is this an offensive image?

[Gromit]

http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-331_468x666.jpg

Police chiefs were accused of criminalising free speech yesterday with their confiscation of a satirical football fanzine.

'Officers are now seizing the fanzines and in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service we will take appropriate action against anyone either found selling this particular fanzine or provocatively displaying the image in public.'

But a spokesman for campaign group Liberty said: 'It's one thing for the police to take action in fear of a riot being provoked at a tense football match.
'But threatening seizure and prosecution of the fanzine after the event is really a step too far. When lampooning racism becomes a criminal matter you realise just how dangerously broad our speech offences have become.'

http://www.dailymail....ow.html#ixzz1mGscaZ8b

[pa___ul3]

it wasn't directed at you gromit, more those backing what Liberty are saying. The KKK mask has LFC written on it.. effectively directly associating the views of the KKK with LFC, I'm sure any group would be disgusted at being associated with the KKK. It's not just this incident that's got me defensive it's the whole media stance, Liverpool have been painted to be a racist club, supposedly condoning racism despite the facfrom day 1 the club's view has been supporting the defence that what Suarez said had no intended racist connotations. That's obviously being point blank ignored and it's infuriating.
I have tried to looked at the whole saga objectively and I can't understand how people are failing to see the irony in ignoring a defence of simple cultural differences. That may not be the case, he may have been deliberately racist, but equally it may be a valid defence especially as it's been backed up by others, but again just completely ignored.
In answering this question specifically, yeah, I see the joke in it and it's very typical of independent fanzines, but it does say 'provocativly displaying the image'.

[Zeuhl]

I think the defence:

'what he said was bad but it's just common banter where he comes from'

is always a diffiult one to put across.
Either way, 'what you communicate is the result you get' so LFC need to examine closely what they communicated; because it appears it didn't get them the result they wanted.

[anotheoldgit]

Lets have a level playing field here.

If this is offensive towards blacks, just as images of Allah are offensive to Muslims, and if they are also equally prepared to take action against anything that is deemed offensive to all, races, cultures and religions.

Then yes it is offensive.

[pa___ul3]

zeuhl, I'll not deny Liverpool, as a club, didn't handle the situation perfectly, and the recent batch of apologies are exactly to achieve what they want to achieve, a cleansing of the brand. I think Dalglish and the team genuinely believed and supported Suarez, the t-shirt incident was too far though. I will maintain though that had the FA handled this case as sensitively as any case regarding accusations of racism should be handled, as opposed to a PR stunt to show how there are 'tackling racism' then I don't think these issues would be arising now.

[Gromit]

// Lets have a level playing field here. If this is offensive towards blacks... //

It is not offensive to blacks, it is Liverpool supporters who are are offended.

[Zeuhl]

I suppose black Liverpool supporters are doubly offended.

But then, they must be in a quandary to begin with.

Liverpool's owners aren't from Alabama are they?

[anotheoldgit]

/// It is not offensive to blacks ///

Ku-Klux-Klan not offensive to blacks?

That's a new one on me.

[Zeuhl]

It's a suggestion of membership or affiliation with KKK that is the issue.

That is why LFC supporters (not Blacks) were the target and who are upset.

(Stick.Wrong end. Again!)

[Old_Geezer]

I thought it amusing.

Any image can be offensive if your mind opts to be offended by it. I think Liberty is quite correct.

[naomi24]

I get fed up with people crying 'offence'. The word is overused and much abused.

[naomi24]

^^ I agree.

[pa___ul3]

to be fair Naomi, in this instance, the image was created deliberately to offend.

[naomi24]

Paul, those who cry ‘offence’ at every opportunity do so simply to stifle opposing opinions. Everyone is ‘offended’ by something – even if that something amounts to an individual’s perception that his freedom of speech is being infringed by someone else’s claimed ‘offence’ – and the result is that we end up climbing up our own bottoms – as has happened in this instance. The only way to defeat bigotry is to allow it to rear its ugly head and to oppose it openly through rational debate and education. We can stop people talking, but we can’t prevent them thinking, and so hiding the socially unacceptable under the carpet doesn’t cure the problem – it simply suppresses it and allows it to fester.

[NOX]

No the image was created to deliberately mock
a. the player concerned
b. the club that mishandled the situation
c. anyone with similar ideas to either of the above.

If you are offended by this then please don't ever read Punch or Private Eye, and what about Monty Python for that matter, none of that is ANY worse than this and in fact I find it fairly humerous, just as i do most Irish jokes (even the sectarian ones) despite being Irish. Life is full of people who use their wit to take a rise out of others who have invoked their ire, or are the witty folk now to dumb themselves down and not comment about social issues in case they upset anyone?

[naomi24]

//or are the witty folk now to dumb themselves down and not comment about social issues in case they upset anyone? //

I sincerely hope not - but it seems we're heading that way. :o/

[Messi_Ten]

It's funny and also a serious dig at Liverpool for defending racism.

I also agree with Liberty.

[DTCwordfan]

What a fine club you represent Messi, when it comes to the above.

http://www.guardian.c...uefa-barcelona-racism

[Buenchico]

The definition of 'offensive' will vary from one individual to another. (For example, I find a Christian crucifix to be deeply offensive but I'm not particularly bothered by a Nazi swastika).

However the important principle must surely be that the right to free speech (and the associated right to freely display images) is meaningless unless it embodies the right to offend.