Is a political cartoon effective if you have to think this much?

I've long loved political cartoons. I was lucky to grow up in Chicago where the work of one of the greatest cartoonist, Bill Mauldin, was regularly published in the Chicago Sun-Times. I even dreamed of being a political cartoonist.

Cartoons are meant to be simple, superficial, and taken in at a glance. The superficial, simple, at a glance reading of the New York Post cartoon would be to recognize the classic racial stereotype of a black man who was behind the stimulus bill, Obama, as the chimp.

(The New York Post does not seem to have permalinks to its content. To view the original cartoon, go to http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm then enter February 18, 2009 to retrieve the original from their archives.)

Not only did the cartoon touch on racial stereotypes, it touched on assassination of Obama.

The New York Post and right wing media commentators are claiming that we are misinterpreting this. They claim the chimp represents House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate head Harry Reid or the Democratic party which has devolved to the level of chimps. That's way too complicated and obviously a cover for their racial insensitivity and their insensitivity to the higher assassination risk Obama is under.

One has the First Amendment right to say or publish most anything, unfortunately including hateful things. The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring such speech before publications or prosecuting it afterwards.

However, the First Amendment does not shield one from others' reactions. The First Amendment also protects reactions such as public condemnations and calls for a boycott of the New York Post.