MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
In response to Comedy Central's decision to self-censor a South Park episode in which the prophet Muhammad was depicted wearing a bear suit, a Seattle comedian declared May 20th as "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day.
My immediate reaction upon hearing the news was, "For fuck's sake, everybody grow up."
There is so much wrong on every side of this issue. First of all, to Muslim leaders who would issue a fatwa against the South Park creators, how about you pray for a little bit of perspective, hmm? Do you really think a cartoon is such a threat to one of the world's largest religions that you have to murder anybody that draws a picture of your prophet? Seriously? It's a fucking drawing.
To Americans who are declaring the First Amendment dead as a result of Comedy Central's decision, how about you take a deep breath, put your head between your knees, and exhale slowly? After that, maybe have a cookie or something. Broadcast and cable networks self-censor all the time. They employ whole departments full of people whose entire job descriptions entail censoring television scripts. They don't do it because they are sworn enemies of the Constitution. They do it because they want to offend the smallest number of people possible so that those people don't start calling advertisers demanding boycotts and cutting into their bottom lines.
Finally, to those who are responsible for, and to those who will participate in, "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day, I say thanks. Thanks for exacerbating an already touchy issue. Thanks for causing governments to ban Facebook and students in countries you don't live in, and will likely never visit, to protest. Thanks for contributing to the overall perception that we in the West are hostile to the religion of Islam. I say thank you because there's nothing I love better than meeting someone for the first time, disclosing that I am American, and being asked, with sincere confusion bordering on hurt feelings, "Why do Americans hate Muslims so much?"
Comments
you are an idiot. you completely missed the point. "nothing i love more..."? yes, that's right. because you don't like being asked that question, let's give into the extremists
by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:27am
I'm afraid I'm not the one who has missed the point. Giving in to extremists would be changing something that happens routinely to meet extremist demands, like closing subways because there's a possibility they will be bombed. Calling on as many people as possible to draw an image that will offend both extreme and non-extreme adherents to a particular religion because your knickers are in a twist about some supposed censorship is certainly not fighting the good fight against religious extremism.
by Orlando on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:34am
I'd say Comedy Central's decision was giving in to terrorists, but "everybody draw Mohammed day" is also altering one's behavior because of terrorists. So, I agree with you that (a) Comedy Central's decision was theirs to make and (b) "Everybody draw Mohammed day" is probably not a good response, but I disagree that Comedy Central was not caving in. South Park has made fun of all religions, so not making fun of Islam makes it stand out. Comedy Central's reasons were (presumably) for the safety of South Park's creators (as opposed to for the sake of advertisers), so I can't fault them too much, but it was still a cave.
That said, I think a point worth making is that the extremists make up less than 1% of the Muslim population (yes, I'm making that figure up, but 1% of a billion is ten million, and I really don't think there are that many Muslims willing to wage jihad against cartoonists), whereas "Everybody draw Mohammed" will probably offend most Muslims (maybe not, but it'll definitely offend far more Muslims than just the extremists).
by Atheist (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:19pm
Pisses me off too, just like Piss on a Cross Day does. And I'm probably as much of an atheist as anyone here.
by acanuck on Mon, 05/24/2010 - 12:14am
Note to outsiders: ONLY Quebecers celebrate Piss on a Cross Day. They're a foul breed, Quebecers.
The rest of us Canadians just have the usual Piss Up A Rope Day.
Last year I won.
by quinn esq on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 2:08am
The main point of "Everyone Draw Muhammed Day" is to make it impossible for reasonable Muslims to take our side. Jihadists claim that Westerners are consumed with unthinking hostility to Islam, ignorant and disrespectful, and "Draw Muhammed Day" sets out to prove them right. If you're a moderate Muslim, you now have no side worth choosing, because neither the jihadists and the West have any place for you.
It isn't just about drawing cartoons, it's about becoming cartoons: the very cartoons of Westerners that jihadists have been peddling.
by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:17pm
No. The main point of Everyone Draw Muhammad Day is to demonstrate that in the real world, people don't shut up just because you threaten (or commit) violence against them. If you're a moderate Muslim, you do have a side worth choosing. You can choose the side that's standing up for your right to be a moderate muslim. In the U.S. I have protested to make sure that muslims aren't stripped of their freedom of expression the way people are attempting to take away that freedom in many european nations. I will continue to protest the unjust wars launched against innocent muslim people. The reason moderate muslims come here is so that they can have the freedom to be moderate. That does not mean that we should give up our freedom, even the freedom to say things that might offend others, away to make them more comfortable here. If you want sharia law and religious police, move to Saudi Arabia. If you want freedom of expression, whether it be muslim expression or christian expression or atheist expression or any other type, then welcome to America. You cannot expect to have it both ways.
by David Pirtle (not verified) on Mon, 05/24/2010 - 6:31am
Well in my opinion, all religion is extreme and I am personally happy to participate in an event that finally shows the ridiculousness of religion. I am so sick of having to hear and deal with religion all the time, though I am a staunch atheist, and it feels good to have a day where I can feel free to make fun of the idiotic beliefs people choose to defend. Yeah, maybe it's immature, but so what? At least I don't try to prevent other people from getting married or insert crazy beliefs into education or tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies or start wars or murder or torture or abuse or opress other people all in the name of some weird man-created religion. I don't care if people want to believe in talking snakes, getting 87 virgins when they die, rapture, rising from the dead, unicorns, UFOs or drawing a picture=evil. People can believe whatever the hell they want to believe, but they CANNOT dictate what other people believe and the CANNOT use their beliefs to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Why can't people just believe what they want and keep it to themselves? THAT'S the problem. People can't just believe their strange beliefs and follow their strange rules on their own. They need to have everyone else follow their rules and their delusions. I'm so sick of religion, I have no tolerance or patience for it at all. It is the single most destructive creation in history and I can't fathom why we have not evolved past it. So yeah, I'm celebrating today. With pleasure.
by AC (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:17pm
Ah, so you're being a jerk to other people out of allegiance to your personal beliefs, and to display your feeling that your beliefs are superior to theirs?
How are you different from them, again?
by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:47pm
Because I don't have beliefs. I have facts. And I don't tell people what they can and cannot do based on non-factual beliefs. Read my comment. I don't care what people believe, just don't infringe on my or anyone else's rights or freedoms. Period. Is that really a difficult concept to accept?
by AC (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 5:41pm
Actually, you obviously do have beliefs. (Although every fanatic will, of course, claim his beliefs are undeniable.) Also, you evidently believe yourself to be the Rights Infringement Revenge Posse, deputized to revenge slights against third parties by senselessly anatagonizing millions of fourth parties.
by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 6:49pm
Atheist to atheist, I feel you. But there's a significant difference between taking offence and dictating what others can say or believe. A Muslim who is offended by a drawing of Mohammed is not necessarily trying to dictate what you can say or do (unless, of course, he puts a fatwa on you or theatens to kill you).
There is also a significant difference between saying something that offends people and saying something in order to offend people. I have no objection to a smart critique of Islam or any other creed that happens to offend believers, the type of critique that South Park regularly employs and that the bear-suited Mohammed probably would have been. But this Facebook thing seems more like a shout of "Fuck you, Muslims!" I think that one can object to religious moralism without embracing "Draw Mohammed Day."
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 1:05pm
"There is also a significant difference between saying something that offends people and saying something in order to offend people."
That one sentence is honestly the most intelligent response to this debate I think I've read on all the blogs, videos, news stories, etc. I have to say that changed my perspective and I'm not one to change my mind easily.
On the other hand, while many Muslims may not try to dictate what others do, those who tell people they should not draw Muhammad because it offends them or is against their beliefs or worse, as you said, put a fatwa or threaten others who do make a drawing, are 100% in the wrong. As I said, I don't care what people do or say or believe as long as it doesn't infringe on my or anyone else's rights and freedoms. And I'm certainly not biased against Islam- I hate all relgions equally, so in that sense, I'm saying "Fuck you, Religions!"
But after reading your point about intent, I do get it. I mean, I generally don't approach religious people with an intent to offend them, but I'm sure by stating my feelings about religion, many are probably offended. I couldn't care less about that, but you're right in that it's wrong to support this with the INTENT of offending people. I guess that is not what I want to do. Thanks for the perspective.
by AC (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 5:38pm
AC, your response is a rare comment in the blogosphere. I appreciate and respect it.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 8:14pm
I'll second AC in his admiration for that sentence. Well done, G.
by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 8:51pm
by Orlando on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:09pm
O, in fairness, and as demonstrated by the link you've provided, I do not see that this event/movement/what-have-you was created at all with the intent of being mean-spirited. This, to me, is evident in this image by the creator:
I think the message here is crystal-clear: A protest in the form of, as the image says, "watering down the pool of targets" in objection to the idea that any image of Muhammad is not only offensive, but so offensive that offenders must be attacked. Or maybe there's just something deeply and universally offensive about a teacup claiming to be Muhammad. You be the judge.
Perhaps what we have here is the collision of a once well-intentioned religious directive meant to avoid idolatry colliding with satire in the age of instantaneous global communications. Maybe if these guys were all such prophets, they would have seen that coming!
by DF on Tue, 05/25/2010 - 12:58pm
DF, check atheist's mollynorris.com link below. It's not the cartoon that's at issue. The illustrator herself rejects the Facebook campaign that her cartoon inspired.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/25/2010 - 1:07pm
Yes, the cartoon is funny. But the actual call to have as many people as possible offend as many people as possible is not. Good call on the prophets, though.
What has gotten lost along the way in this post is that the Muslim extremists, both cleric leaders and regular joe's, calling for fatwa, threatening violence or carrying it out are also overreacting, and in the case of violence, disgustingly so. I'm certainly not against protection of the First Amendment, DF. However, we live in a world of gray slippery slopes and it's a constant exercise in decision-making to figure out where to draw the lines. Plus, as AC pointed out, history moves them on us.
Comedy Central is not a government entity and no government entity in the United States had anything to do with their decision to self-censor. Therefore, the South Park episode in question is not a First Amendment issue. People can take issue with their decision, as the cartoonist has. But the whole brouhaha is no threat to the Constitution, just as it is no threat to Islam. Once again, I think everybody needs to calm down.
And as for my point about it being not that much fun to be questioned about why Americans hate Muslims, yeah it's a selfish one. It was my choice to live in a predominantly-Muslim country. But it would be nice not to have to answer for crap like this and like that jackass radio host.
by Orlando on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 11:46am
By the way, you might find Molly Norris' comments on the matter interesting:
http://www.mollynorris.com/
by Atheist (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 1:50pm
by Orlando on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:03pm
FACT: Comedy Central censored depictoins of Muhammad in any way, but allowed images of Buddha snorting cocaine.
Terrorists use terror to spread their message, comedians use comedy.
by Spaceludes (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 3:22pm
Then "Everybody Draws Muhammed Day" should be much, much funnier.
I might be upset by media censorship designed to placate fundamentalist Christians (which happens every day, unlike the extremely rare censorship to placate fundamentalist Muslims), but the response to that is not to do something disrespectful of every Christian. I'm not going to mock Christianity just to get back at that clown Bill Donohue.
You want to fight the power? Have "Everybody Say 'Jesus H. Christ!' in Primetime" Night. After all, the taboo against speaking God's name isn't any less weird than the taboo against depicting Muhammed's face.
But seriously: why not satirize the censors? Why isn't Comedy Central your target?
by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 4:36pm
if one tookup the grossly oppressive anti-human freedom notion that things that offend muslims should be illegal or should otherwise simply never happen. one would have a state exactly like pakistan, or saudi arabia, where this blogs logic is applied in full glory. all "offensiveness" to islam is removed entirely from those countries.
next time a muslim asks you why you hate them, maybe you can muster up some defense for basic human liberty. or you could crawl back into your whole and espouse 100% the reasoning of islamist states in murdering and jailing dissenters. of course asking someone to defend human liberty when all muslims are individually martyring themselves to try and make it illegal to express any criticism of their religion I guess is too emotionally uncomfortable for you.
by bobob (not verified) on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 9:50pm
Your argument is stupid and probably doesn't deserve a response. But here goes anyway: Sometimes people do violent things in the name of religion--like blowing themselves up in crowded places or shooting doctors who perform abortions while they attend a church service. I do not blame all Christians for the violent acts of a few, just as I do not blame all Muslims for the violent acts of a few. This blog's logic includes criticizing Muslim leaders for calling for the death of non-Muslims who break Muslim rules. Maybe you missed that paragraph while you were struggling to master grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
by Orlando on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:56pm
by quinn esq on Fri, 05/21/2010 - 8:32pm
Yeah, Genghis got it pretty well right. The tea-party leader who mouthed off last week about Islam's "monkey-god" -- apparently unaware that Allah is the same Abrahamic divinity that he purports to worship -- gave us all plenty of ammunition to ridicule Christian fundamentalists if we chose to. Most of us directed our fire where it belonged: at this particular idiot.
The same rule should apply here: call out the extremists; don't tar all believers. Self-appointed groups like Revolution Muslim have no authority to issue fatwas, rulings that are supposed to be based on Islamic law. South Park's creators can probably sleep soundly.
But there are two issues that are being conflated here. One is the "ban" on depicting Muhammad. First, it's not spelled out in the Quran, and it's not absolute. Plenty of Muslim artists, especially in Iran/Persia, have painted the prophet in full (though it's more usual to see him depicted as a flame, or with his face left blank). The reason for the ban is a concern about idolatry, which is also why Islamic art seldom depicts animals. But the point is: depicting Muhammad in the flesh is not going per se to draw death threats.
Where it gets dicey is when the the depiction of Muhammad is combined with a deliberate insult to Islam as a whole (as in the infamous cartoon that got everything started, showing the prophet with a crown of suicide bombs). All Muslims have an obligation of jihad (struggle), and defense of Islam is one issue that calls that obligation into effect. There's a lot of debate over whether a batch of insulting cartoons is enough to do so, but a significant minority of moderate Muslims feel it does. They may themselves be non-violent, but they have difficulty condemning those who do resort to violence.
Those in the West who invoke the universal right of free speech are on shaky ground. Yes, it's pretty "universal" in North America and Europe -- in this century.
But look back 100 or 150 years. Our laws accepted that one person could be the property of another, solely on the basis of being captured and kidnapped from their homeland by superior force. Homosexuality was a crime, as was adultery. Women were chattel. Poor children could be worked to death. Servants were routinely beaten. Only the propertied could vote.
I like the freedoms and rights we in the West enjoy today; I'd like to see them spread around the world. What I'm saying is that it took our societies centuries to reach this point, and we shouldn't be too arrogant about countries that have yet to embrace the same values. Ours are still in flux, just as theirs are evolving. The fact we are rich and powerful doesn't make us everyone's moral superiors.
And citing freedom of expression as an excuse to insult the religious bases of other societies is not a way to advance the adoption of such values. Instead, it tarnishes those values as forms of cultural imperialism.
by acanuck on Mon, 05/24/2010 - 3:23am
Right. There's a difference between merely depicting Muhammad and depicting him with the express intention of offending Muslims, though I would argue that as the difference is subjective that either should be protected. Sure, one might make you come off like an asshole, but so does threatening someone and/or carrying out on those threats just because that someone said, wrote, drew, sang or otherwise expressed something you didn't like.
I think what's getting lost here is that despite the fact that they might be a relative minority, there are extremist Muslims who not only make these threats, but carry them out. Ask Salman Rushdie. You won't be able to ask several of the people who attempted to translate his books or people involved in events like the Sivas massacre because they're dead.
Sure, we can issue a brusk "grow up" to people who have responded to this controversy by drawing more pictures, we can simply dismiss them as being childish and offensive. But that does miss an important point here. The thrust of this effort was not simply to make puerile images of Muhammad. The thrust was to give violent extremists too many targets to cope with. The images don't have to be ipso facto offensive in order to raise the hackles of the individuals in question. They just have to exist, period.
Seriously, what is so special about this category of belief that I'm expected to understand how this might make someone condone violence? Or that I'm supposed to hold such a person as "moderate"? Why is religious belief privileged in this way? Why should I take seriously appeals that I would make such a consideration? There's literally no other type of belief that I'm aware that gets granted such privileged consideration and I see no reason to create it for religion.
Offense is a personal choice. If someone is offended, they don't have to watch South Park. They don't have to read newspapers or listen to music or visit web sites that they don't like. What they aren't allowed to do is threaten people with violence or, worse still, carry out acts of violence to create a climate of fear and self-censorship. Can we please recall that the reason these threats are taken seriously is because in too many cases they've been all too serious? Can we also recognize that those who continue to identify themselves as Muslim and make these threats rely on this reality, whether or not they ever intend to carry such acts out? Finally, can we agree that no one who condones threatening people with violence or carrying out violent acts is in any way "moderate," whether or not they feel this way because of some cherished belief?
Why do I owe any quantity of understanding to someone who thinks this is alright simply because they are ostensibly responding out of "religion"? I appreciate the cultural and historical perspective you finally rested on here, but the final problem is who decides what's truly "offensive" or "insulting." It's easy enough to fall back on a convenient, Potter-Stewart-sort of "I know it when I see it" definition when we're thinking about a bunch of people drawing silly pictures, but how does it make you feel when centuries old fine art is suddenly too "offensive" to be displayed any longer? What empire is on the rise then?
by DF on Tue, 05/25/2010 - 12:25pm
I don't think anyone here is advoacting having anyone else but the creators themselves deciding what is offensive or insulting. I.e., if you've got a good reason (as decided by you) to depict Mohmammed, go ahead and depict him, but don't do so merely to insult Muslims. To be further clear, no one is suggesting that to be a law to be formalized, but merely good manners to be followed. In that light, I don't think you have a real argument there (at least not with those posting on this blog).
I think that's a legitimate point. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease. Given how ineffective I think the cure was (and will be in the future if tried again), I'd argue that the cure was worse than the disease.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 05/25/2010 - 1:03pm
Hi, DF. I didn't expect my comment to go unchallenged, but you've zeroed in on its major flaw: my presumption in defending "a significant minority of moderate Muslims" for opinions that I have absolutely no evidence they hold. In fact, North American Muslim leaders have been scathing in their condemnation of Revolution Muslim for its veiled threats toward South Park. So that was my straw man you eviscerated. Sorry.
You say we have to take such threats seriously, because people have been killed because of them. True, but we also have to exercise judgment. An extremist fringe group of half a dozen New York nutjobs does not carry the clout of a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini. (The Iranian government has tried to walk that ill-advised ruling back, but it's tough to do so without admitting the founder of the Islamic republic was wrong.)
I think I've got the sequence right: South Park comes out with an episode that bleeps Muhammad's name and proclaims itself "censored." As it was, internally by Comedy Central execs. Then, and only then, does Revolution Muslim issue its meaningless "warning" to the show's creators. This gets the full breathless media treatment, then New York congressman Peter King speculates that the failed Times Square bombing might somehow be linked to the show (Viacom offices are on the same block). In everyone's mind now, Comedy Central has caved to death threats, and a cartoonist jokingly suggests that Everyone Draw Mohammed to show they are not afraid. Protests break out in Pakistan over this deliberate affront to Islam, and the government temporarily shuts down every website or service where these images might be shown: YouTube, Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, etc.
Wilful obtuseness and/or political expediency at every step of this escalating "crisis!" There was an unseemly rush to make the issue death threats vs. freedom of speech. Let me stipulate two things I think are obvious: it's legitimate for any group that thinks it's being unfairly treated to petition, protest or boycott to change government or corporate behavior (including in the media); that, too, is freedom of speech.
Second, no religious ruling can claim to override international or domestic laws (specifically, the ones against murder or threats of murder). In this case, too many people chose to indulge a tiny, follower-less group in its attempt to conflate the two issues.
In this discussion, we've gotten away from Orlando's initial point, which I think is a crucial one: Chill out, people!
by acanuck on Wed, 05/26/2010 - 4:16pm
Your summary of the timeline is priceless.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/26/2010 - 6:05pm
I'm a good drawer. This is Genghis with all his friends.
Aren't you glad I didn't draw a picture of Muhammed?
Cause you guys'd be facked.
by quinn esq on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 2:05am
by Orlando on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 11:47am
I'd make the obvious "drawers" joke, but I think you'd be stoned just for reading it.
by quinn esq on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 12:18pm
That drawing is deeply offensive too me. Quinn the Eskimo should be stoned unto death by Mustachioed mounties in leather chaps.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 12:15pm
Once again, the "fascist gay Mountie" meme surfaces. Free speech has its limits, Genghis.
by acanuck on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 1:37pm
I find Genghis' whole "chaps" fascination troubling.
by quinn esq on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 4:16pm
Just to break your heart, acanuck.
by quinn esq on Thu, 05/27/2010 - 8:35pm
Thanks, Some of it was actually funny, like the line about "forcing our schoolkids to read The Sweater."
For the record, despite breathless media hype and the archival footage in the video, there was no rioting after any game this post-season -- just good-humored street partying. In one case, two hours after a win, some drunks broke three store windows (mainly to replenish their liquor supply) and the cops arrested anyone who was still on the street. That doesn't meet my standards for a riot.
by acanuck on Fri, 05/28/2010 - 3:52pm
First, we haven’t stopped drawing at my blog, http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/
And our standards are very low. We only have two rules 1) you must depict mohammed and 2) no actual porn. Besides that message, offensiveness (or lack thereof), or even quality doesn’t matter. Just witness our dreaded stick figures of blasphemy.
Now to address your comments Orlando, let’s put this in a little perspective. For over 20 years there has been a massive, organized and deadly campaign of terror against anyone who criticized or insulted Islam, or merely depicted Mohammed, starting with Salman Rushdie, continuing through the murder of Theo Van Gogh and continuing to today. Freedom of speech is not dead, but its insane to pretend it is not in peril.
Our governments have done nothing to address this threat. And the elite media has reduced itself to cowering. I mean at my site, you can see video where Cnn is talking to Lars Vilks and cnn tells us that he drew Mohammed as a dog. Then it showed the cartoon, only they blurred out the offensive part. Which means they showed us a blurry piece of paper. Seriously, how can you report on the Danish cartoon controversy without showing us the cartoons?
And now Comedy Central has twice censored South Park from showing Mohammed or even saying his name, in response to this campaign of terror. And again the government fails. Every member of Revolution Islam who sent that message should be in jail today awaiting trial for extortion. Instead they walk around free and proud of what they accomplished.
You say “Broadcast and cable networks self-censor all the time” but doing so to avoid criticism, or even loss of ad revenue via boycotts is one thing. To do it because one loud minority says it will murder you if you don’t comply is another matter. It must be resisted.
You also write “They do it because they want to offend the smallest number of people possible[.]” Have you ever actually watched the show South Park? If anything, its like they have a checklist by which they plan to offend every single person alive. Heck if you only watched the offending episodes you would have seen Buddha snorting cocaine and Jesus looking at internet porn. By comparison there was nothing offensive about their depiction of mohammed, except in the fact it was a depiction of Mohammed.
You also write: “Thanks for contributing to the overall perception that we in the West are hostile to the religion of Islam.”
Well, I would rather be mistaken for being hostile to Islam than to be correctly seen as someone who can be bullied into silence.
And that is the point of these protests. The terrorists said they will kill anyone who insults or merely depicts mohammed. Well, we believe it is a bluff and we are calling it. Before it was hacked the facebook page had 110,000 members. At my site we have over 700 cartoons, including over 300 where the artist gave out their names and locations. I might add that some of the people contributing consider themselves to be Muslims. And we are making it therefore impossible for them to carry out their threats. They can’t kill all of us. Its that simple.
I understand that in certain cultures it is forbidden to depict mohammed. But I have a culture, too, and in my culture we not only believe in freedom of speech, we defend it, too.
So next time a muslim asks you to explain our actions, why don't you tell them that, instead?
by Aaron Worthing (not verified) on Fri, 05/28/2010 - 1:22pm
It's fine to criticize the networks (and I agree with you there), but what would you have the government do? Tell networks they can't self-censor? That cure sounds worse than the disease, to me.
by Atheist (not verified) on Fri, 05/28/2010 - 5:09pm
I think you're conflating free speech with what amounts to terrorism. Free speech is not at issue here. The government is not restricting your right to say what you want or draw what you want. That a private business decides to air or not to air has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. How can the First Amendment have anything to do with a fatwa issued against a guy that lives in London or a man murdered in Europe? Where legitimate threats are made on American soil, against Americans, law enforcement is obligated to investigate. But that is an issue of public safety.
And I do explain that we believe in freedom of speech--quite often. But I have no explanation for willfully doing something that will offend millions of people. It baffles me.
by Orlando on Sat, 05/29/2010 - 10:29pm
"Conflating." I thought that word was banned.
Funny, there's only 1 other person I know who uses that word as often as you, Orlando.
Hmmmmmmm..........
by quinn esq on Sun, 05/30/2010 - 9:02pm
Conflate is a perfectly good word, quinn. Orlando and I are of entirely opposite genders and are now separated by thousands of kilometres. The fact we both think Chicago will humiliate Philadelphia in the Stanley Cup final is entirely coincidental; all rational people agree on that. Of course, if you were conflating her with someone else -- um, never mind. Carry on.
by acanuck on Mon, 05/31/2010 - 12:39am
Atheist
> It's fine to criticize the networks (and I agree with you there), but what would you have the government do?
For starters, when the Ayatollah Khomenei put a fatwah on Rushdie, we should have told him to take it off, or we would drop a bomb in his lap.
And for that matter, every single person who made that threat from revolution islam should have been thrown in prison. It is not legal to threaten a person’s life. Now some think that the fact that the threat was implicit means a dang. Not in the law, it doesn’t, and I am confident that 12 ordinary new Yorkers would be able to figure it out.
And this isn't about Comedy Central specifically. Its about a 20 year campaign of terror. That is why we are focusing our protest not on the network but on the threat itself. they are bluffing. They are not physically capable of carrying out their threats. And we are going to prove it.
Orlando
> I think you're conflating free speech with what amounts to terrorism. Free speech is not at issue here.
I think Theo van Gogh would disagree. And you are the one conflating two things: freedom of speech and the first amendment. There is a God-given right to freedom of speech that is not limited to the protection offered by the constitution. Indeed, the language of the first amendment implicitly understood that Congress is only one danger to it. Which is why I said free speech and not the first amendment.
Now it is common to say the two interchangeably, to the point that I don’t normally even bother to correct someone, but that is because most of the time they say the first amendment is harmed when thugs bully people into silence. Instead you are doing the opposite, saying freedom of speech is not harmed when thugs bully people into silence. Now if you just said the first amendment was not harmed, you would be literally correct, but as I just pointed out, freedom of speech is more than just the right secured by the first amendment.
> That a private business decides to air or not to air has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.
That a bunch of thugs stand around telling me what I can and cannot say has everything to do with my God-given right of free speech.
> Where legitimate threats are made on American soil, against Americans, law enforcement is obligated to investigate.
And yet Revolution Islam walks around free and unencumbered.
> And I do explain that we believe in freedom of speech--quite often. But I have no explanation for willfully doing something that will offend millions of people.
To demonstrate that the threats of the thugs are impotent. To expose ourselves to the same danger that the creators of south park face, that Salman Rusdie faces, that the Danish cartoonists face, en masse, to show them that their threats have no effect.
By the way, where does my offense play into this? When people are bullied into silence, I am offended. But gee, I guess my culture of freedom must give way to the culture of not even all Muslims, but a violent minority.
And I would add something else. What we are doing—and I am only one of over 110,000 people who have participated—might literally save the lives of the offending cartoonists. Lars Vilks has been attacked twice within the last month, and Rushdie is a permanent state of hiding, and who knows what life is like for the creators of south park. I care much more about their suffering than the thin skin of millions of Muslims. And yeah, it is thin skin. South Park has shown my savior defecating on the United States flag and himself being defecated on. Not only do I put up with it, I am a fan of the show.
> we believe in freedom of speech
Well, first with all due respect, you don’t even know what the term actually means, because you think the only threat to it is the government.
As for saying you believe in freedom of speech, I think this monologue from South Park explains it:
So yeah, you believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t see you defending it.
by Aaron Worthing (not verified) on Tue, 06/01/2010 - 9:26am
I thought about deleting this comment, just to be ironic. But then, if a tree falls in the woods, does anybody hear it?
by Orlando on Tue, 06/01/2010 - 12:46pm
The tiny band of lunatics that you conflate with "a 20-year campaign of terror" calls itself Revolution Muslim, Aaron. Not Revolution Islam. Know your enemy.
by acanuck on Tue, 06/01/2010 - 3:46pm
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.</sarcasm>
That's actually a reasonable position.
by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 06/02/2010 - 10:00am
Good check list, I am running through it with my sites now .
by discount ghd (not verified) on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:44am