Diane Lewis: Cartoonist is neither amusing nor entertaining

To The Daily Sun,

I was surprised when political cartoons appeared again, after the sudden and explosive end came to publishing them, after years of many amusing and thought-provoking cartoons appeared in that space. Since these new political "cartoons" have appeared, I, for one, am not amused, entertained, or particularly glad to see them.

Out of curiosity I looked into A.F. Branco to learn about the messenger of these unfunny, and, in my opinion, unintelligent political messages. The site, Creators.com, claims that his hobby of drawing cartoons, became a calling of service to the country he swore to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic – referring to his service in the U.S. Army.

No doubt his and others' works have a following with many readers;  particularly the regular letter to the editor writers. However, there are many other points of view that should be given print space, too.  

A couple of points about Friday, 2/26's cartoon, implying that Democrats are burning the First Amendment. Further examination is needed to understand the pure misrepresentation of this position and why this cartoon is a perfect example of "fake news."

The poster announces free speech. Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak, to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages, and the right to engage in symbolic speech – i.e.. burning the flag in protest. It does not include inciting actions that would harm others (calling fire in a crowded theater), or to make or distribute obscene materials. Obscenity is NOT protected under the First Amendment, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses. Objective criterion called the Miller Test define obscenity, from a 1973 Supreme Court decision, Miller v California.

That the "artist" chooses Newsmax, Fox News, and OAN as the victims, shows that he disagrees with the true meaning of freedom of speech.

Those companies were named by Democratic leaders, who addressed  cable,  satellite and streaming services about disseminating misinformation.

Britain has a media regulator, Ofcom, which enforces rules on impartiality and accuracy for all news broadcasters. What's wrong with that? What do the three named outlets which are portrayed in the cartoon have in common? Do they tell the truth? Do they exaggerate? Do they lie?

Ofcom fines and censures media outlets which tell only one side of a story. Two main ideas of Ofcom's power to protect viewers from bias and disinformation are that news servers must abide by "due impartiality" and "due accuracy." And, they must acknowledge opposing viewpoints.

Anyone who even knows about Fox News, in particular, cannot say they are impartial, or accurate. Nor do they offer another side to their story.

Perhaps it's time to have some standards for communication companies, which are fair, objective, and apply to all outlets. It's certainly time to get back to telling the verifiable truth, not spin, not lies, not outrageous points of view which have nothing to do with reality.

Diane Lewis

Laconia