Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

Had a great number of cartoon satirists shown her same courage along with her; she wouldn't need to join the witness protection program now.

Quote:

Had a great number of cartoon satirists shown her same courage along with her; she wouldn't need to join the witness protection program now.

Yeah, that would have made a huge difference, Bill. What medications are you taking?

From what I've read, she didn't join the or a witness protection program.

Molly spoke out... and she should be universally respected for it.

If 1,000 of her peers responded in kind; do you think the FBI would encourage them all to disappear?

The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - the radical who's also been cited as inspiring the Fort Hood, Tex., massacre and the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers - singled out artist Molly Norris as a "prime target," saying her "proper abode is Hellfire." Source

In July, Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Yemeni-American cleric who is accused of ties to Al Qaeda, said in a document published on the Internet that Ms. Norris “should be taken as a prime target of assassination,” according to the NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites, which translated the document.

Mr. Awlaki stated that Ms. Norris and other unnamed people in the United States and Europe “are expressing their hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule.” In a controversial step, the Obama administration this year authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to kill Mr. Awlaki, who is in hiding.

Get in his face and provoke him? She never stepped foot in the same room, nor even asked, let alone forced him to look at her cartoon.

I know of no metric to measure, but can only assume that every exposure to depictions of the prophet will have an incremental desensitizing effect, even if infinitesimal.

Consider that even some of the most self-righteous southern racists eventually grew accustomed to sharing space with black people. Do you think they’d have made the same progress if Brown v. Board hadn’t shot down separate but equal? More exposure continues to result in more desensitization and acceptance.

I doubt anyone had any illusion about things changing over night based on one silly online protest (I stated as much in one of my first posts on this thread). But you have to start somewhere unless you’d rather just wait for 6 Billion people to be intimidated into incrementally accepting the tenets of Sharia Law.

I can’t end world hunger with my mouth (spreading awareness) or my wallet either, but I’ll continue to use both towards that end.

That's not true. She intentionally published something on the internet that she knew, or should have known, would incite violence.

Her FA right is not an international right. It's an American right granted to her by our Constitution.

JPB: If a woman you know got raped, and Occom Bill made the point that "she intentionally wore a mini-skirt that she knew, or should have known, would arouse drunken men", I bet it wouldn't take you a millisecond to put Bill in his place. And more power to you for that! How is this case any different?

2) Even aside of this, your argument fails, because the First Amendment is not the only legal document in the world protecting the freedom of speech. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the "freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19), and explicitly mentions past infringements on the freedom of speech as a reason for its existence (preamble). Contrary to your suggestion, then, international law does recognize Molly Norris's right to draw that cartoon, and her employer's right to publish it.

JPB wrote:

Her FA right is not an international right. It's an American right granted to her by our Constitution.

This point doesn't work for two reasons:

1) So what? Molly Norris never demanded that foreign nations recognize her freedom of speech. All she's demanding is that she not be murdered in America---for exercising her First-Amendment rights, which you agree she has here.

2) Even aside of this, your argument fails, because the First Amendment is not the only legal document in the world protecting the freedom of speech. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the "freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19), and explicitly mentions past infringements on the freedom of speech as a reason for its existence (preamble). Contrary to your suggestion, then, international law does recognize Molly Norris's right to draw that cartoon, and her employer's right to publish it.

Who are you to decide that followers of one of the world's major religions need to be "desensitized"? Jesus, Bill, that's one of the most arrogant statements I've ever seen.

The right to insult and inflame is not the same as segregating blacks, denying rights to women, or spousal abuse. I know you think it is, but to equate the abuse of women and the segregation of blacks to exercising restraint on the web/media is ridiculous.

This case is different because there are people in this world who have different values, who have a different take on how things should work. While it's easy to find fault with those from a western viewpoint, the fact remains that they exist.

Bill, we're going around in circles. I've never said (nor do I think/believe) that she didn't have the right to make her drawings and/or to make a call for action to join her in her crusade. She absolutely had the right to do that.

You keep inferring that I think she deserves to have to go into hiding to escape being murdered. That's ludicrous. But, it isn't surprising either.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the intent to incite violence to an innocent victim of abuse. It isn't going to change the fact that they aren't the same thing.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the intent to incite violence to an innocent victim of abuse. It isn't going to change the fact that they aren't the same thing.

In this case, however, Islamist extremists are threatening violence, and Molly Norris is an innocent victim. Do you agree? If so, fair enough. You have just made an abstract point about logic then. But if you disagree, then you must be thinking Ms Norris is guilty. Of what?