dagblog - Comments for "Did You Know Today is "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day?"

Good check list, I am running

discount ghd — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:44:58 +0000

In reply to Did You Know Today is "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day?

Good check list, I am running through it with my sites now .

For starters, when the

Atheist — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:00:48 +0000

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.

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.</sarcasm>

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.

That's actually a reasonable position.

The tiny band of lunatics

acanuck — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:55 +0000

In reply to Atheist > It's fine to

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.

I thought about deleting this

Orlando — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:46:57 +0000

In reply to Atheist > It's fine to

I thought about deleting this comment, just to be ironic. But then, if a tree falls in the woods, does anybody hear it?

Atheist > It's fine to

Aaron Worthing — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:26:14 +0000

In reply to Did You Know Today is "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day?

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:

“Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want. Look people, it’s been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades, we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it. One of those times is right now. And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won’t defend it.”

So yeah, you believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t see you defending it.

Conflate is a perfectly good

acanuck — Mon, 31 May 2010 04:39:46 +0000

In reply to "Conflating." I thought that

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.

"Conflating." I thought that

quinn esq — Mon, 31 May 2010 01:02:21 +0000

In reply to I think you're conflating

"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..........

I think you're conflating

Orlando — Sun, 30 May 2010 02:29:58 +0000

In reply to First, we haven’t stopped

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.

It's fine to criticize the

Atheist — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:09:07 +0000

In reply to First, we haven’t stopped

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.

Thanks, Some of it was

acanuck — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:52:21 +0000

In reply to Just to break your heart,

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.