Support NeoGAF

[esquire]

Until someone makes the Virgin Mary feces statue of Mohammad this day is weak sauce.

Right? Chris Ofili's piece is the only appropriate analog here. This whole controversy involving South Park is blown way way out of proportion. The initial outrage over the depictions of the prophet in Danish media was because of the way the prophet was being depicted (i.e as a terrorist) not simply because they chose to create an image of him. I'm starting to wonder if Comedy Central is deliberately perpetuating the controversy to build up interest in their show by trying to censor South Park. As has been noted numerous times, the prophet was depicted on South Park years before any controversy arose over such a thing and it didn't become an issue to Comedy Central until the controversy became 'bankable.'

 

[Dead Man]

Once again, you fail to read the words I write, and instead read what you think I'm writing.

Way back at the end of page three I said that pressure-groups, if they wanted to be successful, could threaten to use violence to get their way. After all, it's a tactic that has worked for them.

That statement above, is completely neutral. It relays only facts. We call such statements empirical.

If I were to say that : Pressure groups should threaten violence, because it works.

Then I'd have made a normative, and prescriptive statement.

Normative in that that, violence is a legitimate method for getting things done.

Prescriptive in that, you ought to use violence to accomplish your goal.

But, once again, I never made that claim.

Wow, your revisionism is amazing. Here, I'll quote it for you.

So, do you think all groups should be as up in arms as the groups making threats?(in reference to death threats)

I think they have proved that their tactics work, so why not?

How the hell is that neutral? You have explicitly approved of those actions.

 

[Mr Cola]

I find it surreal that so many people are playing the "have sensitivity towards religion" card on GAF, where it's usually by far the minority voice in any thread.

Also, I can point out that another factor is that some are not considering / drawing attention away from the fact that a tremendous number of people are just sick and tired of hearing about Mohammed and death threats, and Muslims freaking out over it. I hate to sound this way (really - I do hate to have to point it out), but saying that lunatic overreactions to cartoons of Mohammed are a tiny 00.00001% minority of people who merely call themselves Muslims is actually disingenuous. The Mohammed controversy has legitimately caused riots.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding." What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts. While Christianity doesn't have a byline saying that nobody can make a picture of Christ, I'm kinda under the impression that it wants people to take Jesus seriously and not mock him.

My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.

I agree with this

 

[Jex]

Wow, your revisionism is amazing. Here, I'll quote it for you.


How the hell is that neutral? You have explicitly approved of those actions.

"Why not?" is not explicit approval. There are obviously countless reasons. Reasons so obvious, I'd hope I wouldn't need to write them all down.

I would hope people could fill it in with their own personal ethical views, rather then leaping huge chasms to reach unfounded conclusions.

I had hoped for it to take on a more satirical flair but obviously such things are lost on the internet.

I'm confused that you continue to aggressively misinterpret my statements.

 

[eznark]

Right? Chris Ofili's piece is the only appropriate analog here. This whole controversy involving South Park is blown way way out of proportion. The initial outrage over the depictions of the prophet in Danish media was because of the way the prophet was being depicted (i.e as a terrorist) not simply because they chose to create an image of him. I'm starting to wonder if Comedy Central is deliberately perpetuating the controversy to build up interest in their show by trying to censor South Park. As has been noted numerous times, the prophet was depicted on South Park years before any controversy arose over such a thing and it didn't become an issue to Comedy Central until the controversy became 'bankable.'

You may have misinterpreted my meaning. I'm saying someone SHOULD make a direct copy of that piece but depict Mohammad instead, not that Muslims have to wait until something like that is created with tax dollars to get offended.

Sorry Muslims, but you really don't get to dictate what I doodle on the internets. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

 

[Bboy AJ]

You can already say "ni**er". It isn't banned from ever being spoken. Objectively, you have racists who say it, some Africian Americans who say it casually, educational/historic videos, drama-realistic movies. Since we already have the ability, the free speech, to do these things, screaming it in the street only promotes racism and slavery.

You can already draw Mohammed. He isn't banned from ever being drawn. You already have the ability and the free speech to do so. Having a day to draw him only promotes douchebaggery and the offending of a religion.

Objectively, drawing Muhammad does nothing near offensive like what the word "ni**er" stirs up.

You make this claim yet have no support to it.

It may be easier in the short term to dismiss this as childish and beneath contempt, but in the long term you would be better served by a full understanding of the importance free expression, especially against threats of violence, plays in this society in 2010. I recommend Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis.
As for your example: direct incitements to violence, e.g. burning a cross in someone's yard, are not protected under the First Amendment. (The remaining members of the Klan have to apply for a permit and protest at the designated time and place just like everyone else.)

I appreciate your book recommendations but I myself am published in the area of free speech. Are you? If not, let me educate you :rolleyes I don't appreciate your misguided assumptions about my knowledge of this subject matter.

Next, what is it about yelling out nigger that is a direct incitement to violence whereas drawing Mohammed is not? Why you're talking about cross burning and the KKK in response to my example is beyond me. Ridiculous.

Covering my bases, if you think yelling out nigger in the streets is a direct incitement to violence, I'd like to hear why drawing cartoons of Mohammed isn't an incitement. Both acts are going to get members of a certain group angry. The argument for doing both would be to remove sensitivity from the acts.

Extending your argument, I'd argue drawing Mohammed is more of a direct incitement to violence considering people have died recently because of it. Now, let me state that I in no way agree with the killing of someone for a drawing. I want to put that here before someone jumps down my throat with a ridiculous assumption. I am only bringing this up as a response to the "direct incitement to violence" comment.

The reason South Park is such a perfect example (apart from being the impetus for the whole OP) is that, as has already been mentioned, it did feature the use of the word nigger.

It already featured the depiction of Mohammed. So what do you have claim to now?

And regardless, that's not the point I'm arguing. I am not arguing against the drawing of Mohammad. I am saying a day created to draw him is childish. Similarly, a day going around yelling nigger, because the word itself is socially stigmatized, is childish.

 

[jay]

Nonbelievers need a religion based on the teachings that other religions should be mocked so we can fall back on the "it's our religion, respect us" bullshit any time we laugh at someone.

 

[Maleficence]

You may have misinterpreted my meaning. I'm saying someone SHOULD make a direct copy of that piece but depict Mohammad instead, not that Muslims have to wait until something like that is created with tax dollars to get offended.

Sorry Muslims, but you really don't get to dictate what I doodle on the internets. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

True, but I can call you a childish prick for what you doodle. Which is all I've been saying this whole time.

 

[ianp622]

Everyone Deliberately Offend 1.5 Billion Muslims via Internet Meme Day

It's just so shameless and embarrassing. Carl Sagan must be rolling over in his grave.

Maybe you should learn a little more about Carl Sagan.

In a democracy, opinions that upset everyone are sometimes exactly what we need. We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights.

People who perceive this as being petty don't see Islam's attack against free speech all around the world. I really don't think describing it as extremist is accurate either, it is engrained in many Islmaic cultures to varying extents. We see free speech being suppressed in many countries in Europe, especially in Britain, where Islamic leaders are given a free pass to spew hate speech when others aren't. This is merely a defense of free speech through humor, which is perhaps the most powerful form of protest there is.

 

[Kad5]

Why is it forbidden to show his face? I never understood it. Was he ugly?

Sunni Muslims believe it would lead to people worshipping his image.

Shi'ite Muslims ont he other hand do not give a fuck about showing depictions of Mohammed. For example I have a necklace showing a depiction of him. He kind of looks like Jesus honestly.

 

[Monocle]

Oh cool! I can bash others and still I feel righteous! While I am here, go ahead and sign me up for draw swastikas on neighbors house day and hang nooses from trees day. Insensitivity and Intolerance is fun!

Mr. Strawman, Mr. Strawman
Watch me blow you down

 

[eznark]

True, but I can call you a childish prick for what you doodle. Which is all I've been saying this whole time.

Amen

 

[Maleficence]

Sunni Muslims believe it would lead to people worshipping his image.

Shi'ite Muslims ont he other hand do not give a fuck about showing depictions of Mohammed. For example I have a necklace showing a depiction of him. He kind of looks like Jesus honestly.

Erm, how do you know what he looks like? Even the oldest depictions of him aren't exactly detailed.

Hell, Jesus doesn't even look like Jesus.

 

[Jex]

[words]...

Sometimes it seems that people who are, at other times, perfectly rational and of sound mind go crazy whenever free speech is brought up, and fail to actually make good arguments for their opinions.

While your words are reasoned and sound, I feel they are lost on people who don't want to listen.

 

[Dead Man]

"Why not?" is not explicit approval.

I had hoped for it to take on a more satirical flair but obviously such things are lost on the internet.

You suck at satire if you think that was it, but okay. Cool. You don't think it is okay to threaten. So explain this, please.

Just people people protest against it, doesn't mean you've lost you're right to free speech.

If a station/newspaper chooses not to depict an image, that's up to them completely, how silly it may seem.

That does seem to me to say it is the station/other's fault for falling to pressure the face of death threats.

Maybe I have been misinterpreting you, but just say what you do think is correct instead of playing semantic games with no point.

 

[jay]

Sunni Muslims believe it would lead to people worshipping his image.

Shi'ite Muslims ont he other hand do not give a fuck about showing depictions of Mohammed. For example I have a necklace showing a depiction of him. He kind of looks like Jesus honestly.

Serious question - What does it mean to worship an image? Like they literally believe people would think the piece of paper with a printed picture is a person?

 

[Kad5]

Once again I need to emphasize that not all muslims care about showing depictions of Mohammed.

 

[speculawyer]

:lol

 

[Maleficence]

Serious question - What does it mean to worship an image? Like they literally believe people would think the piece of paper with a printed picture is a person?

Does the concept of idolatry completely pass you by?

 

[jay]

Does the concept of idolatry completely pass you by?

Yeah, quite possibly. Children learn pretty young what a picture or mirror reflection is so I don't really grasp the idea of an adult worshiping inanimate objects.

 

[LocoMrPollock]

 

[Kad5]

Serious question - What does it mean to worship an image? Like they literally believe people would think the piece of paper with a printed picture is a person?

In Islam you only worship God not any one else. For example Christians worship Jesus's image which is not something that Muslims agree with. Sunni Muslims think that if you show a picture of Mohammed some stupid people may get the idea of worshipping his image.

The same idea goes for other prophets so in Sunni mosques there aren't any representations of Jesus or Moses for example.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Sometimes it seems that people who are, at other times, perfectly rational and of sound mind go crazy whenever free speech is brought up, and fail to actually make good arguments for their opinions.

While your words are reasoned and sound, I feel they are lost on people who don't want to listen.

I agree. It seems to be an ongoing trend in this thread. Chalk it up and move on, I suppose.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs479.snc3/26232_1333811257821_1007229917_30855795_6694142_n.jpg[/][/QUOTE]
This is just like posting a picture of blackface, IMO. This is not like Blair's comic, which was funny. Yours is just offensive.

 

[Shanadeus]

Okay, that was funny.

 

[harSon]

Serious question - What does it mean to worship an image? Like they literally believe people would think the piece of paper with a printed picture is a person?

Maybe something similar to what happens when an image remotely depicting Jesus manifests itself on something like a piece of toast, and then some people go ape shit about it?

 

[Kad5]

Is that even SFW?

 

[Dead Man]

In Islam you only worship God not any one else. For example Christians worship Jesus's image which is not something that Muslims agree with. Sunni Muslims think that if you show a picture of Mohammed some stupid people may get the idea of worshipping his image.

The same idea goes for other prophets so in Sunni mosques there aren't any representations of Jesus or Moses for example.

:lol

Although, you may have a point with Catholics!

 

[jay]

For example Christians worship Jesus's image which is not something that Muslims agree with.

You don't think they understand the image of Jesus isn't Jesus? Don't you have pictures of your family you don't love because you understand that pictures are not people?

Maybe something similar to what happens when an image remotely depicting Jesus manifests itself on something like a piece of toast, and then some people go ape shit about it?

I assumed they see that as a sign, not literally Jesus. Also those people are fucking crazy.

 

[Jex]

That does seem to me to say it is the station/other's fault for falling to pressure the face of death threats.

Maybe I have been misinterpreting you, but just say what you do think is correct instead of playing semantic games with no point.

I have been saying what I think is correct, the whole thread.

Part of exploring what I think is correct involves critiquing others views on the same situation.

Yeah, quite possibly. Children learn pretty young what a picture or mirror reflection is so I don't really grasp the idea of an adult worshiping inanimate objects.

Lots and lots of cults started with the worshipping of objects, for hundreds of years.

 

[Dead Man]

I have been saying what I think is correct, the whole thread.

Part of exploring what I think is correct involves critiquing others views on the same situation.

So, just assume I am the stupidest person in the world, and spell it out for me.

 

[Monocle]

I find it surreal that so many people are playing the "have sensitivity towards religion" card on GAF, where it's usually by far the minority voice in any thread.

Also, I can point out that another factor is that some are not considering / drawing attention away from the fact that a tremendous number of people are just sick and tired of hearing about Mohammed and death threats, and Muslims freaking out over it. I hate to sound this way (really - I do hate to have to point it out), but saying that lunatic overreactions to cartoons of Mohammed are a tiny 00.00001% minority of people who merely call themselves Muslims is actually disingenuous. The Mohammed controversy has legitimately caused riots.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding." What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts. While Christianity doesn't have a byline saying that nobody can make a picture of Christ, I'm kinda under the impression that it wants people to take Jesus seriously and not mock him.

My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.

Excellent post. This is a lucid summary of the current situation.

 

[eznark]

You don't think they understand the image of Jesus isn't Jesus? Don't you have pictures of your family you don't love because you understand that pictures are not people?

Catholics teach that the wafer and wine are truly the body and blood of Jesus. Not symbols.

 

[speculawyer]

Lemme get working.

Spoiler

Oh, and I deny and blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

 

[jay]

Lots and lots of cults started with the worshipping of objects, for hundreds of years.

I guess I'll keep my camera away from them so I don't steal their souls.

Catholics teach that the wafer and wine are truly the body and blood of Jesus. Not symbols.

That's a good point. Catholics are crazy. Even the masochist Jew hating Martin Luther realized that.

 

[Kad5]

Im a shi'ite muslim but i'm not overly religious. I don't pray 5 times a day or anything but I believe in god and all that Jazz. With that being said I don't give a crap about people drawing offensive pictures of Mohammed. I think it's stupid to do that but i'm going to turn the other cheek because the whole thing is immature anyway.

I don't think anything on South Park was offensive at all though personally.

 

[eznark]

I guess I'll keep my camera away from them so I don't steal their souls.



That's a good point. Catholics are crazy. Even the masochist Jew hating Martin Luther realized that.

I am incredibly offended, death to the infidel

 

[Zeliard]

Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding."

They don't want Muhammad visually represented simply because they feel it invokes idolatry. I don't see what's "so inherently wacky" about that, at least relative to other religions.

What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts.

That's simple: the vast majority of Muslims just don't feel they deserve "special protection" over any other religion. You don't hear from them because they don't really care about you or the rest of Western society. They're perfectly happy living their own lives and don't particularly feel the need to report back to the world powers.

It's like every time someone does something in the name of Islam, people expect the nearly 2 billion Muslims to just rise up and go "man, that ain't right." They realize their religion is being corrupted and doesn't truly represent Islam, so they go on living their lives and you don't hear from them. They don't have to apologize for or explain away every nutty fuck that rapes their religion. Why should they?

Are we expecting all of these Muslims of different backgrounds, in different parts of the world, of different cultures, races and ethnicities to coalesce into one giant Islamic group and go "fuck terrorism!"? I'm always puzzled whenever people bring up "well, gee, why don't those other so-called "safe and normal" Muslims ever say anything then? huh??" Yes, I did note that you put "safe and normal" in quotes, in referring to the 1.7 billion Muslims. Classy.

Regardless, there have been many high-ranking Islamic officials and imams and such denouncing terrorism and the acts of others perpetrated "in the name of Islam", but they get on the news cycle for about 7 minutes, because all we want to hear about is death and violence.

Maybe you should learn a little more about Carl Sagan.



People who perceive this as being petty don't see Islam's attack against free speech all around the world. I really don't think describing it as extremist is accurate either, it is engrained in many Islmaic cultures to varying extents. We see free speech being suppressed in many countries in Europe, especially in Britain, where Islamic leaders are given a free pass to spew hate speech when others aren't. This is merely a defense of free speech through humor, which is perhaps the most powerful form of protest there is.

Sagan was a scientific skeptic who was also deeply in love with humanity as a whole. The quote you posted which refers to "upsetting people" is talking about science in general taking over religion. This has absolutely nothing to do with that.

This sort of thing would have upset Carl Sagan, as it does exactly the opposite of what he wanted to happen: to bridge the gap between cultures, and to realize that, as cheesy as it sounds, we are all one and the same. These are views he espoused constantly.

 

[Jex]

So, just assume I am the stupidest person in the world, and spell it out for me.

Free speech is an important right, that should be defended. It is one of the many values at the heart of modern, western society.

When a group of extremists threaten violence against people who depict Muhammad, they are engaging in a form of illegitimate and unnecessary protest.

However, those who do protest may well truly believe that it is 100% wrong to show any images of the prophet. Just like I believe that it's wrong for a country to silence political dissent.

When a network station fails to show images of the prophet, they are bowing down to external pressure. However, this is not a direct infringement of anyone's free speech.

You can have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you have the right to be broadcast on TV. The station can chose to censure itself. That doesn't mean it should.

Should you be able to broadcast images of the prophet on TV? Yes.

Will it also offend people? Yes.

Does the Western world have to respond to such protests by drawing pictures of the prophet Muhammad?

No, because that will anger and inflame those very people who get offended by such things.

Do they have a right to draw such images? Yes.

Will it help settle this dispute between cultures? No.

Do I think there is a better way to do it? Yes.

They don't want Muhammad visually represented simply because they feel it invokes idolatry. I don't see what's "so inherently wacky" about that, at least relative to other religions.

I think he was saying that others would find it odd, and many do find it odd.

I do agree that most religions do have odd practices it's just that, in the West, we have lived with them for hundreds of years and understand them. They have had to accept our mockery and derision.

 

[Monocle]

I guess I'll keep my camera away from them so I don't steal their souls.

That's a good point. Catholics are crazy. Even the masochist Jew hating Martin Luther realized that.

What are you talking about? Cannibalism is a perfectly sensible practice in the 21st century.

 

[speculawyer]

They don't want Muhammad visually represented simply because they feel it invokes idolatry. I don't see what's "so inherently wacky" about that, at least relative to other religions.

OK, not wacky relative to other religious but that doesn't say much.

It is wacky because do they really think anyone will start worshiping my crudely drawn image? I can see them not wanting statutes of Mohammad in Mosques or town squares where idolatry might actually occur. But cartoons? Are they really worried people will worship them? The whole concept of idolatry got lost.

i·dol·a·try (-dl-tr)
n. pl. i·dol·a·tries
1. Worship of idols.

 

[jakonovski]

You know what's ironic? The vast majority of these people have not given a shit about freedom of speech until there was a chance to go for some religion-baiting. Lowest common denominator.

 

[jay]

Hey guys, check it out, a rock. Let's worship it.

You know what's ironic? The vast majority of these people have not given a shit about freedom of speech until there was a chance to go for some religion-baiting. Lowest common denominator.

These people who?

There is also the fact that muslims get offended by offensive images of their prophet.

That's universal to all religions and their holy people. It's the reaction that is sometimes different.

 

[Kad5]

OK, not wacky relative to other religious but that doesn't say much.

It is wacky because do they really think anyone will start worshiping my crudely drawn image? I can see them not wanting statutes of Mohammad in Mosques or town squares where idolatry might actually occur. But cartoons? Are they really worried people will worship them? The whole concept of idolatry got lost.

i·dol·a·try (-dl-tr)
n. pl. i·dol·a·tries
1. Worship of idols.

There is also the fact that muslims get offended by offensive images of their prophet.

 

[Monocle]

You know what's ironic? The vast majority of these people have not given a shit about freedom of speech until there was a chance to go for some religion-baiting. Lowest common denominator.

You don't understand irony.

 

[Jex]

Hey guys, check it out, a rock. Let's worship it.

I don't think that it's inherently incoherent, especially when you consider the context of the time, when people did worship all kinds of strange shit.

They had seen that, in parts of the Christian tradition people worshipped saints and images of other important figures instead of God himself. Why people did that was irrelevant to them, they just issued a ban against the practice.

 

[Dead Man]

Free speech is an important right, that should be defended. It is one of the many values at the heart of modern, western society.

When a group of extremists threaten violence against people who depict Muhammad, they are engaging in a form of illegitimate and unnecessary protest.

However, those who do protest may well truly believe that it is 100% wrong to show any images of the prophet. Just like I believe that it's wrong for a country to silence political dissent.

When a network station fails to show images of the prophet, they are bowing down to external pressure. However, this is not a direct infringement of anyone's free speech.

You can have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you have the right to be broadcast on TV. The station can chose to censure itself. That doesn't mean it should.

Should you be able to broadcast images of the prophet on TV? Yes.

Will it also offend people? Yes.

Does the Western world have to respond to such protests by drawing pictures of the prophet Muhammad?

No, because that will anger and inflame those very people who get offended by such things.

Do they have a right to draw such images? Yes.

Will it help settle this dispute between cultures? No.

Do I think there is a better way to do it? Yes.

First, thanks. But do you not see the inherent contradiction when people are curtailing their speech due to threats of violence, and yet you say that is not curtailing speech? Self censure due to death threats is not acceptable. I do not blame the broadcaster, I blame those making the threats, a point you do not seem to agree with.

Also, what way do you think is better?

 

[speculawyer]

There is also the fact that muslims get offended by offensive images of their prophet.

But where did that come from? Are they just being over-sensitive? You have there is no right not to be offended. I'm offended by televangelists on my TV but I have to right to be free of that nor is violence against them justified.

 

[demon]

Oh cool! I can bash others and still I feel righteous! While I am here, go ahead and sign me up for draw swastikas on neighbors house day and hang nooses from trees day. Insensitivity and Intolerance is fun!

Intolerance? Give me a fucking break. This isn't a "Make Fun of Muslim People Day" or "Call For the Death of Muslims Day". The mere fact that drawing innocent pictures of Muhammed is considered "indecent" and "insulting" to Muslims--to the point where it assaults our freedom of speech--is the very reason this is being done. It's an understandable and expected reaction to such an absurd violation of one's right to unharmful expression in this country. Particularly when no one else is standing up to speak out against it--Muslims included.

I don't want to hear "Ohh, but you're insulting 1.5 billion muslims in reaction to what only a few of them are doing." The number is irrelevant when muslim leaders and the muslim community as a whole does nothing to speak out against this nonsense. One way or another, they are going to have to learn that they cannot impose their values and religious opinions on other cultures. Caving in to the pressure of some nutty muslims every time they make a threat (and it'll get to the point where censorship won't even require specific threats) only worsens the situation by empowering these whackjobs.

You know what's ironic? The vast majority of these people have not given a shit about freedom of speech until there was a chance to go for some religion-baiting. Lowest common denominator.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[jakonovski]

These people who?

Just saying holding "defend freedom of speech" days on the internet is not a very popular pastime.

 

[speculawyer]

You know what's ironic? The vast majority of these people have not given a shit about freedom of speech until there was a chance to go for some religion-baiting. Lowest common denominator.

This is an utterly unsupported assertion.

I can scroll down the thread page and find two threads bringing up free speech issues.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=389865&page=35

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=393478

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=393742


Does Islam pop up in many . . . yes because some Islamists are the ones often trying to stop free speech.