The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f11/)
-   -   The Banned Cover of 'El Jueves' Magazine and Related Issues: July 2007 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f11/the-banned-cover-of-el-jueves-magazine-and-related-issues-july-2007-a-13335.html)

lula 07-20-2007 05:13 AM

The Banned Cover of 'El Jueves' Magazine and Related Issues: July 2007
 
Everything has a limit, and in this occasion “El Jueves” has exceeded the minimum respect that must to the people who represent of a worthy way to the State and all the citizens. The magazine can have jokes, satires... about the Royal family have always done them... but this it already passes to the lack of respect and the bad education.

Now that the press does not cry, it does not criticize and it protests… because if continues demonstrating this lack of respect, like many others, which obtains is that the Princes get tired and “they close the faucet”. And at the moment in Palma de Mallorca they are waiting for the images of the vacations of the Princes with their daughters, who suppose a good money for the press.

crisiñaki 07-20-2007 05:34 AM

if they dare to post something like this is because they don't respect the Princes much, nothing like this would be posted in any other country regarding their CP couple

maybe it's their personal brand of making fun, maybe it's something deeper, who knows:ermm:

monica 07-20-2007 05:42 AM

The truth that could have been another photo with another joke I believe that one has gone away to them of the hands to the CR.This had not published it years ago, of that I am safe and soon the text that puts the princess to him is one hurts that they do that.

They had to put itself but serious so that these things did not return to happen

lula 07-20-2007 05:45 AM

" El Jueves " has never been characterized by the respect to anybody ... in this occasion, they have used a very easy resource (that denotes lack of ideas and of imagination), to have an advertising and economic performance (if they do not create a polemic front page nobody speaks about them). Probably what they have not calculated they are the repercussions that this type of attitudes have for the rest of the press. There will be a certain type of press that they " laughs the joke ", and there will be other one, which will criticize them for thinking that this type of attitudes, eventually, harm all.

Duke of Marmalade 07-20-2007 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643265)
Everything has a limit, and in this occasion “El Jueves” has exceeded the minimum respect that must to the people who represent of a worthy way to the State and all the citizens. The magazine can have jokes, satires... about the Royal family have always done them... but this it already passes to the lack of respect and the bad education.

Now that the press does not cry, it does not criticize and it protests… because if continues demonstrating this lack of respect, like many others, which obtains is that the Princes get tired and “they close the faucet”. And at the moment in Palma de Mallorca they are waiting for the images of the vacations of the Princes with their daughters, who suppose a good money for the press.

Personally I agree, as I said in Germany there is a similar magazine and in many cases the court has to decide what satire is and what not, depending on the reaction of the people concerned (mostly VIPs or politicians). How do the princes react in general when it's beyond the usual sense of humour? IMO this is a case where they could raise an official complain to the press because it's a bit too much. The result might be that even more people buy the mag or have a look at it, but at least they might gain some respect because they show that they don't let themselves being ridiculed w/o any limit.

Another example for what I said in earlier posts, that some parts of the press lack any respect towards the princes, something they would never dare to do to the Kings.

monica 07-20-2007 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 643283)
Personally I agree, as I said in Germany there is a similar magazine and in many cases the court has to decide what satire is and what not, depending on the reaction of the people concerned (mostly VIPs or politicians). How do the princes react in general when it's beyond the usual sense of humour? IMO this is a case where they could raise an official complain to the press because it's a bit too much. The result might be that even more people buy the mag or have a look at it, but at least they might gain some respect because they show that they don't let themselves being ridiculed w/o any limit.

Another example for what I said in earlier posts, that some parts of the press lack any respect towards the princes, something they would never dare to do to the Kings.

No, never it would pass this to the Kings of that I am very safe. :neutral:

lula 07-20-2007 05:56 AM

Personally, I think that to use this type of images to do humor only demonstrates lack of ideas ... it is a too easy resource.

" El jueves " is a magazine of very acid humor .... often satires of the King do, not with images of this type, but yes, with more acid and more intelligent texts or images. In this occasion, it impresses the type of image, but the text does not stop being another " easy resource ", because the Prince " never works " (not who would say if in Spain there was another Prince).

The King and the Prince are persons intelligently, with sense of the humor, which cartoons collect ... what happens is that in this occasion this front page is not " intelligent humor " but " intelligent business " (and I do not have the above mentioned very clear).:rolleyes:

Lantash 07-20-2007 06:47 AM

Personally, those kind of..mmm... ¿journalists? the only thing they care for is money and polemics sell so good in this country, doesn't matter who can hurt in the proccess.

lula 07-20-2007 10:53 AM

The Hearing prohibits the sale of the last number of 'El Jueves' for a supposed crime of damages to the Wreath

The judge of the National Hearing Juan del Olmo has ordered by request of the General District attorney's office of the State, to withdraw of the kiosks and to prohibit the diffusion of the last number of the satirical magazine 'El Jueves' for a supposed crime of damages to The Wreath. The front page of its last number, to the sale from yesterday, represents a cartoon of the Princes of Asturias in a sexual explicit attitude.
...

Duke of Marmalade 07-20-2007 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643379)
The Hearing prohibits the sale of the last number of 'El Jueves' for a supposed crime of damages to the Wreath

The judge of the National Hearing Juan del Olmo has ordered by request of the General District attorney's office of the State, to withdraw of the kiosks and to prohibit the diffusion of the last number of the satirical magazine 'El Jueves' for a supposed crime of damages to The Wreath. The front page of its last number, to the sale from yesterday, represents a cartoon of the Princes of Asturias in a sexual explicit attitude.
...

Thanks lula.
Same story, the court had to decide. Now some people will say the decision was right, because it insults the princes, others will say it was wrong, because it cuts the freedom of press and besides it is satire. People are now aware and the mag will probably do much better than usual. All at cost of the princes, who might now even be critizised by people for not bearing enough humour :wacko:
Personally I think the princes have done the right thing by complaining but it's appalling to see how they have become an object for a certain press to make money by showing the utmost disrespect. I wonder how they can stop this trend because it does a lot of damage to their future as Kings of Spain.

Elsa M. 07-20-2007 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 643399)
Personally I think the princes have done the right thing by complaining

There's no information about the Princes having addressed any complain... that's just the Law... according to the Penal Code, people who insult the King or his descendants may be condemned to 2 years in jail, so those guys from El Jueves are actually lucky for not receiving a major damage with this.

lula 07-20-2007 11:58 AM

Duke, I agree in that now the press will create a great polemic concerning the Princes, and alredy they have bussiness for weeks.

A thing is the "freedom of expression" and other one to do what one wants, the freedom of a person ends where it begins the freedom of other one... and in this case, though it is a joke, they have exceeded the line of the minimal respect that owes a person to itself.

Another thing that I want to clarify. Neither the Princes, neither the Royal House, have done nothing, have not even denounced anybody.

The Public prosecutor of the State is the one that undertakes legal actions because it considers that the magazine has committed a crime of the Penal Code.

Duke of Marmalade 07-20-2007 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643414)
Duke, I agree in that now the press will create a great polemic concerning the Princes, and alredy they have bussiness for weeks.

A thing is the "freedom of expression" and other one to do what one wants, the freedom of a person ends where it begins the freedom of other one... and in this case, though it is a joke, they have exceeded the line of the minimal respect that owes a person to itself.

Another thing that I want to clarify. Neither the Princes, neither the Royal House, have done nothing, have not even denounced anybody.

The Public prosecutor of the State is the one that undertakes legal actions because it considers that the magazine has committed a crime of the Penal Code.

Thanks for explaining lula, makes sense. Probably the same thing for any Head of State, monarch or not. All others have to raise their requests themselves, the result should be the same although it's a thin line between insult and satire and courts are not always on the same opinion.

By the way, it's still on the webpage of el jueves. Now of course they make the most of it :bangin:

RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 03:37 PM

That's censorship, sometimes I wonder if I'm living Franco's epoca upon my mother's memories.

Thanks to all the censors now El Jueves and that cover is on the four points of the world, great.

When you can call tyrant the tyrant you don't need humor, in Spain we get crazy with things like the Mahoma caricatures and the musulmans reactions, with the censorship in other countries et al but we need to look to ourselves and stop looking so much outside.

A strong country, a strong President, a strong Monarchy won't mind humor for as acid as it could be, our democracy unfortunatelly is still weak, our monarchy is still weak and is no wonder that more and more people everyday are favoring a republic with a President and that's it.

lula 07-20-2007 03:54 PM

I am boring to read the word “censures” and the expression “freedom of expression”. Just as the press it has a right, the people, are Princes de Asturias that is my neighbor, they also have rights, and the right to the dignity is one of them.

"El Jueves" has exceeded the line of the respect to the people, of an unnecessary way. And they have let it knowing perfectly which were the consequences, perhaps was what these consequences looked for, perhaps only wanted the publicity that they have obtained.

In Spain there is a Penal Code, and the press knows it… if they exceed the line are not possible to be surprised. In this case the office of the public prosecutor takes the legal actions that correspond to him. If the same it had happened with a deprived person, and this had denounced it, the judge would have made the same decision, since they have made with some famous personages and certain programs of television.

carlota 07-20-2007 03:55 PM

i just read the news at el mundo, and the caricature incident is the first piece of news they feature. while i totally understand that it's quite a rare picture they decided to make, is it that serious as to send a person to jail for 6 months? the judge apparently asked the editor to identify the people involved in the drawing. as the other poster said, i find it annoying that we are actually living under such a dictatorial regime after all. look at the scandal of clinton-lewinsky (taking into account that some years ago, it was even more serious), nothing happened in terms of identifying responsible people or sending them to jail because of mentioning certain things of the president's life. the only difference is that that was a REAL case. this is just a drawing. there's such a huge difference between some countries...

i'd say it's perfect to take the edition out of the market (althoug again... don't we have freedom of expression and speech -or at least so they tell us everyday? freedom of expression of everyone should definitely be overimposed to respect to, after all, public figures), but jailing people for just a drawing is far too exagerated.

RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 04:14 PM

The first thing that is wrong, for starters, is the fact that on the Constitution the King have an article that says, in few words, that he's untouchable, however the Constitution dosn't says anything about the Prince and Princess.

If under the law they are untouchables and we start to appoint the responsible for.... and remember to the citizens that such jokes could cost somebody jail etc then this is Morocco not Spain.

I have become so acustomed to the US way of laugh about everything w/o holly cows that I'm amused with the things that are still happening in my born country, it dosn't looks like a democracy and yes, freedom of speech = freedom of speech and censorship is still called censorship.

Ferrara 07-20-2007 04:17 PM

[quote]
Quote:

Originally Posted by carlota (Post 643469)
i just read the news at el mundo, and the caricature incident is the first piece of news they feature. while i totally understand that it's quite a rare picture they decided to make, is it that serious as to send a person to jail for 6 months? the judge apparently asked the editor to identify the people involved in the drawing. as the other poster said, i find it annoying that we are actually living under such a dictatorial regime after all. look at the scandal of clinton-lewinsky (taking into account that some years ago, it was even more serious), nothing happened in terms of identifying responsible people or sending them to jail because of mentioning certain things of the president's life. the only difference is that that was a REAL case. this is just a drawing. there's such a huge difference between some countries...


I don't see how the Clinton-Lewinsky case is an analagous case? Sure, it should have remained a private matter but this matter came up when Lewinsky had to testify in relation to the Paula Jones case.

This may have been a drawing but it is also incredibly graphic and sexually explicit. Shouldn't everyone and this includes the princes, have the right to dignity? Would you like to see PM Zapatero and his wife in exactly the same pose? The critical point here is that El Jueves could have easily produced a different cartoon to make the same point.

Ferrara 07-20-2007 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643477)
I have become so acustomed to the US way of laugh about everything w/o holly cows that I'm amused with the things that are still happening in my born country, it dosn't looks like a democracy and yes, freedom of speech = freedom of speech and censorship is still called censorship.

You are right that these are such important issues in any democracy. However, a biq question is this - would freedom of speech include the right for person X to defame, slander and to lie about person Y? Would that be a true democracy?

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.

lula 07-20-2007 04:29 PM

The law is the law, and what they do the judge and the public prosecutor are to fulfill it. The press is not stupid, know the law… and if they decide to go to limit, they always have the danger that in the end this happens.

The Royal House never denounces no journalist reason why it writes. And I believe that Princess de Asturias, could easily gain many judgments by insults, damage to the honor and interference in private life.

The Royal House is too permisive with the press… in other countries many situations would finish in denunciation. In the end, that causes that the press sees free way, and in this occasion they have gone so far away that they have crashed.

Lately, several judges have prevented the emission of television programs, because some famous personage had interposed a denunciation. If the press is not regulated to itself, the judges will have to regulate it, because the same law that gives freedom to the press, gives freedom to the people so that they are defended of it.

Here the decision has been of the Office of the public prosecutor and not of a deprived person, but they have decided to denounce, the judge will have to take the measures that the law establishes.

RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferrara (Post 643484)
You are right that these are such important issues in any democracy. However, a biq question is this - would freedom of speech include the right for person X to defame, slander and to lie about person Y? Would that be a true democracy?

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.

I understand your point however the magazines, newspapers, stands, the internet are full of caricatures, acid or not, of Princess, Kings, Presidents that we vote for, even the Pope, how many caricatures, really ugly ones of the Pope have being in the last two years? Many, they may be Princess and Prince but they are public figures and not untouchables, as far as I know, some people have sense of humor some others don't.

lula 07-20-2007 04:43 PM

A explanation for Rania. In many countries, the figure of the Head of the state has protection before the Law, are monarchies or republics. The most recent and scandalous case is the one of the Presidnete of Israel, accussed of violation could not be judged while he was head of the State, reason why had to reach an agreement with him so that he resigned in exchange for which they reduced the sentence to him.

Here you have the Spanish Penal Code

Penal Code establishes, in the point number 3 of the article 490 you suffer of prison from six months to two years for the one that slanders or insults the King or to any of his ascendancies or descendants, to the Queen colitigant or to the colitigant of the Queen, to the Regent or some member of the Regency, or to the Prince inheritor of the Wreath, in the exercise of thefunctions or with motive or occasion of these. In case the damage or the calumny were not serious, sentence would be six to twelve months.

According to the point two of the article 491, a sentence of fine will be imposed from six to 24 months whom the image of the King uses or of any of his ascendancies or descendants, or of the Queen colitigant or of the Prince inheritor, of any form that could damage the prestige of the Wreath.

Finally, in the article 208 of the Penal Code it is found that it is a damage the action or expression that they injure the dignity of another person, reducing his reputation or committing an outrage against his own estimation. Only they will be constitutive of crime the damages that, as its nature, effects and circumstances, are had in the public concept for serious. The damages that consist of the imputation of facts will not be considered to be serious, except when they should have been carried out by knowledge of its falsehood or rash scorn towards the truth.

catango 07-20-2007 04:48 PM

Yes there is Freedom of expression, but in any case you couldn't go so far like El Jueves Magazine did, They show Princes of Asturias having sex, and that is the limit, They definetly went so far, extremely far, Princes are Human Beings, and nobody would like to be posted in that kind of sense of humor, is just DISGUSTING, There isn't excuses for that.

carlota 07-20-2007 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643485)
The law is the law, and what they do the judge and the public prosecutor are to fulfill it. The press is not stupid, know the law… and if they decide to go to limit, they always have the danger that in the end this happens.


i agree, the law is the law, and there's nothing they can do to compete with it. the question here is whether the law is ethical or not: what's first? the drawer's freedom of expression and speech or the royal family's integrity and respect? they are both principles of our law: which one of them gets precedence and more importance then? if we complain about the writer not following the law or the rules, then the royal house (or in this case the judge) isn't either following them.

lula 07-20-2007 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlota (Post 643493)
i agree, the law is the law, and there's nothing they can do to compete with it. the question here is whether the law is ethical or not: what's first? the drawer's freedom of expression and speech or the royal family's integrity and respect? they are both principles of our law: which one of them gets precedence and more importance then? if we complain about the writer not following the law or the rules, then the royal house (or in this case the judge) isn't either following them.

The right to the dignity is not a right only of the Royal Family, is a right of all the citizens. If a citizen makes a denunciation by the same causes, the judge would take the measures you will prevent necessary, that they would be the same ones.

The press has freedom of expression, but its freedom of expression takes implicit a conduct code. They have freedom of expression, whenever the information that they transmit is important for the public opinion and that with that freedom they do not attack the fundamental rights of other people.

"El Jueves" takes to years doing very acid critics on the Royal Family and the politicians… without no problem… but I believe that if is certain, that in this occasion, they have exceeded. The same critic could be done, with no need to represent the naked Princes and practicing sex… by the way, that the text either aid, because to say that the Prince does not work it is also false.

I am not judge nor lawyer, they have taken the law and they have interpreted it.

The caricature to me continues seeming an unnecessary excess, harmful for the dignity of the Princes. I would not like that they represented to me in that form.

But through my head they pass many ideas, that they make me think that there is something more.

Ferrara 07-20-2007 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643487)
I understand your point however the magazines, newspapers, stands, the internet are full of caricatures, acid or not, of Princess, Kings, Presidents that we vote for, even the Pope, how many caricatures, really ugly ones of the Pope have being in the last two years? Many, they may be Princess and Prince but they are public figures and not untouchables, as far as I know, some people have sense of humor some others don't.

RaniaRocks, I am not saying that the princes should be untouchable. More importantly, we have in fact, seen time and time again with all the stuff that they have been subjected to that they are absolutely NOT untouchable in Spain. Quite the contrary.

I also agree with you that that there are many caricatures in newspapers, the internet, etc. However, I haven't seen other caricatures of two recognizable public figures in such an explicit sexual position. (And this is probably for good reason.) Public figures may be public figures but I don't think that it should give others carte blanche to say or do whatever they want about them. The point that the caricature was trying to make could have been easily made without resorting to that particular image. It was also not terribly funny.

Elsa M. 07-20-2007 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlota (Post 643493)
the question here is whether the law is ethical or not: what's first? the drawer's freedom of expression and speech or the royal family's integrity and respect?

I'm not Spanish, but I tell you this: if such caricature was made for my country's President of Republic, I would be the first person to condem it... and not only because that person was the Head of State... If such cartoon was made about of Carlota or Raniarocks, I would also equally condemn it... because you too would have the right to be defended by the Law.

Clinton has nothing to do with this... this was completelly different. It was a sexually explicit content of utter distrespect about other human being. If you want a comparisson, it may be compared to some cases on the Internet, when the courts were called to decide about sexual/porn anipulated images.

RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 05:30 PM

From El Jueves.


July the 20th of 2007?

We are writting this note on Friday, July 20 of 2007, at 19h. We have the office full of mass media letters asking us the reason of the kidnapping of the magazine. We do not know what respond to them. El Jueves has published tens, hundreds of drawings on the royal family (and on politicians, famous, the ETA and everything what moves). We have even published a book, TOUCHING the BORBONES, 350 pages that compiled the more funny drawings.

We are graphical humorists and we worked conscious that our obligation, what the readers requests from us is that we explore the limits of the freedom of expression. We can accept that, even, in some occasion, we could have sinned by excess. Occupational hazard, parcel of the job . If we go too far there we have the courts but... a magazine kidnapping? the police crossing the kiosks of the whole country retiring our magazine? Are we really writing this on July the 20th of 2007?.


Oh, now the judge want to close the website also and "recommend" to all the websites not to published the caricature, well, I guess they will have a great deal of work because nobody outside Spain have to do what an spanyard judge wants, oh this is so disgusting, the censorship a full as in Franco's years.

Regina 07-20-2007 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catango (Post 643491)
Yes there is Freedom of expression, but in any case you couldn't go so far like El Jueves Magazine did, They show Princes of Asturias having sex, and that is the limit, They definetly went so far, extremely far, Princes are Human Beings, and nobody would like to be posted in that kind of sense of humor, is just DISGUSTING, There isn't excuses for that.

Yes, Catango, you're right.
I think these caricatures are offensive to the Princes. And I guess everyone would be offended if this had happen with themselves.
As other members said the Royal House didn't complain. That's their decision, but they would hve all the right to complain.

Paty 07-20-2007 05:37 PM

The District attorney's office asks the judge to close also the web of ' El Jueves'

The district attorney Michael Ángel Carballo has requested the judge of the National Hearing Juan del Olmo who adopts the opportune measures to close the page of the magazine ' The Thursday ' after stating that in her(it) there continues spreading a cartoon of the Princes of Asturias that the Attorney General's office considers to be constitutive of a crime of damages to the Wreath.

The district attorney invokes the article 13 of the Law of Criminal Prosecution and diverse rules of the Law of Service of Society of the Information, who regulates the activity of this type of informative support.


RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 05:41 PM

Make love is not a crime but a delight, St Felipe and St Letizia pray for us sinners etc etc etc, what a hypocrite society.

lula 07-20-2007 05:42 PM

I believe that the District Attorney´s office has been late very much. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the press is getting used to "everything is good", every time there is less respect for the persons. How is it possible that the press, with total impunity,was inventing deseases to the Infanta Leonor, wich beside being a Infanta is a baby? It breaks the legality in all the aspects, but nothing passes.

The caricature is an excess totally open to criticism, but why now? After all the excesses and lies of the press, why now?

Do they want to attack the monarchy ? The Princess? The Government does not like "El Jueves" and they hace found a good momento to attack it. They want a curtain of smoke in orden that we forget ETA. Do they want a new polemic case to Del Olmo?

Paty 07-20-2007 05:48 PM

For God's sake, The Principes deserve a respect!!!:bang:
What "El Jueves" has done in the front page of his last number, it´s looks like to me, a lack of respect, of sense, improper of an intelligent labor like is the Press

donnaK 07-20-2007 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643513)
Make love is not a crime but a delight, St Felipe and St Letizia pray for us sinners etc etc etc, what a hypocrite society.

Will you make love in public ? Making love is indeed a delight, but a private subject. They could have made the same point with a different drawing, such as the lovely Infanta Leonor or Sofia, nobody would have cared.

Elsa M. 07-20-2007 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643513)
Make love is not a crime but a delight, St Felipe and St Letizia pray for us sinners

I'm sure you would be delighted to see that cover portraying you and your husband making sex...

Regina 07-20-2007 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elsa M. (Post 643519)
I'm sure you would be delighted to see that cover portraying you and your husband making sex...

Probably RaniaRock doesn't understand spanish. Not only the pictures are offensive as the text included.

crisiñaki 07-20-2007 05:55 PM

This reminds me of the Muhammad danish cartoon...:rolleyes:

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Spanish royal sex cartoon banned

El Jueves banned for insulting Prince Felipe | NEWS.com.au

http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...b8nvv&cat=null

Ordenan retirar revista satírica por injurias a príncipe Felipe - El Universal - Estilos

lula 07-20-2007 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643513)
Make love is not a crime but a delight, St Felipe and St Letizia pray for us sinners etc etc etc, what a hypocrite society.

I do not believe that here anybody is hypocrital.

I believe that people are not used to maintaining relations sexual in public, neither photographs themselves doing them or becomes a picture and hangs it in the hall. Please…

Paty 07-20-2007 06:04 PM

The juridical Spanish classification recognizes and guarantees the freedom of expression at the same level that the most advanced democratic systems and that the international agreements on Human rights. Nevertheless, no right is unlimited, but it is based - since it´s establishes the Constitution - on the respect to the law and to the rights of the others.From this point of view, there is fullly fitted to Law the decision of the judge Juan del Olmo to arrange the kidnapping of the last number of the magazine " El Jueves ", which includes in his front page cartoons and insulting commentaries towards the Princes of Asturias.
The judge of the National Hearing ordered that there should be prohibited the diffusion of the above mentioned number, as well as the retreat for the Police of the molds of the magazine in the corresponding workshops. It is a question of a measure that our right admits with normality into this type of situations, so that it does not contain any privilege for the Wreath, it has been in use already in defense of the honor of certain public prominent figures.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 06:28 PM

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Spanish royal sex cartoon banned

Nothing like democracy eh?

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 06:30 PM

There's good taste and then there's democracy. The cartoon is tasteless but banning it? A bit OTT in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech and of the press.

RaniaRocks 07-20-2007 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643528)
I do not believe that here anybody is hypocrital.

I believe that people are not used to maintaining relations sexual in public, neither photographs themselves doing them or becomes a picture and hangs it in the hall. Please…

Hellooooooooo, is a caricature not a picture, those are not Felipe's fat rings, not their intimate parts, those are not Letizia's titis not her real butt.

On nevermind is useless.

lula 07-20-2007 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaniaRocks (Post 643536)
Hellooooooooo, is a caricature not a picture, those are not Felipe's fat rings, not their intimate parts, those are not Letizia's titis not her real butt.

On nevermind is useless.

Evidently it is not a photography... but for that reason it does not stop being irreverent… :rolleyes:

Beatrix, the democracy means that there are laws, and the obligation of the democrats is to obey those laws. The “freedom of expression” is not so that the press makes fun of, says lies, that invents rumors… is not freedom of expression… the freedom of expression is due to defend so that the press can say truths, based and of worthy form. Each person has the freedom to express itself, but the same laws that defend that freedom… defend that if that offense takes offense to somebody of way nonjustified lay is judged… is for all, in two-way, that is the democracy…

I do not know as justice in other countries works, but in Spain if the judge considers that something is constituent of crime, it obstructs it. Recently, and by the attitude of the yellow press, several famous personages have obtained that the judges obstruct articles or videos that attempted against their dignity or privacy.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 06:48 PM

It was a cartoon. If people don't like it, they don't look at it.

Paty 07-20-2007 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643541)
It was a cartoon. If people don't like it, they don't look at it.

WHAT!!!!!:ohmy:

So, you are saying, that no matter your honor, your rights, your respect.
Please!!!

lula 07-20-2007 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643541)
It was a cartoon. If people don't like it, they don't look at it.

If we don´t look everything what we do not like ... badly would go the world.

But for some reason, to the public prosecutor it has not liked… and the judge has been in agreement… and now justice will decide. For that it is justice in democracy. Even so I follow without understanding very well the bottom of this… a long time ago the office of the public prosecutor must have put limits to certain press, because they are exceeding many laws of unpunished way… the cartoon is an unnecessary excess, but it is not first…

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:06 PM

Honour and respect have nothing to do with it. In a democratic society, you should have the right to express yourself. For example, I'm currently painting a portrait of a politician's wife. It's not of her naked or anything but some might say it was slightly distasteful. So should I be jailed for two years? Should I be banned from painting the portrait? Should the image I create be banned? No, the same as if I wrote something bad about the subject. We might not like what we read or see but we have to respect freedom. If you want to live in a country where people are not allowed to be criticised or mocked because of their status, then you're effectively going back to the sentiment that was prevalent in the Third Reich and thats not only dangerous, but backward.

donnaK 07-20-2007 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643546)
Honour and respect have nothing to do with it. In a democratic society, you should have the right to express yourself. For example, I'm currently painting a portrait of a politician's wife. It's not of her naked or anything but some might say it was slightly distasteful. So should I be jailed for two years? Should I be banned from painting the portrait? Should the image I create be banned? No, the same as if I wrote something bad about the subject. We might not like what we read or see but we have to respect freedom. If you want to live in a country where people are not allowed to be criticised or mocked because of their status, then you're effectively going back to the sentiment that was prevalent in the Third Reich and thats not only dangerous, but backward.

But everything has a limit, democracy and freedom of speech shouldn't be abused. If you paint a famous politician and his wife naked, having sex, then hang the portrait in public, you probably will be ordered to remove the portrait, even be sued. We don't know if the author will go the jail yet since he hasn't by now. Hopefully the judge will give the magazine a hefty fine, I think it's more important than sending the author to the jail.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:18 PM

Not at all. It's called freedom of expression. And why should someone be fined for expressing themselves? If Spain wants to have people wandering about in matching blue jumpsuits and mandatory state-approval for the arts then I'd suggest they swap the King for Kim Jong-il. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, of course it does, but depicting royals having sex isn't a crime. It's in poor taste but it isn't a crime and I don't see how Spain can possibly uphold laws limiting creativity when it's supposedly a democratic country that speaks on democracy and freedom at organisations that are based on those principles.

*SofiaM* 07-20-2007 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnaK (Post 643548)
Hopefully the judge will give the magazine a hefty fine, I think it's more important than sending the author to the jail.

This is the only time I have felt the need to comment. Think of some of the crimes people commit and get spared prison!! If the author was to go to prison it would make a mockery of the whole legal system.

Of course I know it is the law. It's simply what I think.

lula 07-20-2007 07:24 PM

Beatrix, to criticize something is necessary to represent two naked people and practicing sex? … I believe that no, you can critize with no need to laught of which belongs to the privacy of the people.

"El Jueves" has been 30 years laughing and making cartoons of the King, the Royal Family and all the politicians. Surely that in all their numbers says that the King and the Prince do not work. Nobody censorship its critics, if it were censured, the magazine never would be published.
The form that they have used to make the critic, if it can suppose a damage to the dignity of the people who appear represented there.

For my, as already I said this morning before the appearance of the judge… for my, it does not stop being a easy resource that it looked for to catch the attention and to create controversy. The directors knew, and they recognize it, who this could happen.

The Royal House never denounces to anybody, they do not like the controversies, and although they could have gained judgments without problems to many journalists… have not done it. It is more, the own director of “Thursday” has said that from the Real House in more than an occasion they had said to them that they were a little prudent.

But it seems that to the director of this magazine it likes the risk and that it decided to risk... and the play has come out to him well.

donnaK 07-20-2007 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643551)
Not at all. It's called freedom of expression. And why should someone be fined for expressing themselves? If Spain wants to have people wandering about in matching blue jumpsuits and mandatory state-approval for the arts then I'd suggest they swap the King for Kim Jong-il. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, of course it does, but depicting royals having sex isn't a crime. It's in poor taste but it isn't a crime and I don't see how Spain can possibly uphold laws limiting creativity when it's supposedly a democratic country that speaks on democracy and freedom at organisations that are based on those principles.

Freedom of expression has a limit too. Many magazines got fined by insulting others or spreading lies. It certainly will not be the first time a magazine gets a fine (if there is a fine) involving royal subjects, it happens all over Europe.
ABC has a good article on 'insults and freedom of expression'.
ABC.es: nacional - nacional - Injurias y libertad de expresión

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:25 PM

You're missing the point. Spain condemned the protests about the Muhammed cartoons, it's actually committing the same 'offense' by reacting this way to a cartoon. It's excessive and it's wrong. The cartoon isn't spreading lies, it's mocking two public figures. And that's now a crime? Jees.

donnaK 07-20-2007 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ...sOfIa.... (Post 643552)
This is the only time I have felt the need to comment. Think of some of the crimes people commit and get spared prison!! If the author was to go to prison it would make a mockery of the whole legal system.

Of course I know it is the law. It's simply what I think.

I don't think the author will go to the jail and he shouldn't. However the magazine deserves a hefty fine. They did it for money mostly, let them get what they deserve.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:32 PM

Why? Why on earth should they be fined for printing a cartoon? And what do they deserve? You're talking as if this is the 15th century. What you're actually suggesting is that every form of art or media should be censored and surely you see how outrageous that is?

Aurora810 07-20-2007 07:37 PM

I just accidently discovered the picture of the caricature on ANP. I see both sides of this argument. People should be allowed to express themselves but can't they do it with out using recognized people that represent their country? I'm an American I get the whole freedom of the press thing, believe me I do. And living in America means that our president is made fun of every night on late night television. I must admit sometimes I get a little tired of the jokes about certain celebs and politicians. 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.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:39 PM

Quote:

I applaud the government for seizing the magazines.
And will you applaud when they start book burning? That's the next step by your logic. Nobody is above criticism, absolutely nobody and if Felipe and Letizia can't stand a harmless cartoon then I'd suggest they reconsider taking on the role of King and Queen.

Aurora810 07-20-2007 07:46 PM

I am kind of unsure about a fine or not. I think that it would be hard to do as far as determining fines for future issues that might come up unless Spain has specific laws about things like that. I think the government sent enough of a message by pullling the magazine off the racks they will lose money that way. Yes, at the same time they are receiving free publicity out of this. In a way I support a fine but in another way it seems like a big enough punishment for their magazine that they all worked hard on to be pulled off the racks. And it seems that enough of a message has been sent to other publications too. If they try and do something similar then their magazine will get pulled too.

donnaK 07-20-2007 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643555)
You're missing the point. Spain condemned the protests about the Muhammed cartoons, it's actually committing the same 'offense' by reacting this way to a cartoon. It's excessive and it's wrong. The cartoon isn't spreading lies, it's mocking two public figures. And that's now a crime? Jees.

Sometimes it's hard to draw the border line beween lies and opinions. But insulting is definitely there, which is prohibited by the law. So far only banning this particular issue is done. The author is still a free man.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:49 PM

Insult is different, insult is a personal emotion. I fail to see how anyone can justify an insult being a felony. I'm really quite shocked at the statements people are making about this when the censorship they're suggesting has cost so much, including human life, in the very recent past and even today.

lula 07-20-2007 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643555)
You're missing the point. Spain condemned the protests about the Muhammed cartoons, it's actually committing the same 'offense' by reacting this way to a cartoon. It's excessive and it's wrong. The cartoon isn't spreading lies, it's mocking two public figures. And that's now a crime? Jees.

Pardon, by very amused that is, to say that Prince Felipe does not work, it is a lie… :rolleyes:

This is not a question of which the public opinion thinks, there is people to whom it will seem well and there is people to whom it will seem bad.


But evidently, the obligation of a public prosecutor and a judge is to cause that the law is fulfilled; and if they consider that there is a crime, will apply the law. And if they have made their work badly the higher commands will suspend to them, and if it has done it well there will be a judgment.

dm2 07-20-2007 07:51 PM

Felipe and Letizia are not the ones to have the magazine removed, the judge is. If they were going to complain about something wouldn't it have been all those nasty reports about Leonor? Or Letizia's alleged eating disorders? A friend of mine has a theory that the government has decided to have a go at this magazine as a way of removing attention away from some government problems with ETA.( Of course this friend thinks just about eveything is a conspiracy , so take from that what you will. It would not be the first time a government has tried to deflect attention from one thing to another) I just think before anyone points a finger at Felipe and Letizia or the royal house we should be clear about who filed the complaint and why. Could someone that lives in Spain or is a much better Spanish speaker than me clear any of this up?

Aurora810 07-20-2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643563)
And will you applaud when they start book burning? That's the next step by your logic. Nobody is above criticism, absolutely nobody and if Felipe and Letizia can't stand a harmless cartoon then I'd suggest they reconsider taking on the role of King and Queen.


I respectfully disagree. I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Criticism and sacrificing ones dignity are two different things. In no way, shape, or form does this cartoon criticize(unless you want to count the comment about the most work Felipe has ever done). But in my opinion this cartoon just makes fun of something that they had nothing to do with and all for the sell, the MONEY.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 07:56 PM

It's a lie but surely he's a grown man who can deal with it? Prince Frederik is called lazy, so are 99.9% of Royals. You deal with it, you don't take people to court and ban their work. It's pathetic and if Felipe thinks censoring the media is acceptable to protect his ego then quite frankly, I pity the people who have to call him King one day.

Aurora810 07-20-2007 08:08 PM

But Beatrixfan, it's not Felipe doing this. It's the Spanish government to my knowledge Felipe hasn't said anything about this incident. This is higher up then Felipe. And being called lazy and being shown in cartoon form having sex with your wife is different. One is a criticism and one is not. Do you see the difference? Look at the bigger picture here this is not a cartoon about Felipe's work ethic really, it's about a new decision that the government has made to add an incentive for families to have bigger families. And to help make their point this magazine chose to use public figures, which is obviously for the shock factor that it would bring.

lula 07-20-2007 08:10 PM

Beatrix, once again, the PROBLEM IS NOT THE CRITIC, is more to say than the Prince does not work is habitual in the jokes, although it is a lie, is one more a joke than assumed. The subject of the drawing, is the payment by children whom Zapatero has promised… so to use the cartoon of the Princes did not have relation with the subject… but as the sketcher is republican decided to use to the Princes instead of a the president of the Government. The problem is that to make one “criticizes”, have represent of a way rather little worthy to two people. And there it is the limit… you can criticize, but for it it is not necessary to resort to images that can suppose an interference in private or the dignity of the people. The same image without representing anybody would not suppose any problem, the same critic with another type of image… but what they have done it exceeds the limits.

For whom it commented the ETA subject… yes, although it is sad, have obtained that the news of the fled ETA members has happened to background. In addition, this controversial does not let have strange things, the office of the public prosecutor, the judge… very long to explain.

donnaK 07-20-2007 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643559)
Why? Why on earth should they be fined for printing a cartoon? And what do they deserve? You're talking as if this is the 15th century. What you're actually suggesting is that every form of art or media should be censored and surely you see how outrageous that is?

Insulting the King and his family is prohibited by law. IMO fine is the right punishment since the magazine mainly did it for money. I don't support to put the author into jail.
Nobody has suggested that the media should be censored, and they are not censored in Spain, otherwise the likes of Penafiel would have been banned long ago.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 08:12 PM

I see the difference, however, I don't see the justification for using dictator-methods to silence what is essentially, tasteless humour. If Felipe doesn't care and hasn't complained, why should the Spanish Government come down so hard? At the end of the day, it sets a nasty precedent and something that I can't see ever being a benefit.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 08:13 PM

Quote:

Insulting the King and his family is prohibited by law.
And that's right is it?

Quote:

Nobody has suggested that the media should be censored
That's exactly what banning this cartoon is. Censoring the media, curtailing freedom and generally being extremely hypocritical.

Aurora810 07-20-2007 08:17 PM

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!

lula 07-20-2007 08:17 PM

Beatrix, if you haven´t it clear the Royal House, does not have relation with this subject. They never denounce nothing by great that is the barbarism.

The public prosecutor acts of office following the Penal Code, the judge accepts the denunciation, investigates and takes measures.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 08:21 PM

Then if they don't denounce it, why should the Government? You're telling me what the law is, I know what the law is, I'm questioning the law.

lula 07-20-2007 08:25 PM

There is a specific law on the Royal Family, and for that reason the office of the public prosecutor acts directly, it exists mainly as far as defense of the image of the institution like Headquarters of the State, and of the defense of the people who exert a public position.

But in the same way, any anonymous person, who considers that their rights are not fulfilled or that its dignity is attacked must right to go to a court, and the judge, if she considers it opportune, would act in the same way. Since I have commented the excesses of the yellow press has taken to that some images of television are retained until the judge does not verify that they do not attack the dignity of certain famous personage.

donnaK 07-20-2007 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643577)
And that's right is it?

You certainly can hold your opinions on this law, but it's the law the judge could exercise and he apparently did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643577)
That's exactly what banning this cartoon is. Censoring the media, curtailing freedom and generally being extremely hypocritical.

This case the border line has been crossed.

BeatrixFan 07-20-2007 08:30 PM

Once again, I know the law regarding the Royal Family. Repeating the fact that there is a law is not the discussion we're having here, what we're discussing is, is that law right when Spain portrays itself as democratic at the EU and UN. With laws like this that censor the media and the arts, surely Spain is lacking on the democracy front?

Elspeth 07-20-2007 08:33 PM

I've been through the last few pages of the thread and removed links showing the magazine cover in question. I understand that there's a freedom-of-speech issue here, in terms of whether the magazine should have printed that cartoon and whether our members should be posting it in the threads.

While the debate about whether the cartoon should have been published is a legitimate topic of discussion here, our rules are clear as far as the cartoon itself is concerned. This is a privately owned forum and, as such, freedom of speech is limited by the Terms of Service of the parent company of the forum and by the forum rules. The Terms of Service include the following:

You hereby agree to refrain from engaging in any inappropriate conduct when using the Websites. Inappropriate conduct will not be tolerated and may result in the termination of member privileges. Inappropriate conduct is any conduct deemed by the Company to be harmful to the online community, including not limited to the following:
  • posting any content deemed by us to be obscene, sexually explicit, vulgar, threatening, harassing, or abusive;
  • posting content containing nudity or violence;
  • providing a hyperlink to any website containing nudity or violence;
which is also stated at the beginning of the forum rules. Since the Terms of Service forbids the posting of hyperlinks to pages containing nudity - and doesn't specify that the nudity has to be in the form of photos - all links to web pages showing the cartoon have been deleted.

Please don't post any more links to pages showing that magazine cover.

Elspeth

Royal Forums administrator

Vanesa 07-20-2007 08:43 PM

Some people mistooks "democracy" with allow people to do what they wants, even if they offends other persons. Some get unusually offended when a person goes to church, but can't understand that others gets offended by a continuous use of nudity, encouraging of drugs, and broken of the family. Democracy is NOT to do what you wants. It's to be responsible about your rights and knows what are you doing and why.

vanesa.:bang:

CRIS 07-20-2007 09:32 PM

Totally in agreement. In this life, it is not possible to be lived without laws and to do what you want. There are limits that are not due to exceed.:bang::bang:

crisscross1 07-20-2007 11:43 PM

I always thought that cartoons were meant to be amusing and fun, not humiliating and downright insulting. The artist should definitely be made to, at the very least, apologise for his bad taste. A line has to be drawn and, (in my opinion) I think this line has been stepped over. :ohmy:

zarzuela 07-21-2007 12:29 AM

This cover is tasteless and crass at its best. It's a serious offence to the Princely couple and to the institution of the monarchy . Obviously the person who made it has no idea about Felipe's work and his contribution to the creation of a good image of Spain. I wish these wanna-be serious journalists travelled to Latin America and other parts of the world and they'd be surprised about how well the Spanish Royal Family is regarded and much of the respect and admiration given to Spain by foreigners comes directly from the work performed by the SRF.

LadyFinn 07-21-2007 03:15 AM

I think the cover is tasteless and it is outrageous that something like that is published, the freedom of expression has a limit too. I´m so sorry for the Princes of Asturias, especially for the Princess, who has had a very difficult year. Hopefully the Princess will get over it, I´m sure she feels her privacy has been violated. I feel bad for the Prince because he works so hard and this trashes his good work.

lula 07-21-2007 06:06 AM

The freedom is not unlimited, each one has right to express, but in his right to the expression it must contemplate that other persons have also their own right. As nothing it uses that your free, if you are not capable of respect that others are free and have fundamental rights.

The press has a few rights and also some obligations, and in this occasion, they have done an excessive use of their rights and have not maked with their obligation. The press has a code of ethics, which unfortunately, every time they respect less.

From there each one can have a opinion, on if the action on the part of the district attorney or of the judge it has been excessive or not. In the base they have acted on the law, and only the time and the exercise of the justice in democracy will solve it.

Beatrix, here you have used your freedom of expression ... but to my as citizen of a country, you have offended me. Spain is a country that goes 30 years fighting for the democracy, from the King up to the last one of the citizens. A country that has their laws, and the justice protected in these laws develops its work ... a few functions better and others worse ... because the justice in any country is perfect not the laws are. And I assure you that often to the people it would like to change the laws. Probably stay for improving many things, but I assure you that we can take the very high head... Our laws are not different from that of other European countries, and even it has recognized rights, as the marriage homosexual that is not recognized in many countries ... of the same form we are more democratic than many countries of the U.N. because here there neither is death sentence there is not even life imprisonment ... in spite of the fact that we go many years suffering the barbarism of the terrorism. The people continue believing and working for the democracy, it is more, many persons continue occupying public charges and serving the citizens, still knowing that tomorrow their life can end for a shot in the head or a car bomb.

Duke of Marmalade 07-21-2007 06:14 AM

It's the same thing regarding all Heads of State - monarchy or not - they are protected by the law. I recall a cartoon published in Poland showing the German chancellor Angela Merkel breastfeeding the Polish Head of State and his brother and there was an official apology for it. And if a similar cartoon like the el jueves one showed Charles & Camilla having sex I am sure there was the same discussion in Britain. I agree it's difficult to judge between freedom of press or censorship but it's not helpful to blow out of porportion, like closing down websites or sending people to jail. The mag itself is responsible and a fine should do it, I hope they don't identify the caricaturist, another step too far.

As lula stated earlier, the mag knew exactly what it was doing, took the risk of being banned and why not - there is nothing to lose for them, rather the opposite: They get lots of attention & money on cost of other people, here the princes as they can't bother the Kings, it seems to become a habit or fashionable to bash them as they lack the standing or the respect the Kings have. Besides, the press can always play the censorship card and be sure lots of people will be on their side due to Spain's recent past.

I wonder what the true reasons behind this cartoon are. It must be more than just ridiculing the princes, they are just a useful means to an end for something else. The dangerous thing IMO is that - if behaviour like this continues - it will weaken the position of F & L as future Kings of Spain. They have to be careful not to become a laughing stock and hope that JC will be around many many more years.

lula 07-21-2007 06:51 AM

Already I have repeated several times, there would be necessary to know the law and sentences that this one contemplates according to the crime, to value if it is excessive or not.

The topic of the " freedom of expression ", opposite to the right to the intimacy and the dignity of the person, it is a topic appellant nowadays, at least in Spain. Before the people were not daring to denounce, but increasingly the persons meet forced to come to in the eyes of the law.

Let's be serious, if the Princess Letizia, to particular way, had interposed denunciations against the press ... since it has done, for example, Carolina of Monaco or Dutch royals ... many things would have been said not even writing, and would have paid to her already a few thousands of Euros in economic compensations, for hurt to the honor or the dignity. But the Royal Household not denounced to nobody.

Unfortunately, in the last times, we are getting used to seeing as the journalism, and especially certain type of journalism hides in the " freedom of expression ", not to report ... but to do business ... and in this process they take to themselves ahead the dignity of many persons, without never bearing the consequences in mind.

I continue saying, that " El jueves " has exceeded the line, but fodder that different many people exceed it constant .. has already tired District attorney's office decided to give a lesson ¨? ... probably...

Probably one of the most recent cases we have it in the sister of the Princess. Erika Ortiz was an anonymous personage, neither was a personage who was occupying a public cargo nor was a famous personage for anything, simply she was the sister of someone, and as such she was appearing in certain acts of family. It did not prevent it that week after week the press was chasing her and was harassing her, that every week they were at the edge of the college of her 5-year-old daughter. They took her private life and placed it in the front pages, exposed it, judged her and criticized her. Not contentments with it, they made them same with her disease. She was not well, but the press with their attitude and their harassment, do not help to that she was better. The " cherry of the cake " was to harass and to chase a 5-year-old girl who has just lost her mother (this they had to be in the jail ).

Where is limit? Until point exists the right to exhibit, to judging or criticizing the life of others. Where there is the line that separates the constructive critique of the assault to the dignity of a person.

BeatrixFan 07-21-2007 07:04 AM

Quote:

A country that has their laws, and the justice protected in these laws develops its work ... a few functions better and others worse ... because the justice in any country is perfect not the laws are.
So you agree with me that the law on saying anything negative against the Royal Family isn't a perfect one?

Quote:

Our laws are not different from that of other European countries, and even it has recognized rights, as the marriage homosexual that is not recognized in many countries.
You really are missing a vital point. Having one or two progressive laws doesn't make you a democratic country, being a democratic country means that you abide by the UN charter which the last time I looked required it's member states to protect and uphold freedom of speech and expression. This law that hs banned a cartoon breaks that, therefore by extension, Spain cannot claim it's a fully functional democracy. If you can't criticise the Royal Family, then that not only censors the media but has an impact elsewhere. Political parties can't criticise them, movements for a Republic are hindered in what they can and can't do and whilst it's nothing to do with me whether Spain becomes a Republic or not, it does concern me when a fellow EU country is doing something totally undemocratic such as censoring it's own media when it came out so strongly against the Danish cartoons that caused so many problems.

Quote:

Probably one of the most recent cases we have it in the sister of the Princess.
You're mixing things up here. I'm not saying the press should have carte blanche and in Britain, we have laws about slander and libel but the difference between Britain and Spain is that our press can print whatever it likes about the Royal Family - now, if what they print is libelous, the Royal Family could take the author to court but the vital principle is that the author can still write or draw their media and get it printed and that is democracy. The cartoon of Felipe and Letizia is distasteful and they have the perfect right to object to it but surely any 21st century country has to realise that it's vital that they be allowed to print those cartoons as part of freedom of the press?

lula 07-21-2007 07:26 AM

Beatrix I believe that you are the one that does not deal.

NO law prohibe to criticize the Royal Family. What the law considers to be a crime, is that this critique exceeds the limits of the right to the dignity and to the honor of the Wreath and of the persons who form a part of it. The law defends to the Wreath, as institution that occupies the Chief of the State, like it defends the right to the dignity and to the honor of any citizen. If, I was in this front page, and I had denounced to the magazine the judge had taken the same measure.

This one is not a topic of critique to the Monarchy, but in this country there would be a judgment of this type every week. You cannot imagine the things so nice that the independence republicans say of the King. And they are of surplus known the lies and false rumors that certain press has made circulate on Letizia ... and you know, Leonor is deaf and dumb. " El Jueves" has space in all its numbers for the Monarchy, and many draftsmen do cartoons on the King the Prince, that they collect and they have hung on a corridor of Zarzuela.

The problem here is where does it put on the limit to the critique? ... and the limit must put in the respect to the dignity of the persons, which is a fundamental right recognized by the laws ... and it serves for the Principes of Asturias, for Erika Ortiz, for any famous personage ... or for my as anonymous person.

One can and it is necessary to to criticize, but supporting a certain respect, because if all critize without putting any limit, there would not even be democracy, a society might coexist.

BeatrixFan 07-21-2007 07:30 AM

Respect is earned, you can't make it mandatory for a public figure. By that reasoning, if King Juan Carlos shot 10,000 people he'd still be above criticism because the law says he must be 'respected'. That enforced respect is more at home in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, not in a modern, democratic EU country.

Duncan 07-21-2007 07:32 AM

The magazine just published this note on their site (I don't add the link because the webpage also contains the cartoon):

20 July 2007?

We are writing this note on Friday, 20 July 2007, at 7pm. Our offices are crowded with mass media representatives asking us the reasons behind the seizure of the magazine. We do not know what to answer. El Jueves has published hundreds of drawings on the royal family (and on politicians, celebritiess, the [terrorist group] ETA and everything under the sun). We have even published a book, TOUCHING THE BORBONES, a huge 350-page volume that compiled the funniest caricatures [about the royal family].

We are graphical humorists and in our work we are aware that our duty, what readers expect from us, is to explore the limits of the freedom of expression. We can admit that sometimes we can even go too far. This is one of the hazards of our job. In case we go too far, that is why there are courts, but… a seizure? The police running through the newsstands all over the country in order to withdraw our magazine? Are we really writing this on 20 July 2007?

lula 07-21-2007 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643713)
Respect is earned, you can't make it mandatory for a public figure. By that reasoning, if King Juan Carlos shot 10,000 people he'd still be above criticism because the law says he must be 'respected'. That enforced respect is more at home in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, not in a modern, democratic EU country.

And I am the one that turns aside of the topic... :ohmy: ... You return to confuse the freedom, in spite of doing what one wants. And you do not bear in mind that the respect to a public cargo, begins for that this one also respects the laws and acts inside the legality.

In many modern, democratic states and of U.E. and the N.U., the figure of the Chief of the State, Monarch or President of the Republic, has a protection in the eyes of the law. If, this Chief of State commits some crime, it is a decision, of the legitimate government of this country take the necessary measurements in order that this person is judged. These laws are done to protect the decisions and the acts of the State. In case the person realizes an abuse of power or does not fulfill his cargo with the dignity that corresponds ... the government or the Parliament will have to take the measurements that the law contemplates.

There are two very recent cases...

Jaques Chirac, President of the French Republic, it has not come to testify to a judgment in which he was investigated, until he has not left his cargo.

The President of Israel, has been a defendant of violation, and while he was occupying the cargo he could not be judged. The Government of Israel has had to reach an agreement with him, in order that he was leaving the cargo and was judged, in exchange for a minor sentence.

Duncan 07-21-2007 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crisscross1 (Post 643643)
The artist should definitely be made to, at the very least, apologise for his bad taste.

The artist, Guillermo, is interviewed by the readers of El Mundo
Some of the questions and answers:

1. Brilliant… not only the drawing, the best thing was the text of the cartoon! Did you ever think about the repercussion of your boldness? Because you just tell the truth!
I really think that people have been bothered by the drawing, but actually the explosive charge is in the text. Of course, the drawing is very good. People have not been annoyed with the text, but with the drawing. This is something that surprises me.
2. How you think the royal house has reacted?
No idea.
3. Good afternoon, in my opinion I believe that you have gone a little too far with the cartoon, since you could have made it in another way and not so crude. What do you think about the order to seize this issue of the magazine? Greetings.
I did not know that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes had so much power, because it is them I draw in my cartoon.

BeatrixFan 07-21-2007 08:03 AM

But we're not talking about Israel or France, we're talking about Spain and it's archaic undemocratic laws.

lula 07-21-2007 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643722)
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.

BeatrixFan 07-21-2007 08:28 AM

Name me one European country that employs lese-majeste laws.

CRIS 07-21-2007 09:00 AM

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:

*SofiaM* 07-21-2007 09:14 AM

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.

lula 07-21-2007 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 643727)
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.

Duncan 07-21-2007 09:26 AM

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.

princess leonor 07-21-2007 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lula (Post 643745)

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

lula 07-21-2007 10:17 AM

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:

Duke of Marmalade 07-21-2007 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRIS (Post 643737)
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises