The New Yorker's Obama Cartoon: Legal, Moral and Political Issues

The New Yorker cover cartoon portraying the Democratic presidential candidate Mr Barack ObamaBarack Obama as a Muslim and his wife as an Afro terrorist raises legal, moral and political issues. From a legal point of view, the cartoon is more or less immune from challenge in the US courts on account of the protection provided by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. The question to be decided, however, is whether the New Yorker acted responsibly, as expected of a magazine of its stature.

Had such a cartoon been published in another country, for example Canada, it would have been possible to file a case against the offending magazine on grounds of defamation, or that it tended to foment racial hatred against the black community and the Muslims.

Theoretically, it might have been possible for Barack Obama to file a case of defamation on the grounds that by projecting him falsely as a Muslim, the cartoon could hurt his chances in the US presidential elections due in November. Of course, Obama is too savvy to take recourse to this legal remedy; in fact he has reacted coolly and rationally, as becoming a presidential candidate. He told CNN's Larry KingLarry King, "You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate."

The ill-fated New Yorker cover cartoon has apparently fallen victim to the law of unintended consequences. While trying to convey that the far right was carrying out vicious attacks against the Democratic presidential candidate, the cover inadvertently or otherwise inflicted collateral damage on the Muslim community of the United States, which has been under stress since 9/11.

Also, while the cover may be protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it goes against International Law because it violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), to which the United States is a party. This is particularly so as the cartoon portrays Mrs 0bama as an Afro terrorist. In fact, religion and race intersect in the cartoon so taken as a whole it may be said to violate the human rights of African-Americans and the Muslim community, although that may not have been the intention of the publisher.

In addressing this question, another point needs to be made. While trying a case in court in which bodily or psychological harm has been inflicted, it is not permissible to re-enact the crime against the victim for purposes of illustration. Unfortunately, in trying to show that Mr Barack Obama had been maligned, the cartoon re-enacted the wrong a little too vividly, though the publishers and editors have claimed that it was merely a satire.