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

@BorisKitten,

Quote:

Maybe, but nobody is threatening you with death for drawing a cartoon.

BorisKitten wrote:

They certainly could, on May 20th. And perhaps they will. They might actually succeed.

My point is: Can they possibly kill ALL of us, on or after after May 20th?

On the day that thay CAN, thay WILL.

The reason that thay did not nuke us on 9/11, nor since then is that THAY CAN 'T.
The probability that Laden woud have if he coud have is 100%.

I support your effort,
but I know how to type on-line, not how to draw cartoons.

It is in my nature to DO that which we have been threatened against doing.

David

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
When things are worth defending, they are so because the actions or items are themselves inherently valuable.
Cyclo, this is utter nonsense and you know it. Defending Nazi asshole's right to assemble is worth defending. Defending a hippie’s right to burn the flag is worth defending. And yes, defending Larry Flint's right to make dirty jokes about prominent religious figures was worth defending. You're so accustomed to taking this freedom for granted; you've forgotten how many times Larry Flint volunteered to get arrested to defend this freedom. Unpopular speech is unpopular and the vast majority of people will always find that it has no inherent value. That is precisely why it requires protection.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I do like that movie, actually. And it brings up a good point - there were a lot of people who supported Flint and his right to free speech, for both specific and general reasons - but the vast, vast majority of them didn't go around publishing nude pictures in order to show support. They just - as I am here, re: the cartoonists - quietly affirmed his right to do so.
Were I around then, and they had just stopped circulating his smut-mag because some lunatic threatened to behead him; you'd soon see a LOT of people peddling the same garbage for the same reason I'll be drawing Muhammad on May 20, 2010. Btw, it wasn't the smut that got him in trouble; it was the dirty cartoons involving a popular tv evangelist, remember? If you think his cartoons shouldn't be censured by government; then surely you can understand why some will protest censure-by-death-threat from religious extremists. Think it through. Then draw!

WELL SAID, BILL!!!

David

0 Replies

@BorisKitten,

BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:
@BorisKitten,
I think that the real test for how strongly you believe in the right of free speech, BK, is to set up a street stand in Iraq, Afghanistan or other similar country and sell images of Mohammed.

I'm sorry to say I don't live in those countries. If I had been born and raised in those countries, Free Speech might be meaningless to me.

BorisKitten wrote:

In other words, I would not have the right to free speech in those countries. Especially as a female.

In THIS country, however, the US, I do have that right.
I have that right whether people make death threats against me or not.

U have my full support, BorisKitten !!!!!

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I support your effort,
but I know how to type on-line, not how to draw cartoons.

It is in my nature to DO that which we have been threatened against doing.

I can't draw either. I was planning on a stick figure.

In the US, does a stick-figure-drawing warrant death?

I suppose I'll find out.

0 Replies

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?

If you want to promote free speech write Viacom (parent company to Comedy Central) a letter.

Viacom Investor Relations
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
USA

Or call them...

1-212-258-6700
1-800-516-4399

Either way, remember one thing. The freedom of speech is the ability to speak without GOVERNMENT intervention. Private companies like Viacom have the right to take things like this off air (even if it's an over-reactionary measure).

Politics and Media 101:
Q: What is the role of the media?
1) To report information to the public in a honest manner
2) To educate it's viewers
3) To entertain it's viewers
4) To make money

Answer seems obvious when you think about it
R
T

4 Replies

Buy Danish!!!

(And build a panic room...just in case lol)

0 Replies

@failures art,

I'd like very much to know, and perhaps you would too, the answers to 2 questions:

1) Why was it that South Park cartoonists depicted Muhammad in 2001, on air, with no response at all, yet now, in 2010, they received death threats?

2) Why was it that the instigator of this ("Draw Mohammed") campaign backed down, and denied any association with it? (She said she was afraid.)

Were it not for these two things happening, frankly, I would not care about this issue at all.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?

Because religious extremists have threatened to murder comedians for writing comedy. Their threat was credible enough to warrant action... so their threat is credible enough to warrant action. Two cartoonists shouldn't stand alone when a million cartoonist's can demonstrate the impotency of threats against them. The message will be clear; DEATH THREATS WILL NOT GET YOU YOUR WAY. The alternative is to stand by and watch them cultivate a new way of trying to force their beliefs on others.

Every Newspaper on planet earth should have republished the original cartoons too. Laying down for bullies is seldom a good idea.

1 Reply

@BorisKitten,

BorisKitten wrote:

I'd like very much to know, and perhaps you would too, the answers to 2 questions:

I'll speculate...

BorisKitten wrote:

1) Why was it that South Park cartoonists depicted Muhammad in 2001, on air, with no response at all, yet now, in 2010, they received death threats?

While, I can't be sure, I think that the age of social networking and the explosion of internet media platforms in general gave groups like this a noticeable feature on the media landscape in general. In 2001, there might have been groups that wanted to do exactly that, but in that time, they were probably not as well networked together and could not as easily propagate their message (threat) in the way which would have satisfied their agenda (install fear).

BorisKitten wrote:

2) Why was it that the instigator of this ("Draw Mohammed") campaign backed down, and denied any association with it? (She said she was afraid.)

I think it's obvious. She probably received personal threats. Perhaps pictures of her family. Her parent's address maybe. I'd be afraid too.

BorisKitten wrote:

Were it not for these two things happening, frankly, I would not care about this issue at all.

I care about the issue as well, I just think that this is not the way to resolve it. Despite Viacom's choice to pull the episode of South Park, we're still free to draw Muhammad as we have ever been.

I'm a fan of thunderfoot's videos. He's pretty smart, but I think he misses the point on this one. If you wish to apply scrutiny to Islam, this is not the only way, nor the most effective. It's a polarizing type of thing, and I think it sends a terrible message to the world.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

failures art wrote:

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?
Because religious extremists have threatened to murder comedians for writing comedy. Their threat was credible enough to warrant action... so their threat is credible enough to warrant action. Two cartoonists shouldn't stand alone when a million cartoonist's can demonstrate the impotency of threats against them. The message will be clear; DEATH THREATS WILL NOT GET YOU YOUR WAY. The alternative is to stand by and watch them cultivate a new way of trying to force their beliefs on others.

Every Newspaper on planet earth should have republished the original cartoons too. Laying down for bullies is seldom a good idea.

I agree about the part with the bullies. The problem I see is this. When Matt and Trey make an episode of South Park and they get a death threat, it's their death threat. By drawing Muhammad in volume, it seems like you're removing the specific targets, but it really just makes everyone a target. A terrorist cell that wants to hurt/kill a person because of this no longer has to target a specific person, they just have to target the easiest person. It's easier for maniacs to justify their attack if they feel self righteous. It makes it a lot easier to kill innocent people if they are just another American, and it was all of America that bit their thumb at you.

I'm uncertain what the outcome of an event like this will be. Honestly, I don't think much more than talk. Like I said, I'm torn on this.

I think I will reflect on this further.

A
R
Threats versus cartoons

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?

Enlightened, no. But would you like to see it become illegal to use those words? With a death penalty? Saturday Night Live has a long tradition of poking fun at stereotypes... should the writers suffer death threats because of it? And if they did, should their peers not stand beside them in solidarity? South Park, like SNL, is about humor, not hate. You're not seeing the full picture.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

South Park, like SNL, is about humor, not hate. You're not seeing the full picture.

It is partly about using the shield of humor to say what one believes or finds plausible that is not allowed to be talked about in polite company due to PC Laws.

Anyone who watches South Park knows that there is a whole lot of truth in the story lines.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

failures art wrote:

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?
Enlightened, no. But would you like to see it become illegal to use those words? With a death penalty? Saturday Night Live has a long tradition of poking fun at stereotypes... should the writers suffer death threats because of it? And if they did, should their peers not stand beside them in solidarity? South Park, like SNL, is about humor, not hate. You're not seeing the full picture.

Whether it's legal and whether you get a death threat are too subject Bill and you know that. I only question if this is the solidarity that we need.

What about moderate Muslims; the ones that would never dream of threatening someone's life? Social collateral?

I'm not comfortable with attacking them. If there is a bully on the playground, you don't go and beat up his little brother.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I agree about the part with the bullies. The problem I see is this. When Matt and Trey make an episode of South Park and they get a death threat, it's their death threat. By drawing Muhammad in volume, it seems like you're removing the specific targets, but it really just makes everyone a target. A terrorist cell that wants to hurt/kill a person because of this no longer has to target a specific person, they just have to target the easiest person. It's easier for maniacs to justify their attack if they feel self righteous. It makes it a lot easier to kill innocent people if they are just another American, and it was all of America that bit their thumb at you.

I'm uncertain what the outcome of an event like this will be. Honestly, I don't think much more than talk. Like I said, I'm torn on this.

I think I will reflect on this further.

A
R
Threats versus cartoons

It's not their threat though. By making them carry the cross alone we are enabling the threat-makers to effectively get their way. (And you don't really think extra cartoons will be the reason terrorists target innocents... you can't.) It isn't just Matt and Trey. In the words of JFK, "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." This is true whether that one man is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, or likes to make unpopular cartoons.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

failures art wrote:

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech? We're certainly free to do both. Why is this act considered somehow enlightened?
Enlightened, no. But would you like to see it become illegal to use those words? With a death penalty? Saturday Night Live has a long tradition of poking fun at stereotypes... should the writers suffer death threats because of it? And if they did, should their peers not stand beside them in solidarity? South Park, like SNL, is about humor, not hate. You're not seeing the full picture.

Whether it's legal and whether you get a death threat are too subject Bill and you know that. I only question if this is the solidarity that we need.

What about moderate Muslims; the ones that would never dream of threatening someone's life? Social collateral?

I'm not comfortable with attacking them. If their is a bully on the playground, you don't go and beat up his little brother.

A
R
T

I'm not beating up anyone. I'm volunteering to be beat up along with the victimized target of the bully. If the rest of the kids stand with us, the bullies threats become meaningless.

To put it another way: If everyone "minds their own business" the bully gets his way. If we stand together, the bully is outmanned and powerless to change it.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Oh no. I know they target innocents no matter what, It's the part where they justify it (or sell the message in their propaganda).

I'm quite fond of Matt and Trey. They've been two of the most creative an honest satire writers in American comedy in modern times. They've been boldly non-PC and unapologetic to boot. It's admirable. I'll say this, if this was Carlos Mencia getting the death threats, I probably wouldn't care as much (shame on me, but it's true).

I'm still interested in how you believe a message like this will be received by Muslims that have no interest in doing harm. Does sending a message like this make them culturally isolated and perhaps easier to exploit by the exact people we wish to fight this issue on?

What's the long game?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

And I fully believe the vast majority of Muslims, while not liking the act of defiance, will understand it. A petty insult is not sufficient to turn your average Muslim into a fanatic, anymore than it would a Christian, or anyone else. That kind of thinking is buying into the nonsense of judging them all by the bad deeds of the few.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Defending Nazi asshole's right to assemble is worth defending. Defending a hippie’s right to burn the flag is worth defending. And yes, defending Larry Flint's right to make dirty jokes about prominent religious figures was worth defending.

Yes, but you don't defend Nazi speech by engaging in it yourself, you don't defend burning the flag by burning flags en masse, and you don't defend religious attacks by engaging in them! You instead intellectually argue why people should be allowed to express themselves.

Having gigantic groups of people draw Mohamed is not the equivalent to having large groups argue in favor of free speech. It's having large groups engage in speech which is questionable in nature, for the purpose of sending a message to whom exactly? Some unnamed Muslim fanatic guy? This just doesn't seem like a well-thought out plan.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...you don't defend burning the flag by burning flags en masse...

Someone may have to fill in the details for me because it was before my time, but I believe this is basically exactly what happened when this issue was brought before the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States

A
R
T

0 Replies

Part of my apprehension is the idea that this is exactly what these groups want: To legitimize the notion that the USA/West/etc is the enemy of the "Islamic world."

This kind of propaganda won't be used to attack us necessarily, it will be used to galvanize local tribes into their cause (to any end).

A
R
T

2 Replies

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know