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

[lula]

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…

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Insulting the King and his family is prohibited by law.

And that's right is it?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CRIS]

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.

 

[crisscross1]

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.

 

[zarzuela]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... ... 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]

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.