Poll: Do you support Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?

[Infohawk]

The question is not whether you support the constitutional right to draw Mohammed, the question is whether you think it's a good idea.

Although I haven't participated, I think it's a good idea. The arguments against seem to fall into two categories. A) "You shouldn't intentionally insult other people's religions." This one I find the most insulting. The idea that we have to tip-toe around people's absurd superstitions is outrageous. B) "You shouldn't make Muslims mad because they will be violent." As someone else recently posted, this is like blaming a wife for provoking an alcoholic husband into beating her. It is never legitimate to be violent in response to ideas or speech. What is more, is I think these kinds of threads need to be called out. It needs to be very clear to violent Muslims that their threats will only embolden our exercise of freedom.

And again, I was always against the Iraq war. We don't need to interfere with their business but they certainly shouldn't have any say in what goes on in the West. Sadly, the fact that people want to pander to Islam makes me wonder if Bush didn't have a point in wanting to take the fight to Islamic countries. If they're going to attack us for what we do in our own country, why not fight in Muslim land. (Of course I don't think this justifies the war (especially since Iraq was relatively secular) but still, it makes you wonder.)

 

[Atreus21]

Yes I do, for the reasons you stated.

 

[LumbergTech]

I think its a bad idea because I don't enjoy being trolled by religious people and I don't feel the need to legitimize their behavior by joining in.

I have no problem with critical analysis of a religion. I am an atheist... I just don't see what is productive about harassing people. If you want to mock terrorists etc thats fine, but I don't see why you should mock an entire group of people over the actions of a few. To me that is just part of being an adult.

 

[Genx87]

I dont even know what he is supposed to look like much less draw him.
I dont see the reason to hold a national draw this douchebag day. Just mock these lunatics who take him so seriously when they spout off instead.

 

[Infohawk]

I think its a bad idea because I don't enjoy being trolled by religious people and I don't feel the need to legitimize their behavior by joining in.

I have no problem with critical analysis of a religion. I am an atheist... I just don't see what is productive about harassing people. If you want to mock terrorists etc thats fine, but I don't see why you should mock an entire group of people over the actions of a few. To me that is just part of being an adult.

You don't think satire is a valid form of critique? That's what a lot of this was about. The artist who drew Mohammed with a bomb in his hat and then South Park self-censoring.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes. Insult them til they turn blue in the face. Only then will they be equals at the table of religion.

Given the fuss over symbol burning, we need a day for that as well.

 

[LumbergTech]

You don't think satire is a valid form of critique? That's what a lot of this was about. The artist who drew Mohammed with a bomb in his hat and then South Park self-censoring.

I think satire is a valid form of critique, but when everyone spouts off me too just to try to be offensive to a certain group, I don't see how that is helpful. The truly bad people are not seeing our form of "protest". Instead, the everyday guy who doesn't share those whacko beliefs(at least not to the extent where it is dangerous) has to be subjected to the insults which should be directed at the people who truly deserve them.


Maybe I am wrong, but I really am not convinced that all this lashing out is going to be productive. Can you explain to me what you think it will accomplish?

I would also like to add that I do agree that we shouldn't withhold our words for fear of violence. I just don't think that we should approach this problem in a belligerent way.

 

[Jaskalas]

Maybe I am wrong, but I really am not convinced that all this lashing out is going to be productive. Can you explain to me what you think it will accomplish?

We will have established our freedom to do so.

We will have treated them no better than the Christians and Catholics who get lashed at constantly.

We will have given them equality.

 

[PokerGuy]

OP: spot on.

 

[LumbergTech]

We will have established our freedom to do so.

We will have treated them no better than the Christians and Catholics who get lashed at constantly.

We will have given them equality.

We already have the freedom to do so, it doesn't need to be established IMO.

I think that engaging rational muslims will do a lot more than feeding the trolls.

Christians get lashed at constantly? A vast majority of people in this country claim to be christian...

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe I am wrong, but I really am not convinced that all this lashing out is going to be productive. Can you explain to me what you think it will accomplish?

Remember the context. This only only started after violence against an artist and after threats caused Comedy Central to self-censor. In that context, the goal is to send the message "we will not be silenced" and "we will not take your threats and violence into consideration."

 

[woolfe9999]

The question is not whether you support the constitutional right to draw Mohammed, the question is whether you think it's a good idea.

Although I haven't participated, I think it's a good idea. The arguments against seem to fall into two categories. A) "You shouldn't intentionally insult other people's religions." This one I find the most insulting. The idea that we have to tip-toe around people's absurd superstitions is outrageous. B) "You shouldn't make Muslims mad because they will be violent." As someone else recently posted, this is like blaming a wife for provoking an alcoholic husband into beating her. It is never legitimate to be violent in response to ideas or speech. What is more, is I think these kinds of threads need to be called out. It needs to be very clear to violent Muslims that their threats will only embolden our exercise of freedom.

And again, I was always against the Iraq war. We don't need to interfere with their business but they certainly shouldn't have any say in what goes on in the West. Sadly, the fact that people want to pander to Islam makes me wonder if Bush didn't have a point in wanting to take the fight to Islamic countries. If they're going to attack us for what we do in our own country, why not fight in Muslim land. (Of course I don't think this justifies the war (especially since Iraq was relatively secular) but still, it makes you wonder.)

Question: do you support "burn the bible" day? If so, I can go along with your idea. In fact, let's do both at the same time...

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

We already have the freedom to do so, it doesn't need to be established IMO.

The threats and violence have a chilling effect. (analogous = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)) Look at Comedy Central. They did in fact censor themselves. They legally had the freedom to insult Islam but were not free to do it without fear of reprisals. I don't know about you, but freedom to me means freedom to do something without threat of violence.

 

[LumbergTech]

The threats and violence have a chilling effect. (analogous = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)) Look at Comedy Central. They did in fact censor themselves. They legally had the freedom to insult Islam but were not free to do it without fear of reprisals. I don't know about you, but freedom to me means freedom to do something without threat of violence.

I see that as a corporate decision and not really an issue of lack of freedom of speech.

I was disgusted by it because I do not think their ideas should be censored even if they are offensive.

I never once said I believed in censorship

 

[OCGuy]

Of course. If the lunatics didn't react how they do, nobody would care.

 

[Infohawk]

Question: do you support "burn the bible" day? If so, I can go along with your idea. In fact, let's do both at the same time...

- wolf

I prefer drawings and satire to destruction of books. But I've already said in other threads I'm fine with shred and recycle the Bible day. (But not historical copies.) But it's not as interesting because I haven't heard about Christians threatening to kill anyone when people make fun of their religion, like I do all the time. For Christians, it makes more sense for people to make pictures of Raptor Jesuses or put Darwin in fish symbols.

Again, the real point here is not to criticize a religion, the real point is to say "we won't back down in the face of your threats and violence."

 

[RabidMongoose]

The threats and violence have a chilling effect. (analogous = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)) Look at Comedy Central. They did in fact censor themselves. They legally had the freedom to insult Islam but were not free to do it without fear of reprisals. I don't know about you, but freedom to me means freedom to do something without threat of violence.

Chilling effect under constitutional law is typically imposed upon governmental laws against speech that violate vagueness or overbreadth doctrines.

I don't really get how you're trying to tie a 'chilling effect' as used in law to private response to speech.

 

[Infohawk]

I see that as a corporate decision and not really an issue of lack of freedom of speech.

I was disgusted by it because I do not think their ideas should be censored even if they are offensive.

I never once said I believed in censorship

Well we'll have to disagree on that. I see the Comedy Central decision as someone probably fearing for the safety of themselves and their family. I don't blame them as I wouldn't want to single myself out as a target either, but I think the rest of America has to stand up too. And it's not just the comedy central situation. Westerners have been murdered for "insulting" Islam.

(And I didn't say you did believe in censorship.)

 

[woolfe9999]

I prefer drawings and satire to destruction of books. But I've already said in other threads I'm fine with shred and recycle the Bible day. (But not historical copies.) But it's not as interesting because I haven't heard about Christians threatening to kill anyone when people make fun of their religion, like I do all the time. For Christians, it makes more sense for people to make pictures of Raptor Jesuses or put Darwin in fish symbols.

Again, the real point here is not to criticize a religion, the real point is to say "we won't back down in the face of your threats and violence."

So by your logic, the more inflammatory it is, the better the rationale for doing it? Interesting. I can think of all sorts of speech I might engage in to produce a hostile and/or violent response. Perhaps I should just go ahead and do it for its own sake, eh?

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Chilling effect under constitutional law is typically imposed upon governmental laws against speech that violate vagueness or overbreadth doctrines.

I don't really get how you're trying to tie a 'chilling effect' as used in law to private response to speech.

I said it was analogous. I didn't say it was the same thing. And since you refuse to recognize the true meaning of genocide in another thread I'm not really interested in discussing a more complex idea with you here.

 

[Infohawk]

So by your logic, the more inflammatory it is, the better the rationale for doing it? Interesting. I can think of all sorts of speech I might engage in to produce a hostile and/or violent response. Perhaps I should just go ahead and do it for its own sake, eh?

- wolf

No that is not my logic at all.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I said it was analogous. I didn't say it was the same thing. And since you refuse to recognize the true meaning of genocide in another thread I'm not really interested in discussing a more complex idea with you here.

I don't really see how it's analogous...it seems that you don't really understand the legal doctrine that you're trying to use. No offense, but this isn't really that complex of a legal doctrine - in fact, you don't even seem to understand the 'true [legal] meaning' of the very term that you're trying to invoke.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The threats and violence have a chilling effect. (analogous = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)) Look at Comedy Central. They did in fact censor themselves. They legally had the freedom to insult Islam but were not free to do it without fear of reprisals. I don't know about you, but freedom to me means freedom to do something without threat of violence.

What exactly are you proposing here?

 

[Infohawk]

I don't really see how it's analogous...it seems that you don't really understand the legal doctrine that you're trying to use. No offense, but this isn't really that complex of a legal doctrine - in fact, you don't even seem to understand the 'true [legal] meaning' of the very term that you're trying to invoke.

*sigh*

A chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group. It may prompt self-censorship and therefore hamper free speech.

What don't you understand? Here satirists are the group who are self-censoring out of fear of penalization /murder. Lumber was saying we already had the freedom to insult Islam. I am saying just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that freedom is not being impaired. Just like in civil law, just because you might be legally right doesn't mean the threat of a lawsuit doesn't stop you from speaking out.

 

[RabidMongoose]

*sigh*



What don't you understand? Here satirists are the group who are self-censoring out of fear of penalization /murder. Lumber was saying we already had the freedom to insult Islam. I am saying just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that freedom is not being impaired. Just like in civil law, just because you might be legally right doesn't mean the threat of a lawsuit doesn't stop you from speaking out.

Nice quote and all, but that's not the exact legal doctrine as applied under US Constitutional Law. It's applied against governmental regulations against free speech that are largely deemed to be overbroad or vague, not against what some private person may say.

Anyways, what do you propose to do exactly?