Iconoclastic controversy

Shakespeare's Sister asks for, and gets, an interesting discussion on "the whole Danish-cartoon-that-insults-Mohammed thing."

A quick review of the abstract principles involved.

Freedom of Speech: Good.

Bigotry/Deliberate Disrespect: Bad.

Wanton Rioting/Violence: Bad.

The first doesn't excuse the second, and the second doesn't excuse the third.

But we're not talking about an abstract, hypothetical situation here, we're talking about a particular series of events, the particulars of which are much more complicated.

Julia provides some much-needed context and insight:

The talking point of the moment is that the cartoons were mild, not intended to be interpreted as anti-islamic statements and merely a comment on freedom of speech. That is, of course, utter bullshit, as prominent liberal organizations the Vatican and the ADL agree. The ADL, by no means an apologist organization for radical Islam, compares the cartoons in matter and intent to anti-Semitic caricatures in the Muslim press, which is a fairly strong statement coming from the ADL. Both agree that the speech should have been suppressed.

That last, of course, isn't right either.

On the other side of the debate, we have the people represented by the Danish Prime Minister, who believes that the matter is purely a free speech issue and (despite the urgings of 22 former Danish ambassadors) has refused to meet with diplomats from Muslim countries accedited to Copenhagen to discuss the issue in late December.

This again is bullshit. It is in no way a restriction of anyone's freedom of the press for the head of government to say that the country, while supporting the right to free speech, condemns the racism and religious bigotry expressed.

I should point out that Julia's post is chock full o' links and that you should, of course, read the whole thing, wherein she traces how this whole mess began with not just one, but a series of deliberate provocations by anti-Muslim right wingers.

Josh Marshall, meanwhile, notes a piece of "historical trivia" that reminds us that a civilized respect for others' beliefs is something America has occasionally been good at.

(P.S. My fellow Christians should keep in mind our own history when deciding how to respond to this cartoon controversy. The image above, for instance, survived the sacking of a monastery by other Christians. Please feel free to venerate it, but not to worship it.)

Comments

[bulbul]

Europe has been at this for about a week, so I can recycle ost of the stuff I wrote earlier :-)

For the history of the whole - utterly stupid - affair, I recommend the Wikipedia article.
I would only like to point out that the real hell broke loose with their publication in Die Welt and later France Soir. It is meanwhile widely known that France Soir is owned by the Egyptian Raymond Lakah. It is, however, less known that Lakah is a Catholic and that the newspaper was in financial trouble well before publishing the Danish cartoons and was facing either bankrupcy or at least massive lay-offs. The editor-in-chief had therefore nothing to loose.

The most important problem here is that these cartoons were published as a reaction to an article on self-censorship published by a rival newspaper (Politiken). While I doubt whether Jyllands-Posten really is a right-wing newspaper, the fact is that these cartoons had no other purpose than to 'stimulate the debate'. Various bloggers and journalists tried to compare the drawings to movies like "Life of Brian" or "The Last Temptation of Christ". On various occasions I have argued that these two situations are entirely different. My argument can be summed up thusly: while both of the movies above do take certain liberties in portraying a particular religious figure, they do so for a purpose. The whole 'mockery' of Jesus is not self-serving and there is definitely artistic merit to it. The cartoons, however, potray another religious figure in a rather unfavorable light solely for the purpose of showing "we can do that". While the cartoonists and the editors may not have anticipated such a reaction, by now everyone involved should now that Muslims take their religion very seriously (I suspect this is one of the reasons for the current 'conflict of civilizations). Publishing these cartoons is not tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's more like wearing the colors of *insert-your-team-here* in a *insert-rival-team* pub. You certainly do not deserve having your ass whooped. But you should not be surprised.

Here in Slovakia, the whole controversy struck close to home. Back in March, SME, the most popular daily, published this cartoon . A lot of Catholics, including the leaders of the Christian Democrats and the Bishops' Conference protested quite loudly and demanded an appology from the editor-in-chief and Shooty (the cartoonist) himself. SME did not give in back then and for once seems to hold on to their convictions, since on Saturday they reprinted the cartoons. A plus point where a plus point is due. However, the same cannot be said for those bloggers and politicians who critised them for making fun of the late John Paul II. Back then, the Christian Democrats called for respect. Today, it's all about the freedom of the press/speech and how islam is a violent religion. I cannot wait to see some of them (especially the Interior Minister who commonly quotes LGF and Michelle Malkin in his articles) turn around now that Vatican has taken a stand.

Fred, to be quite honest, I do not see the connection between this ridiculous affair and the byzantine iconoclasm. I have always understood iconoclasm as a Second Commandment issue. This whole thing is not a theological debate.

Apropos iconoclasm, those of you speaking Italian check out this article by Umberto Eco. The subject matter may be a little outdated, but his points still remain valid.

And finally: an Arab response.

[bulbul]

Publishing these cartoons is not tantamount to
Is that correct? Seems kinda weird...

[Spike]

First of all, just for the sake of accuracy, among the newspapers which reprinted the cartoons were some which really can't be characterized as "anti-Muslim right wingers." Second, are we really chastising the government for declining to condemn the press in a country where the press operates more or less independently of the government? Certainly, politicians criticize the press intra-nationally all the time, which they can do in their role as citizens, but I would never expect them to speak to members of a foreign government on behalf of the press.

But mostly, while the discussion of the cartoons is interesting and important, doesn't it ultimately miss the point? The cartoons were (in my opinion) extremely offensive, and reprinting them simply on principle was probably a little obnoxious. Yet none of that addresses the fact that there exist people in the world whose idea of a proportional response to an offensive political cartoon is to burn down an embassy. That is not proportional, it is not rational, and it is not helpful to anyone's cause to pretend that it is. Why aren't we discussing this as well?

[David]

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060204.gif

[bulbul]

Second, are we really chastising the government for declining to condemn the press in a country where the press operates more or less independently of the government?
I am not. Julia is suggesting something in that sense, though.

offensive political cartoon
It seems like a minor point, but nevertheless: these were not political cartoons.
Consider this a reply to David, too.

[bulbul]

That is not proportional, it is not rational, and it is not helpful to anyone's cause to pretend that it is. Why aren't we discussing this as well?
OK, let's do it. I am not sure what is left to discuss, though. As you can see, to some people this does seem like a proportional response. What can we do? Change those people?
It seems much more realistic to discuss the way we deal with the whole issue, since we can actually do something about it.

[Jesurgislac]

spike: Second, are we really chastising the government for declining to condemn the press in a country where the press operates more or less independently of the government?

Uh, yes.

In a country where there is a free press, and a paper publishes something offensive and obnoxious for the sake of being offensive and obnoxious, the government loses nothing - and gains much - by saying something on the lines of "We deplore the deliberate insult of these cartoons, and we sympathize with your sense of offense. There is no legal remedy for this, as the media in this country are free to publish what they will, but while we support this principle, we do not support this paper's decision to publish something so offensive and deliberately provocative."

[David]

[/i]

[Puck]

The violence you see in the Muslim world is borne of frustation at American hypocrisy. Nobody offends Jews and homosexuals in Western societies - not because they riot - but because there are powerful NGOs working with legal authorities to stop such offenses prior to their occurance (remember when the Catholic/Islamic conference at Villanova was shut down by the FBI because the ADL claimed falsely that one of the particiapnts was a member of a terrorist group) or press "hate" charges after their occurance.

Christians don't riot becuase nobody really cares - Muslims riot because they DO care but when they are treated like dirt they cannot get the same protection afforded to Jews and homosexuals.

And it is not "right-wing anti-Muslim" causing these offenses. These are largely white, secular, liberals who have grown up feeling free to offend easy targets. Offenses against Christian targets are positively chic in Western societies these days.

But they mis-calculated badly in this case. Muslims don't believe in Western freedom.

Many of the liberal journalists grown fat in the luxury of liberal Western societies are now walking dead men. The Muslims will get them however long it takes. And I won't defend them. The enemy of my enemy...

[Cyndy]

I was linked to this page on Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748

as another possible explanation why the response was happening now, and not months ago.

[bulbul]

why the response was happening now
Because the whole thing happened in Denmark and nobody cares about Denmark. Among other things.

I have to take issue with two of Soj's statements:
1. Springer Verlag is NOT a right-wing media group. This characterization is ridiculous not only because it is factually incorrect, but also because we don't think like that. Europe isn't as politically divided as the US. And Springer Verlag ain't no fracking Fox.
2. The Saudi flags are indeed a coincidence. The flag is green (the color of the Prophet and, by extension, Islam) and features the 'shahaada' (There is no god but God and Muhammad is his Prophet). That's all there is to it.

The Saudi influence on the Arab muslim world is vastly overrated. This may not apply to Pakistan (where the Saudis finance madrasas) and Europe (especially Bosnia), but suspecting Saudi hand

[bulbul]

/continued/
in this shows very little understanding of the Arab world.

[Ray]

Puck not quite right on the motivations of journalists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a
matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I
will not use them."

Them = cartoons of Jesus

(But hey, who cares as long as there are less journalists and/or less Muslims around when the dust settles?)

[Mainline Protestant]

I'm quite pleased that all these conservatives are speaking out so forth-rightly about the absolutism of free speech. I trust that all of them have shared these thoughts with James Dobson who just successfully badgered NBC into cancelling The Book of Daniel because some Christians found it offensive.

BTW, Life of Brian does not mock Christ in any way. The scenes in which he appears, he is portrayed pretty much exactly as the gospels depict him. Life of Brian ridicules blathering, mindless, literalist believers - not Christ.

[Beth]

"Publishing these cartoons is not tantamount to..."
Is that correct?
Yes.

Seems kinda weird...
Tantamount's a weird word. Usually with words that follow the form, "A is [not] X to B", (where X may be 'eqivalent', 'comparable', 'similar', 'analogous', etc.), we can take a tip from our old friend Chomsky and transform the sentence into "A and B are [not] X", but we can't say "A and B are [not] tantamount." AFAIK, tantamount's the only word that works that way.

I found Julia's summary unimpressive at best. First, her claim that the publication of the cartoons was deliberate incitement, rests on the vague claim that the newspaper is "right-wing". Is that "right-wing" as in LGF or "right-wing" as in the Democratic party?

Next, there's this:

Both [the Vatican and the ADL] agree that the speech should have been suppressed.

That last, of course, isn't right either.

It's also not true. The ADL's press release on the controversy concludes,

ADL is strongly committed to free speech and freedom of the press – principles we consider the cornerstones of democracy. In a democratic society, newspapers need to be free to publish controversial content without fear of censorship or intimidation of their writers and editors. At the same time, newspapers and all media outlets should to take into account the sensitivities of racial, ethnic and religious groups.

There is no way to interpret that as advocating the supression of free speech.

Julia's most egregious error, though, is not in what she does say, but in what she doesn't. In giving short shrift to the context in which the cartoons were published, she presents a skewed picture of the entire controversy. The fact is that illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout much of Europe are afraid to present even the most benign pictures of Mohammed out of fear, not of angry letters to the editor, cancelled subscriptions, or advertiser boycotts, but of violent, perhaps deadly retaliation. While I deplore the most offensive of the cartoons, I must also applaud the effort to reverse this erosion of free speech.

Finally, I don't think the prime minister of Denmark, or any other government official should apologize for the cartoons. The should express regret at their publication and the offense that they caused, and make it clear that their goverments oppose such depictions and entirely disavows any blanket condemnation of Muslims or Islam. (I think Jesurgislac's suggestion hit pretty much the right note.) But an apology suggests responsibility, and particularly in this situation, where there seems to be some confusion on that issue, they need to make it perfectly clear that the government is in no way responsible for the content of private publications.

[bulbul]

Beth, thank you for the proof-reading :o)

we can take a tip from our old friend Chomsky
Don't let's, I already have a headache...

Is that "right-wing" as in LGF or "right-wing" as in the Democratic party?
This affair is the first time I've heard of that particular newspaper, so I had to browse through the archives first to form an opinion. Personally, I do not think Jyllands-Posten is a right-wight newspaper in any sense of the word. Definitely not Fox News right-wing. If I were to pick a right-wing newspaper in Denmark, it would probably be Politiken, their rival.
LGF right-wing, now that is something you don't get to see a lot in Europe. And if you do, it can usually be traced to some US neocon think tank.

The fact is that illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout much of Europe are afraid to present even the most benign pictures of Mohammed out of fear
I am not sure the three cartoonists/illustrators Kåre Bluitgen asked to provide illustrations for his book adequately represent Europe. Their reaction was very much influenced by the recent murder of Theo Van Gogh and the Carsten Niebuhr Institute incident. I personally believe that before publishing those cartoons their fear was largely unjustified. Hell, I even remember a Swedish/Finnish book on Islam for kids with illustrations featuring Muhammad. The whole situation is probably totally different now. And I hate to sound like a jerk, but it's their fault.
As for the erosion of free speech, remember, it's Europe we're dealing with. We have laws outlawing Holocaust denial, laws outlawing the use of certain symbols (for now only svastika and 18/88, but there have been some attempts to outlaw the use of the symbols of communism, such as the hammer and the sickle) and much stricter libel laws. Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with all of those. I just hate hearing about self-censorship from journalists and politicians who won't dare to speak out against corporations or certain powerful allies.

Finally, I don't think the prime minister of Denmark, or any other government official should apologize for the cartoons.
I agree. I understand the Muslim outrage. But they have to understand that in Europe, Prime Ministers/Chancellors/Presidents have no business interfering in such matters.

[bulbul]

BTW, Life of Brian does not mock Christ in any way.
My point exactly. And neither does "The Last Temptation of Christ".

[Beth]

"BTW, Life of Brian does not mock Christ in any way."

My point exactly. And neither does "The Last Temptation of Christ".

In my opinion, that's true, but in my opinion, many of the cartoons didn't mock Mohammed either. I also recognize that Monty Python's irreverent use of the crucifixion and other iconographic images of Christ's life struck some Christians as extremely blasphemous, just as any pictoral depiction of Mohammed strikes some Muslims the same way. That's one of the things that make this whole issue so tricky. Most of those cartoons are not 'objectively' offensive. We have to rely on Muslims to tell us how offended they are, and I wonder why we should take that any more to heart than we do Christians' self-assessment of their level of outrage over "Life of Brian" or "Last Temptation." Is it because only violence deserves respect?

We need to be very careful here. On the one hand, we'd be crazy to spread the message that we will give more respect to groups that spreads violence and mayhem. On the other hand, Muslims do have a legitimate, enduring grievance over their treatment by the West. If we don't deal with that, things will just keep getting worse. I wonder how much of this is really about the offense to Mohammed and how much about being once again dissed by the West. I also wonder how much it has to do with many Arab countries not being familiar with the concept of a free press. Many people have pointed to the viriulently anti-Semitic cartoons that appear regularly in some Arab papers as evidence of Muslim hypocricy in this matter, but to me they suggest something different. If a Saudi or Egyptian sees an offensive cartoon about Jews in their newspaper, the message is clear: their government hates Jews and they should too. How must they feel then, when they see cartoons offensive to Muslims appearing in more and more European papers?

Welcome to the 21st Century, folks. Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[R. Mildred]

It's kind of obvious that much of the more violent protests that have occured in the middle east is probably state sponsored, it's a wonderful way to allow the more violent members of their hardcore religious types to let off energy and anger at a target that isn't the various middle eastern countries' bestest buddy in torture and oil - america.

You couldn't have protests like they've been having without the states letting it happen, it would be just impossible. It's a scape goating thing, like krystal nacht pretty much, but not focused at a specific ethnic group inside the middle eastern countries.

The other thing that has to be remembered is that this didn't blow up until german and french papers decided to... well... troll their muslim communities for a reaction, the original cartoons were released months ago and it had been neatly simmmering until the reprints appeared.

The fact is that illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout much of Europe are afraid to present even the most benign pictures of Mohammed out of fear

Let me just agree with bulbul about this, the artists who refused to draw pictures of mohammed were being overly cautious, and basing their decision on the belief that muslims will just up and kill anyone if they transgress the religion at all, which is kinda understandable when it's not readily apparent that things like the van gogh killing were a bit more personal than being a strictly religious matter and the satanic verses fatwa is probably the closest a muslim can get to being excommunicated, but of course neither were reported properly, so it became "islamic cleric calls hit on rushdy" instead of "crazed islamic tyrant declares rushdy a traitor to the faith - shi'ites laugh derisively" and "muslim kills dutch director van gogh for film about islam" rather than "islamic patriarch kills dutch director van gogh for film highlighting problems of domestic abuse in european islamic communities".

And because of that lazy stereotyping of european muslims, some dutch cartoonists decided to go out of their way to piss off as many muslims as possible to show how they weren't being oppressed by those meany muslims - in the wake of the afghanistan and iraq wars, the madrid and london bombings, the revelations about how many european countries have been allowing american torture flights to land and refuel on their way to secret eastern european torture camps, and right after french muslims finally lose it after french police kill some of their own without consequences and shut down large areas of france for a week or two in retaliation for soceity wide discrimination and opression.
And so some smart ass french and german trolls decided to grab ahold and poke the bear until it bit them, and now have the gall to scream about being mauled.

in that context it's not a free speech matter, it's just really really stupid.

[WatchfulBabbler]

Speaking of "civilized respect," one of my favorite bits of historical trivia comes from the run-up to the First Barbary War, when several unusual foreign men arrived in Boston. Given the tenor of the times, everyone decided that the men (who did not speak English) must have been Algerian spies, though it should be noted that their fluency in Hebrew and attempts to reach a particular synagogue suggests that conclusion was reached in haste. Congress conferred frantically, then promptly passed a law affirming the men's right to worship at a mosque of their choosing, hustled them back on the ship they arrived on, and sent them back over the ocean, probably all the more confused for their experience.

[Puck]

> My point exactly. And neither does "The Last Temptation of Christ".

That's not your call. In Western societies the right to claim offense is held by the offendee. I don't find anything offensive about Ernst Zundel's writings - but he was arrested for them in America and extradited to Germany. Similarly I found nothing offensive about "The Passion Of The Christ."

I think Beth hit the point correctly. The problem isn't that Western liberals respect the feelings of certain groups out of principle - rather they do so out of fear.

It is the powerful whose icons liberals respect. Exactly the opposite of the intent of the first amendment.

I think Beth hit the point correctly. The problem isn't that Western liberals respect the feelings of certain groups out of principle - rather they do so out of fear.

Speak for yourself if you're fearful; don't presume to speak of others.

[Puck]

I of course am not fearful - I have not offended Muslims. Furthermore - as long as Muslims are targeting Western media - I on their side.

Also I don't speak for others - I let others speak for themselves. Beth's words - "The fact is that illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout much of Europe are afraid to present even the most benign pictures of Mohammed out of fear, not of angry letters to the editor, cancelled subscriptions, or advertiser boycotts, but of violent, perhaps deadly retaliation."

Stop with the verbal distortions, puck. You spoke of "Western liberals" not wanting to offend "certain groups" "out of fear"; now you're taking Beth's words (and calling it "let[ting] others speak for themselves", which it most certainly is not) about "illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout most of Europe". So "Western liberals" is now synonymous with "illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout most of Europe", is it?

[Puck]

Yeah - pretty much. Why? Does that offend you?

Yeah - pretty much. Why? Does that offend you?

It doesn't offend me, any more than if you'd asserted that "pumpkin" was synonymous with "Wankel rotary engine". It's just nonsense, that's all.

[Puck]

Because nonsense is usually either ignored or laughed at. But your tone is neither - it is instead very angry - the type of tone I'd expect when you disagree with something someone said.

Your problem is that I am right - the vaunted tolerance liberals claim, is simply an acquiescence to power - not an adherence to principle.

Your calling it nonsense - is another way of avoiding arguing with something you don't like (a typical attribute of the liberal rhetorical arsenal).

[wintermute]

> ...right after french muslims finally lose it after french police kill some of their own without consequences

Because, of course, those Muslims would never have had to hide in an electricity substation if the police hadn't been trying to arrest them. Although there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not the police were involved. But even if they were, I don't think "they hid somewhere incredibly dangerous to avoid the police" can be interpreted as "they were killed by the police" without some impressive mental gymnastics.

> Is that "right-wing" as in LGF or "right-wing" as in the Democratic party?

What does LGF mean? AcronymFinder.com doesn't seem to help.

[R. Mildred]

oh here's some classic satire trolling from the Arab-European league.

readers who find holocaust denial and the idea of hitler fucking ann frank offensive, well you just need to grow a thicker skin and learn to get with those "vaunted" western democratic ideals of tolerance and free speech.

Oh and puck, only right wingers bang on like you do about "the vaunted tolerance liberals claim", liberals are tolerant of people's beliefs upto the point where being tolerant of those beliefs requires being intolerant. Then we criticise, and mock, and ridicule as is our right under your belief in hyper-tolerance, otherwise you're being intolerant of our intolerance of your intolerance, which makes you a giant hypocrite. Though I'm sure you'll now posit that I'm not allowed to be intolerant of your hypocrisy like that, yes?

Because nonsense is usually either ignored or laughed at. But your tone is neither - it is instead very angry - the type of tone I'd expect when you disagree with something someone said.

Seems like you're having trouble following your own posts. You made an accusation of fear, which I responded to (although you're entirely wrong about the anger); then you changed the subject and made a nonsense statement, which I found laughable.

Your problem is that I am right - the vaunted tolerance liberals claim, is simply an acquiescence to power - not an adherence to principle.

Your problem is that you are wrong, as anyone of necessity must be when ascribing a monolithic slate of beliefs and attitudes towards a large group of people. Unless you were humpty-dumptying -- but you wouldn't do that, would you?

Your calling it nonsense - is another way of avoiding arguing with something you don't like (a typical attribute of the liberal rhetorical arsenal).

My calling it nonsense = calling a spade a spade. Your calling "Western liberals" synonymous with "illustrators and publishers in Denmark and throughout most of Europe" is nonsense.

[R. Mildred]

LGF = Little green footballs, home to the phrase "nuke mecca".

Here's the wiki entry on the incident that sparked off the riots btw.

[bulbul]

I don't find anything offensive about Ernst Zundel's writings - but he was arrested for them in America and extradited to Germany.

Puck, sweetheart, there is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference between offensive and illegal. Holocaust denial may be offensive in the US, but it's not illegal.

[Beth]

Thanks, anonomous poster. And you're right, Puck was twisting my words completely. I didn't even mention the word 'tolerance' in connection to the intimidation of artists, and his claim that tolerance is the result of fear is exactly the opposite of what I believe. I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that fear of Muslim violence had caused Europe to be more tolerant. If anything such violence has resulted in less tolerance to Muslims not more (e.g. the murder of van Gogh in Holland). In my experience, intolerance is nearly always a quality of weakness, and it's champions are cowards, futilely trying to hide their fear behind blustering bravado and attacks on those even weaker than themselves.

> Is that "right-wing" as in LGF or "right-wing" as in the Democratic party?

What does LGF mean?

R. Mildred has already answered. I'll just add that the point of my question was that if they were "right-wing as in LGF", it would be reasonable to assume they were engaging in racist hate-mongering, but there are also definitions of "right-wing" for which that wouldn't be true (e.g. the Democratic party, which would probably be considered right-wing in Denmark).

BTW, Juan Cole has an interesting overview of the whole mess. He notes Egypt's role in "fanning the flames" and points out that "Egypt's government was cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood in the lead-up to the Egyptian elections, so this was a freebie for the secular Mubarak regime. They could pose as defenders of Islam abroad with no domestic cost." It's starting to look like the blow-up was as much the result of diplomatic fumbling and political opportunism as any of the big important principles that have been attached to it.

[lbb]

Thanks, anonomous poster.

Oh, ergh. Sorry about the anonymity; that was me. And you're quite welcome.

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

"This again is bullshit. It is in no way a restriction of anyone's freedom of the press for the head of government to say that the country, while supporting the right to free speech, condemns the racism and religious bigotry expressed."

I mentioned this over at Julia's site, but for me this is her most overt error. For a government to condemn the expressed social ideas of any citizen is a form of attempted censorship. It is not free speech. Governments, naturally, take stands on issues. However, the minute a government condemns a person for expressing an opposing view to an idea, no matter how they choose to express it, that is censorship.

I think, no offense to the religious majority here, the real issue is this absurd demand that those who don't share a religion take its icons seriously. If we believe in free speech, then we believe in free speech, and that means that those who don't like our ideas can treat them however they wish. We don't put a government sanction on their speech, we don't try and force foreign diplomats to 'condemn' their citizens for doing nothing more than expressing their ideas. We don't, in short, try and protect a religious figurehead like its 'honor' is somehow more important than the rights of another human being. The minute we start doing any of these things, what we're admitting is that the minute people start saying something we don't like in a manner we don't enjoy, we don't support free speech anymore.

[Dharvey]

OK this is not a joking matter at all but I do have to point out the visual I get when I read the following Comcast headline that greeted me when I logged in this morning:

"U.S. base target of cartoon violence"

My first image was of Wile E. Coyote bashing some army general with an oversized mallet.....

Uh oh - some censors are knocking at my door....

[Puck]

R Mildred> liberals are tolerant of people's beliefs upto the point where being tolerant of those beliefs requires being intolerant.

You're making my point Mildred. Liberals are tolerant of people's beliefs until those beliefs offend them.

Then then call it "hate speech" and throw them in jail.

[Puck]

Let me make myself clear to you so-called liberals here. Speech is not a crime.

And until you are willing to apply that to those you disagree with then there is not a dimes worth of difference between you and the Muslims burning our embassies - except that your forms of censorship are more sophisticated.

[wintermute]

Puck: Liberals are tolerant of people's beliefs, regardless.

If you believe that you have the right to kill people because of the colour of their skin, then fine. You're entitled to that belief, and the chances arem no-one's going to be able to convince you to change those beliefs, anyway.

But when you act on those beliefs, we call it "murder" and throw them in jail.

If you call on others to kill people because of the colour of their skin, we call it "incitement" and throw them in jail.

You can hold any beliefs you want. It's acting on those beliefs in a way that injures others that liberals tend to object to.

[Puck]

> Puck: Liberals are tolerant of people's beliefs, regardless

> You can hold any beliefs you want. It's acting on those beliefs in a way that injures others that liberals tend to object to.

Then we are on the same page. It isn't the speech - its the actions. Arson, assault, tresspass, discrimination is wrong. Speech isn't.

I know you'll join me in calling for an end to crimes against "hate speech" "holocaust denial" and other forms of blasphemy.

[wintermute]

Speech can be wrong if it is expressly designed to lead to injury. Saying "I hate blacks" is one thing, and while offensive should be legal. Trying to convince people to beat blacks to death with a baseball bat is another thing entirely. But there are already perfectly good laws to cover that kind of situation.

I think "hate speech" is better covered by laws against incitement, slander and the like. If it does no more than offend people, I don't think it should be illegal to say anything you want.

[Fred]

Now I understand why they kicked this guy out of the Real World house.

He came across as a jerk on the show, but he was at least capable back then of coherent speech. I guess the drugs and the multiple concussions eventually took their toll. Now it's just sad.

[Puck]

> But there are already perfectly good laws to cover that kind of situation.

Exactly - as I said "Arson, assault, tresspass, discrimination is wrong. Speech isn't." It needn't be any more complicated than that.

Everyone (at least everyone with passions) finds something offensive. The whole concept of "hate speech" is simply an effort to make speech that offends liberals - illegal. Allowing liberals the luxury of locking up their opponents - while sipping white wine and disparaging those primitive peoples upset at pictures of Muhammed.

Hypocrites.

[wintermute]

> > Speech can be wrong if it is expressly designed to lead to injury.

> Exactly - as I said "Arson, assault, tresspass, discrimination is wrong. Speech isn't."

I don't think we're agreeing quite as much as you think we are.

> Allowing liberals the luxury of locking up their opponents - while sipping white wine and disparaging those primitive peoples upset at pictures of Muhammed. Hypocrites.

And allowing Conservatives the luxury of locking up Cindy Sheehan for wearing a T-shirt that implies that American soldiers have died in Iraq?

[Puck]

> I don't think we're agreeing quite as much as you think we are.

I know. That's why I'm having so much fun here. Liberals don't believe in free speech.

You cannot simply say that speech should be free - you have to add lots of ifs, ands, and buts.

No problem - blasphemy was just as much a crime in the 14th century as it is today. It's just that the offended party is different.

[Puck]

> And allowing Conservatives the luxury of locking up Cindy Sheehan for wearing a T-shirt that implies that American soldiers have died in Iraq?

There are at least 3 errors in this assertion. 1) There's nothing conservative about the Bush administration (nor the congressional security staff which is actually the people who locked her up.) 2) She wasn't locked up for wearing a T-Shirt with a political message - she was locked up for refusing to leave the building. 3) Her shirt didn't "imply" anything, it said "2,245 Dead. How many more?"

I think it's a shame she was evicted from the Congressional building - but if Cindy Sheehan is the best example you can find of censorship - it shows how completely your silly icons are respected in this country - and how blind you are to the real problem of censorship of genuinely unpopular speech that does occur here in Amerika.

[wintermute]

> No problem - blasphemy was just as much a crime in the 14th century as it is today. It's just that the offended party is different.

I'm not aware of any liberals calling for the arrest of people expressing opinions like "homosexuality is wrong" or "women shouldn't have the right to vote", which would make your blasphemy analogy make sense.

Such calls are generally reserved for people making specific threats, or encouraging those who resoect them to commit criminal acts. These are already illegal, and should remain so, but I see no point in creating a new layer of laws to cover these crimes.

Perhaps you prefer the Libertarian ideal of "your right to free speech is complete and unabridged; but so is my right to shoot anyone who offends me"?

[wintermute]

> 1) There's nothing conservative about the Bush administration (nor the congressional security staff which is actually the people who locked her up.)

As a recent immigrant to America, I'm not completely familiar with the political labelings. If Bush is actually a liberal, then I apologise for this misunderstanding.

> 2) She wasn't locked up for wearing a T-Shirt with a political message - she was locked up for refusing to leave the building.

So she was arrested for resisting arrest? That's an interesting idea. Where I come from, you need to be suspected of an actual crime before charges of resisting arest can have any relevance. And, on top of that, so far as I can tell from the news reports, she wasn't given time to refuse to leave before being hauled off to jail.

> 3) Her shirt didn't "imply" anything, it said "2,245 Dead. How many more?"

I'm sorry. My use of the word "implying" was intended as a touch of understatement.

> I think it's a shame she was evicted from the Congressional building - but if Cindy Sheehan is the best example you can find of censorship - it shows how completely your silly icons are respected in this country - and how blind you are to the real problem of censorship of genuinely unpopular speech that does occur here in Amerika.

Oh, I'm well aware of how hard it is for Pat Robertson to claim on national TV that gays should be put to death, without the chattering middle classes making a fuss about it. Or for Jack Chick to distribute his odious little comics, or for Bush to try and push through laws to ensure that gays remain second class citizens.

I can only imagine how hard-done-by these people are.

[cminus]

There's something off-kilter about Puck's saying that liberal tolerance is rooted in fear of the powerful, which is why they tolerate radical Islamists but have no problem making fun of a religio-political movement that controls all three branches of American government. And has nukes.

It's probably the same thing that lets Puck say "I have not offended Muslims" in the same thread he says "Muslims don't believe in Western freedom," or pass himself off as a die-hard defender of America and freedom of speech even as he says "as long as Muslims are targeting Western media - I on their side."

(So, Puck, if al Qaeda wanted to blow up CNN, you'd help? I'd say that should earn you a tap on your phone at the very least, but the way things are going lately it might get you a plum political appointee position in the Department of Defense.)

[Beth]

Wintermute,
There are no "hate speech" laws in the U.S. and no laws regarding Holocaust denial. There are laws against incitement, but I think it's pretty narrowly defined. Of course being new to America, you couldn't be expected to know all that. I wonder what Puck's excuse is.