Cyan said:
That's fine. I certainly understand what you're getting at, I just think that some people getting angry is a lesser evil than the chilling of free speech.
I don't see it as a chilling of free speech at all. It's something that everybody does subconsciously in their everyday lives.
I
could make a thread calling everyone on GAF *insert racial slur* and telling them to *perform lewd sexual and/or scatological act* and it would be in my rights as an American. I could do that to my friends and family too, or hold up a sign on a street corner inviting all pedestrians to consider my theory of their matrilineal descendancy from canines, or that the the center of their nervous system may be comprised of feces.
I don't do that though, and you don't do it either, because even if it's within our rights (and indeed is a right to be defended, since there are some people out there who deserve it... well, not the racial slur part, but you get it), it's a dumb thing to do and would result in us getting permabanned, shouted at, or punched in the face. Not to mention feeling
really stupid.
Obviously this situation is different in that there's one side attempting to stifle that freedom in the first place. But on the other hand reacting in an inflammatory manner will be playing into their hands, and feeding one of the largest and most dangerous movements on the planet (and a central issue in modern international politics) is more than "some people getting angry." It's not an implied threat to say that, it's
warning you
of a threat. Caution and carefulness are not cowardice or spinelessness.
Rebuke threats of violence. Speak out against coercion. Heck, draw Mohammad. But remember that having a noble goal doesn't excuse poor execution.
For example, if this sort of movement was organized by actual political or social activists instead of being a bunch of Facebook groups, then there would be a central message attached, and it might not be a bunch of Facebook kids drawing a stereotypically ugly Arab donned as a stereotypical terrorist and labeled "Mohammad." How about drawing Mohammad as just a man, without making him look like a monster or subhuman? Suddenly you're achieving two goals: you're asserting that threats of religious violence will not trump freedom of speech and expression, AND you're making it harder for the extremists who spearhead these anti-free-speech movements to gain ground. When Muhammad is drawn in a way that doesn't naturally incite anger or offense in Muslims of all stripes, then the extremists' case that these drawings prove that the West "hates" Islam and
wants to blaspheme their faith all day long falls apart.
Bam. You've protected freedom of speech, while at the same time helping to calm the situation, and possibly planted seeds of understanding (that freedom of speech is not some veiled form of blasphemy) in the minds of Muslims worldwide.
