek: Sincerely, I do not believe that you know thoroughly the Spanish laws, since to criticize them with the hardness that you it are doing. You are criticizing a law, which exists in Spain and exists in other many countries, some with more decades of democratic tradition. So right it is the freedom, as the right to the dignity and the honor ... they are fundamental rights.

According to this logic, it would be necessary to begin for eliminating all the Europa's monarchies, since the monarchy, still being constitutional, it is not purely democratic. They would not also be democratic, those States which Chief of the State is a head or it is linked by law to a certain religion ... since in democracy the States must be not denominational, to guarantee totally the freedom of worship.

The pure democracy does not exist, in any State, in all the states there are shades.
 
Name me one European country that employs lese-majeste laws.
 
This man would have to admit his errors and not to justify what did saying now that is Tom Cruise; when one sees clearly that they are the princes.:bang:
 
This will continue to be a split issue, not only between the posters here, but also in Spain. If you read articles about the ban and the cartoon you willl notice the comments underneath. The Spanish republicans argue for ''freedom of speech'', the monarchists defend the Princes and other people are not fussed either way.

What I do think is sad however is that The King and The Prince collect these cartoons (I'm guessing not this one) :cool: and keep them. That to me shows that they have some sense of humor and are willing to laugh at themselves. I think in this sense El Jueves will have over stepped the mark from a joke in the eyes of The Prince.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate both sides of this debate, but I'm getting the impression (and I appologise if I'm wrong), that some people on here who are not Spanish/do not live In Spain, think that those of us who do walk around shouting ''Oh gosh I do adore The Princes of Asturias'' or ''All hail The King''. I can assure you it's not true.

I'm not getting into the debate on the issue, because I'm sort of neutral on the whole situation, but I get the impression that some people think this ''censorship'' issue is far more serious than it actually is.

Like I said I appologise if I've gotten the wrong idea, but it's just something I observed.
 
Name me one European country that employs lese-majeste laws.

Not, I believe that this treats itself exactly about the same thing the base is the same, but it has a shade. Since the Penal Spanish Code, it recognizes to the Wreath, the same rights that it recognizes to any citizen. It is not a crime to criticize the King or the Wreath, is a crime to attack their fundamental rights ... but it it is how it would be to attack any citizen.The right to the dignity is a constitutional law.

Lèse majesté - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(...)

In the United States and most Western democracies, except for Germany, Poland and Italy, the right of free speech protects verbal attacks on public officials, as long as they are not accompanied by threats of violence.

Human rights

Article 12

Nobody will be an object of arbitrary interferences in his private life, his family, his domicile or his correspondence, not from assaults to his honor or to his reputation. Every person has right to the protection of the law against such interferences or assaults.

Article 19

Everything individual has right to the freedom of opinion and of expression; this right includes of not being bothered because of his opinions, of investigating and receiving information and opinions, and of spreading them, without limitation of borders, for any way of expression.
 
I don't think that those who like the monarchy are happy with this situation, which is more likely to do harm than good to the way monarchy is perceived in Spain.

As a consequence of this banning everybody has seen the cartoon and the magazine has got free advertising.

Moreover, if it is true that the measure was taken without regard to the condition of royals of the caracters in the cartoon, there is a comparative offence for those other public persons that have been depicted in the magazine in similar situations. For example, on 20minutos.es you can see a series of covers that can be much more outreageous than this one, for instance the cover entitled "Aznar going crazy like a ****ing goat", in which we see the nude character of former Prime Minister wearing cowboy boots and "attacking" his wife from behind. Now Aznar and wife may wonder why that issue of El Jueves was not banned.
 
Last edited:
Human rights


Article 12

Nobody will be an object of arbitrary interferences in his private life, his family, his domicile or his correspondence, not from assaults to his honor or to his reputation. Every person has right to the protection of the law against such interferences or assaults.

Article 19

Everything individual has right to the freedom of opinion and of expression; this right includes of not being bothered because of his opinions, of investigating and receiving information and opinions, and of spreading them, without limitation of borders, for any way of expression.

Exactly, these two articles is basically what the whole discussion is all about. There is a right to freedom of expression which is essential for a democratic country. It's also a right very valued in Spain after years of oppresion under Franco. But another very important right is the right to personal integrity and privacy. Just because somebody is known doesn't mean the press can write whatever they want about them. Check out how many lawsuits Willem-Alexander and Maxima had against tabloids that said untrue things. Why would this be any different. Caroline of Monoco even suit the state of Germany ones before the European Court of Human Rights because of her right of privacy. And she won.
My point is, these two rights often conflict, and in these cases it's a judge that decides which right prevailes. THis definitely goes way too far, and it's good that a judge decided to bann this drawing from shops. It's a way too big interference on a persons right to integrity and privacy
 
Yes, Sofia, I agree in your opinion.

For the Spanish the critique, to everything, to the Monarchy, to the politicians, to the famous prominent figures ... it is habitual. The cartoons of the Royal Family are very habitual.

But it is necessary to be reasonable, the own Jueves has admitted that the image is strong and that they knew that they were playing in the limits. The problem is not the critique, but the form in which this one is done. For my, there is no doubt that the cartoon is an unnecessary assault to the intimacy and the dignity of two persons... and if I was the protagonist I would not look alike nicely.

In general, the District attorney's office and the own justice, it has been benevolent enough with these topics .. it has ended in that the press does not put any limit. It has been in the last years, when the public prominent figures have begun is necessary to come to the justice. I have the impression, of which with this they have seen an opportunity of " giving a lesson ". But I believe, that though they have done it adjusting to the laws, they have not done it well. I believe that this must have stopped before and of another form, for other means, not only in what concerns the Royal Family, but also to many prominent figures who suffer the constant assault of the press. It is clear that in the laws there is a lagoon regarding the limit between the freedom of expression and the respect to the rest of fundamental rights of the persons.

I believe that it is difficult to understand, because they have taken this decision, now. On the other hand, the general ignorance of the law, does not lead us to knowing which are the suitable measures. It is something that still I do not have clear. More when the last time that applied this crime was with Otegui and his" chief of the torturers ", by whom it was condemned only to a year of jail.

On the other hand, ultimately, the really damaged ones that whose image has been used in an unworthy way ... they do not open the mouth. They have never opened it, aren´t going to open it. While the habitual battle will be tackled between press, politicians, district attorney's office, judge ... where they all think and some are criticized to others. And it is not a secret that this judge and this district attorney, does not have precisely few ones enemy or they are little polemic.:rolleyes:
 
This man would have to admit his errors and not to justify what did saying now that is Tom Cruise; when one sees clearly that they are the princes.:bang:

You shouldn't expect a serious statement from a person who works as a satirical cartoonist ;)

The damage has been done, ban or not. It's a lose lose situation for F & L because they are in a middle of something they shouldn't be. And as so often, it's not their fault but the whole issue remains related to them and sticks. The media knows well that they can only react (if at all) and not act, that makes them the perfect money making topic. I wonder if Letizia was aware how low journalism can get.

Nevertheless it's important that there is satire in a country, even if sometimes the courts have to define what satire is and what not. Wasn't the first time and won't be the last time.
 
Last edited:

Thanks for the article. So it is saying that Casa Real did not request the judicial hearing...

I'm sort of :ermm: about it. I somehow can't see The Princes themselves getting 'worked up' over the cartoon/writing because at the end of the day it is just a cartoon. Surely they would expect things like this to happen someday?

This makes me think that perhaps The Royal family didn't order the ban to happen, but since it is the law, it happened anyway.

I don't know..:neutral:
 
I believe that simply it is a maneuver but of the spectacular "aparato of propaganda" of the PSOETA to reactivate a publication in crisis,
forgotten by the public, Catalan, and "progre," with position to the taxes of the Spaniards. We do not forget that the "aparato of propaganda" of the PSOETA it is specialized in reviving deads, it see the example of ETA, or the civil war, and now, Thursday (el jueves) , that a that as of this moment it will have without a doubt very many but thrown that the one that having, and that without a doubt will finish like humoristic associate to the EpC.(" educación para la ciudadanía")
Yo creo que simplemente es una maniobra mas del espectacular "aparato de propaganda" de la PSOETA para reactivar una publicación en crisis, olvidada por el público, catalana, y progre, con cargo a los impuestos de los españoles. No olvidemos que el "aparato de propaganda" de la PSOETA está especializado en resucitar muertos, vease el ejemplo de ETA, o la guerra civil, y ahora, El Jueves, que a partir de este momento tendrá sin duda muchísimo mas tirada que la que venia teniendo, y que sin duda terminará como adjunto humorístico a la EpC. (educación para la ciudadanía)
 
Thanks for the article. So it is saying that Casa Real did not request the judicial hearing...

I'm sort of :ermm: about it. I somehow can't see The Princes themselves getting 'worked up' over the cartoon/writing because at the end of the day it is just a cartoon. Surely they would expect things like this to happen someday?

This makes me think that perhaps The Royal family didn't order the ban to happen, but since it is the law, it happened anyway.

I don't know..:neutral:

the law is the law
 
Freedom is speech is really important for everyone but I think that it is just as important to protect the freedom and right of people to dignity and from slander, harrassment and lies

a drawing is just simply that: a drawing. if someone took a photo of the princes in an embarrasing or indignant moment, that's a violation of their dignity. a picture really isn't, for it is nothing real.

besides, no one does put in jail someone because someone did not respect their dignity. there are millions of famous celebrities around the world whose private pictures were shown all around. let me just remind you of kate moss's incident some years ago, just to mention one of them. she wasn't only publicaly humiliated by the photo, but by the many people critisising her and she even lost contacts with important firms because of that. nobody took the paper out of market. she didn't even receive money for the incident, but actually lost it because of losing her job. what makes make moss and the king of spain different in terms of freedom of dignity and non-humiliation?

i can understand it was quite a vulgar picture they decided to publish, but it is after all, a drawing. can they actually put someone in jail for drawing the son of the head of state and his wife naked? is it really that serious? i thought we were not living under a dictatorship anymore. this is the kind of behaviour that would have happened in spain when franco was the head of state if someone did something like that.
 
And as far as this magazine this seems to cross a line I understand it's just a cartoon and it's not really them but still I believe there definitely needs to be a line drawn somewhere. This magazine could have still had this same caricature without making it about their royalty. I understand that would not have been as eye catching but still it comes down to dignity. Doesn't anyone have dignity and respect for others anymore. I applaud the government for seizing the magazines. Just because they are public figures doesn't mean they are fair game to be used to make a distasteful point about the birth rate.

Exactly. And what is the public interest angle of a married couple having sex in private? They may be public figures but what they do in their bedroom is still private and no one else's business. They are not cheating on anyone (no analogy to Clinton). They are not lying to anyone (no analogy to Cliton). Heck, they have two daughters to prove they have sex. It is a private matter. So where is the fun or punch line for the cartoonist to make?

This is not about exposing any illicit behaviors of public figures for public interest. The magazine is using the shock value to sell magazines. This is about exploiring public figures for monetary gain. This has nothing to do with the principal of freedom of the press or freedom of expression. I think the magazine should get a hefty fine and make a public appology.
 
Thanks for the article. So it is saying that Casa Real did not request the judicial hearing...

I'm sort of :ermm: about it. I somehow can't see The Princes themselves getting 'worked up' over the cartoon/writing because at the end of the day it is just a cartoon. Surely they would expect things like this to happen someday?

This makes me think that perhaps The Royal family didn't order the ban to happen, but since it is the law, it happened anyway.

I don't know..:neutral:

The District attorney has the duty to tackle legal actions if he believes that there is a crime.

In this case, the Royal Household, and more concretly the Princes are only spectators. How many barbarities have said on the Princess? Nobody has been denounced ever, to more that they come it is to a telephonic call or a letter ... never a denunciation.

The judicial power is independent. The district attorney has decided that there is crime, the judge thinks the same thing, and legal actions are tackled.
The Royal House has not to think about the topic, the justice is independent and its decisions aren´t commented do not even question. The Royal House must be neutral.
 
Name me one European country that employs lese-majeste laws.

Netherland. Before this sex cartoon, many didn't know Spain has lese-majeste laws. Perhaps some other countries with monarchy also employ similar laws, we just don't know.
 
I don't think that those who like the monarchy are happy with this situation, which is more likely to do harm than good to the way monarchy is perceived in Spain.

As a consequence of this banning everybody has seen the cartoon and the magazine has got free advertising.

Moreover, if it is true that the measure was taken without regard to the condition of royals of the caracters in the cartoon, there is a comparative offence for those other public persons that have been depicted in the magazine in similar situations. For example, on 20minutos.es you can see a series of covers that can be much more outreageous than this one, for instance the cover entitled "Aznar going crazy like a ****ing goat", in which we see the nude character of former Prime Minister wearing cowboy boots and "attacking" his wife from behind. Now Aznar and wife may wonder why that issue of El Jueves was not banned.

The good side is that it sets the limit for the future, otherwise the worse is still to come. It looked like the cartoonist was a bit scared. He was lying that the drawing was actually Tom Cruise and Katie Holms. Obviously it looks nothing like Tom and Katie.
Aznar and his wife are not protected by lese-majeste laws. They would have to file a lawsuit against El Jueves themselves.
 
It's been said that Casa Real didn't order the banning of pictures but I think it's just right that they should be banned. Freedom to express your opinion is present in every country but it has its limits. I think El Jueves crossed that limit. :rolleyes:
 
What a clever person that ridiculas cartoonist is. He has world wide attention and masses of coverage of his tasteless work, and that is probably all he ever wanted. :ermm:
I wonder how he would feel if it were his wife, daughter, sister,
mother being depicted in such a cartoon. Now that would be funny.:ROFLMAO::lol::ROFLMAO:
 
I'd like to ab able to form my jugment, where can we see the cartoon ?
 
Carlota, in Spain there are examples of people that has denounced to magazines or programs of television, with which the judge has taken measurements.

The bullfighter Francisco Rivera has achieved for two times, that the emission of programs on her mother stops, and until the judge has not seen if it was constitutive of crime to the intimacy or not, they could not have emitted it. And bearing it in mind, that his mother was a woman who was selling all her intimate life to the press. Recently the same bullfighter has got an indemnification for interference in his private life.

And also I remember the recent case of a singer indemnify for something that they had said of her in a program of television.
Also these days was commenting a journalist that a lawyer has obtained that for judicial order a magazine was withdrawing an article about he.

The press takes advantage of the freedom that has, and often they exceed their " freedom of press ", and commit crimes against the rights of other citizens. It is a reality. Increasingly the people dare to denounce, a few times win and others lose ... but already it is not important for them if a program of television or a magazine, it criticizes them more or emits or publish something to take revenge for them.

In the last years, against the Royal House, and specially against the Princess of Asturias, there have been many interferences in their private life, which they might be considered to be a crime. It is the affected one the Princess or affected any anonymous person ... because there are many precedents in the matter. And let's not say, if what is said affects a child, since it has happened with the barbarities that have been invented on Leonor.

The Royal House, in order that the way in question does not acquire furthermore relevancy, never denounces. Probably what has happened in this occasion they have not liked, for both sides.

The District attorney and the judge have taken a decision, and the justice is free and independent power, on which action the Royal House must not think. The Royal House already had warned in several occasions "El Jueves" in order that was thinking about some of their drawings. Ultimately it has passed that each one had made what has wanted ... and the real harmed , are to the margin seeing what happens.
 
The good side is that it sets the limit for the future, otherwise the worse is still to come. It looked like the cartoonist was a bit scared. He was lying that the drawing was actually Tom Cruise and Katie Holms. Obviously it looks nothing like Tom and Katie.

Well, the whole thing is supposed to be / hides behind satire and that's the way his answer should be looked at. He's not scared but continues with what he does the whole day, ridiculing people. Why should he be scared? The ban makes it an even bigger success for the mag and I doubt there will be a limit for the future. They might not do something like that every week but in gerenal the whole thing won't turn this kind of press into deep thinkers who'll reflect on what might hurt the princes before they publish something. And if the courts have to decide again, so what?

I bet many people who have been indifferent before are now annoyed because of the ban and it somehow reflects on the monarchy / the princes although they are only spectators.
 
Well, the whole thing is supposed to be / hides behind satire and that's the way his answer should be looked at. He's not scared but continues with what he does the whole day, ridiculing people. Why should he be scared? The ban makes it an even bigger success for the mag and I doubt there will be a limit for the future. They might not do something like that every week but in gerenal the whole thing won't turn this kind of press into deep thinkers who'll reflect on what might hurt the princes before they publish something. And if the courts have to decide again, so what?

I bet many people who have been indifferent before are now annoyed because of the ban and it somehow reflects on the monarchy / the princes although they are only spectators.



I agree with you the satirist isn't scared he is getting more than he ever probably dreamed of with all the attention this has gotten. And a magazine has now more publicity than it ever had so it is a win for them. The one that is not going to fair well are the royals in this. I know that they had nothing to do with the ban but if you don't read and know the rules people will think it is their fault. It simply gives those who don't like the princess and the royals in general more to complain and blame them for.
 
I agree with you the satirist isn't scared he is getting more than he ever probably dreamed of with all the attention this has gotten. And a magazine has now more publicity than it ever had so it is a win for them. The one that is not going to fair well are the royals in this. I know that they had nothing to do with the ban but if you don't read and know the rules people will think it is their fault. It simply gives those who don't like the princess and the royals in general more to complain and blame them for.

Exactly.

By the way, the quality of the caricature is great, I mean in terms of the drawing, apart from the delicate situation they are in. He hit the nail on the head when caricaturing the facial features of F & L ;)
 
I think that all is allowed...until real offenses and lack of respects appears. All persons, royals or not, have its dignity, and they wouldn't be offended in any way...How could it be that these "ultra-democratics" begings to protest and cry when there are TV shows where you see jokes on fat people, of scenes of spanking and now, they are here saying that "anyone could say and do whatever they wants"? That's a contradiction.

I'm a high fan of satire (I'm a regular viewer of Benny Hill..so I'm not a stupid prude nor anything over these lines), but there is limits. And no, even in "democracy" (that nowadays seems to be more a synonimous to "anarchie" than to responsible freedom) you can't say and do whatever you want to. We are living n society, along with other people, and our freedom ends where theirs begins. We can be fun, we can laugh, but WE CAN'T OFFEND...in any way. And we can't be cruel and mean. And do things only to get money on them. You are always speaking about human rights. Well, respect to other persons is among these human rights. I can't call a person plainly "fat" and must replace the word for other silly synonimous as "overweight person"...but I can draw an offensive cartoon and difame other persons. Crazy, crazy world we are living in. :bang: Censure take away the "Benny Hill Show" for it was "chauvinist" and this and that...But allow these unrespectful cartoonist to draw awful things, for that's right!!!! :mad: Sorry people, but modern world is an ugly hypocrisy disguised in a bland, affected, insincere humanism.

You all knows that I am not a great fan of Princess of Asturias. But you all also knows that I fixed my own limits when speaking about her. I wouldn't difame Princess Letizia, nor make up things about her, nor spread false rumors about her life. She is the mother of the two Infantas, and if she wouldn't do anything REALLY wrong, I must not speak badly about her. In the case she really did, it's not my affair, nor yours, but Spaniard Justice. And of course "mean" cartoons are out of question.

Oh, and for those who saids that the "artistic quality" of the cartoons is very high, you must remember that the message is the thing that counts. Will you take a dangerous, destructive poison, only for it comes in a nice, very artistic package?

The one who needs a severe and very caustic, mercyless cartoon is our modern society, plenty of people who, in the name of freedom, is able to accept the worse examles and approve them clapping happily.

Vanesa.:evil::yuk::cry:
 
Something has a limit. Can´t offend deliberately in the name of the freedom.
 
Well I believe just the opposite. It sets a precedent that this type of tastless humor concerning public figures will not be tolerated. These are much more then just the Prince and Princess of Spain. These are human beings, this a mother and a father, a sister, a brother, a aunt, a uncle, etc. Why couldn't the magazine had used just regular people to depict this? They could have chosen that route but they went for the shock value instead!

Shock value,but most of all,money.The freedom of press is going way overboard once again,and I believe strongly that should be curtailed as it has become en vogue to the limits to insult and drag people through the mud at all times,and let no-one hide behind human rights in regard of Jueves in this case,it's moot to a fauld.Insults and lies have become such a pre-dominant part of the rags/press,there is no end to it if one doesn't put a foot on it.Dictatorial?NO!Just an appeal to respect values and privacy,rare commodities these days,both of which have been totally disregarded by Jueves.Furthermore it shows a total lack of taste except uncalled for vulgarity,but that has become SO "normal" that if one takes abrupt and just measures against it,all hell brakes loose.It tells a lot about how peoples minds (dis-)functions by thinking all is allowed.
 
Spanien: Run auf Zeitschrift mit Sexkarikatur von Letizia - Boulevard - Panorama - FOCUS Online

A german article re the issue. German media is very interested as there are similar cases from time to time over there.

It says that people are now paying up to 2.500 (!) Euro for an issue of the mag (was sold for 2,50 Euro) and that the mag (70.000 issues) was already sold out before the ban was in place.

Further, the Spanish Government, María Teresa Fernández de la Vega critizised the ban and labled it as old fashioned. She said that there should be no limit to the freedom of opinion and that the ban was ridiculous since the cartoon is still shown on countless websites.
 
Back
Top Bottom