ShareThis Page
Former Post-Gazette cartoonist discusses censorship |

Former Post-Gazette cartoonist discusses censorship

Rob Rogers, a political cartoonist who was fired from the Post-Gazette for work he did that criticized President Donald Trump, spoke in Carnegie about the dangers of censorship.

Though politics are growing more polarized, former Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial cartoonist Rob Rogers said artists need not shy away from them in their work. While they shouldn’t feel pressured to take a side, he said, entertainers should also recognize that it’s okay to use their platforms as a means of making political statements.

“When you see government cutting arts programs in schools and trying to demonize Hollywood,” Rogers said, “I think it’s really important for artists to stand up.”

Rogers, who was fired from the Post-Gazette in June for works critical of President Trump, spoke Nov. 1 at a panel on free speech and censorship held at the Carnegie Stage. He was joined by attorney John Gisleson of the Pittsburgh law firm Morgan and Lewis, and by the American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh Vice President Brenda Lee Green.

The three discussed challenges to personal expression from the government and in the workplace following a screening of the 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” organized by Jump Cut Theater. Censorship, Green said, can largely be divided into two categories: hard censorship, which involves government interference with free expression or assembly, and soft censorship, such as self-censorship in private conversation and editorial decision-making in newsrooms.

While the U.S. Constitution does allow for some forms of soft censorship, Green said, it can still cause harm. She pointed for example to the NFL’s apparent blackballing of Colin Kaepernick in response to his protests of institutional racism during the playing of the national anthem.

“People are affected very negatively by that, but it’s not a constitutional issue,” Green said.

Rogers said that Post-Gazette editorial leadership, whom he jokingly compared to the thought police of the film and novel, were similarly protected in firing him.

Panelists and audience members also took aim at Trump during the evening, comparing among other things his rhetoric regarding a Central American migrant caravan bound for the U.S.-Mexico border to the totalitarian government demonization of its political opponents in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Gisleson said that while misinformation and propaganda are present in our world as in Orwell’s, the United States bears little resemblance to the oppressive dystopia portrayed in the film. Still, he said, it is on the citizenry to use the First Amendment responsibly and remain vigilant of its invocation in defense of hate, which he said can result in tragedies like the October shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill.

“The difference in the movie compared to where we are now is that we can question — and we should question — and we need to be informed,” Gisleson said. “What the movie teaches and what a lot of our political discourses teaches us is that you can’t simply accept what people tell you. You need to question, you need to be informed, and you need to raise your voice when you’re confronted with information, with facts, with hate which aren’t true.”

Matthew Guerry is a Tribune-Review contributor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.