http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Andy/SBHarvest/Harvest00/WatergateSeal.gif
Nixon/Watergate
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/muppet/images/d/d3/BBforPres02.jpg
Big Bird
And that will be my final contribution.
Cheers!
—Guy
As I understand it, I could be off of course, freedom of speech would protect the use of the Great Seal in political satire of any stripe. If it were to be used, say, as a means of idividual profit I’d think there’d be a problem. Since we can see its use in political satire going back before Obama, then I should think this was evidence of this being the case.
But, I’d be interested to learn from more legal minded people if the freedom of speech and political commentary angle protects such things or not.
Joseph McMillan;68467 wrote:
I suggest we let Greg have the last word on the politics of this subject. We shouldn’t really have gone down the path of political commentary, but since one side was presented, it’s only fair that the other side be heard as well. Now that that’s happened, may I recommend that the moderators lock the thread?
I’m afraid I have to disagree. Simply postinng the cartoon to demonstrate use of heraldry for rhetorical effect is no more one-sided than posting religous heraldry is a theist vs. atheist argument or favoring one religion over another. We are (usually) careful to intrduce the theology only to discuss the design choices.
As to the legal protections of the presidential seal, my opinion is that the cartoon’s use (of only a portion) of the seal is core free speech.
My point wasn’t that the cartoon itself was one-sided. Of course it is. It would be a pretty boring editorial cartoon if it weren’t.
The point was that the AHS forums are not the appropriate venue for a debate as to whether the defense budget is too big, too small, or just right—the very point that Jay made earlier. In my view, Guy Power and, less directly, several other members, effectively expressed agreement with the views of the cartoonist and thereby crossed the line Jay had laid down. It was only reasonable at that point that Greg be permitted to state the opposite point of view, but not that the thread then degenerate into a political debate.
The posting of that political cartoon and then mentioning the defense budget is a political statement in and of itself. However, it has opened up a broader subject; that being the satire of other American insignias. Since heraldry is the focus, I would ask, has this type of satire been used elsewhere with respect to a sovereign insignia? Has it been used on existing European heraldic achievements, and was it successful?
Our freedoms of speech and expression in the US afford us the opportunity to do as we like for satire and political purposes, so I doubt that any protections in the US would extend to the use of any government insignia.
Joe, I disagree.
Posting the original satire in "Government Heraldry" was inappropriate. It should have been posted in the less visible "Off topic" section in the member’s forum. Similarly, I think that satirical arms about religion should not be posted in "Religious Heraldry," but in "Off topic."
The problem with cartoon heraldry about highly charged topics is that it is part of an ongoing conversation—a message that if put into words would probably draw immediate response. I don’t think we can expect to cut off discussion on whether the defense budget is too small, or whether we need more religion in the schools (or an opposite thesis), for example, just because it is expressed visually instead of verbally. That’s because we are humans living in a democracy and we need to challenge each others’ beliefs for the system to work.
The proper action should have been to move the first post to "off topic." I don’t think anyone stepped over the line. We just need to move the whole thing to the den away from the dinner table.
Joseph McMillan;68482 wrote:
...In my view, Guy Power…effectively expressed agreement with the views of the cartoonist and thereby crossed the line Jay had laid down….
Joe, I disagree. I think you have inferred something which I have not implied—as far as I’m aware. I have steadfastly maintained a neutral position vis-a-vis the cartoon(s), as you can see from this collection of the comments I made in this thread: (not including a few "non comments" such as "Nixon/Watergate," etc.)
1. "Interesting use of the Great Seal of the United States vis-à-vis the Defense Budget."
2. "Title: "The White House Defense Budget" .... as indicated by the reduced number of arrows in our "defense quiver."" [Explaining the message of the cartoon, not voicing an opinion.]
2a. "Give the man a cigar!" [Meaning that Jay had the perceived interpretation of the political cartoon. Perhaps my use of large color font gave the wrong impression?]
3. "Yah, it’s kinda difficult posting an heraldic political cartoon and trying to strip away the political statement. I agree with Greg that it makes a one-sided comment, but, that’s the nature of the political cartoon beastie. I only posted the cartoon because of the inventive use of the Seal in making a comment; not because I agree or disagree with its statement. "
If you will please show me what you consider my expression of agreement—thus stepping over the political commentary line—I will objectively reassess my comment.
Regards,
—Guy
Michael Swanson;68485 wrote:
...Posting the original satire in "Government Heraldry" was inappropriate. It should have been posted in the less visible "Off topic" section in the member’s forum.
The only place I could think of was "Government Heraldry" since the cartoon dealt with the Seal of the US. If more appropriate, I would agree to have the entire thread moved.
—Guy
I see no problem with the thread remaining as is, as long as we keep the discussion on the topic of heraldry, rather than political ideology. That said, I would be interested, like Greg, in knowing if other countries are in the habit of using their national and/or political leaders heraldic symbols to make political statements.
Guy Power;68496 wrote:
2a. "Give the man a cigar!" [Meaning that Jay had the perceived interpretation of the political cartoon. Perhaps my use of large color font gave the wrong impression?]
Yes, I understood "the man" as referring to the cartoonist and therefore expressing agreement with the point of view expressed by the cartoon. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.
Actually Joseph, with respect to who "the man" is, I believe you’re wrong.
I think that there’s plenty of political blame to go around.
In my view, Guy crossed the line (if there is to be a line) with the first post.
Quote:
Interesting use of the Great Seal of the United States vis-à-vis the Defense Budget.
Jay Bond said:
Quote:
I assume the point is the reduced number of arrows, which could indicate either a reduced military capability or reduced reliance upon military solutions.
Guy replied:
Quote:
Give the man a cigar!
"The man" reference is clearly referring to Jay when the thread is read in context.
The whole thing is political actually. I can understand attempting to avoid politics, but I think that this type of post could, one: be placed without political comment; or two: be placed in the off-topic section with political comment.
Now, about those other countries…
Greg,
I understand that you are relatively new to the forum, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, it is not mannerly to enter into public discourse and a) immediately call someone a liar, and b) instruct a society of which you are not a member on how they should maintain their forum.
I have now tried twice to get this thread on the topic of heraldry rather than politics, but you seem intent on discussing other matters. I hate to moderate discussions, but I will do so if it becomes necessary.
**Edit—I now realize that you weren’t calling Guy a liar…I misread one of your statements. My other point still stands.
Joseph McMillan;68502 wrote:
Yes, I understood "the man" as referring to the cartoonist and therefore expressing agreement with the point of view expressed by the cartoon. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.
Aha! I see how my statement could be interpreted that way! My appologies for not being clearer.
—Guy
Greg;68503 wrote:
...In my view, Guy crossed the line (if there is to be a line) with the first post. [ghp: Interesting use of the Great Seal of the United States vis-à-vis the Defense Budget.]
Greg, I beg to differ. The cartoon title is "The White House Defense Budget." The title is crammed beneath the large drawing and is small enough that it could be overlooked; I merely wanted the viewer to make the association with "defense budget" and the single arrow. I am puzzled that one could interpret my statement as a "political statement." http://americanheraldry.org/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
Greg;68503 wrote:
...I think that this type of post could, one: be placed without political comment;...
I thought I placed it without [my adding] political comment. http://americanheraldry.org/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
Regards,
—Guy
