Anonymous wrote:The standard example used to justify limitations on freedom of speech is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, which is likely to lead to injuries and quite likely death in the stampede to get out.

Am I wrong in thinking that publishing pictures of Mohammed, especially ones that mock him, are likely to have similar consequences?

Saying that the consequences were not surprising does not justify them, they were horrific. But in a world where religious war is already happening, I don't think a little discretion is a bad thing/

I still think you are missing the point. The *point* of the satire is to challenge the idea that others get to have a violent reaction to an idea or representation.

France has some stupid laws on speech, as do most European countries and they are not internally consistent. Those laws should be protested too as a form of civil disobedience.

But, to answer directly, no, one can not let the deeply wrong stop us from acting because they will lash out in return.

The standard example used to justify limitations on freedom of speech is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, which is likely to lead to injuries and quite likely death in the stampede to get out.

Am I wrong in thinking that publishing pictures of Mohammed, especially ones that mock him, are likely to have similar consequences?

Saying that the consequences were not surprising does not justify them, they were horrific. But in a world where religious war is already happening, I don't think a little discretion is a bad thing/

Anonymous wrote:I thought the most interesting part of OP's question was why do people draw Mohammed or unflattering drawings of Mohammed when they know it will upset some (most?) Muslims?

Among other things, it is satire as an argument against the idea that certain images or words should be forbidden or even legally banned. I wouldn't personally draw an image of Mohammed in a bad situation, as some have, but I understand the idea behind representing him as a protest of the desired restriction on doing so.

Frankly, my OP was directed more broadly but it was triggered by the tragedy in Paris. The intention was to question why others - especially some atheists - choose to mock the religious convictions of people of faith. Much of this is directed against Christians. I get it that atheists don't believe in God and I, for one, don't make any assumptions as to what will happen to them after they die. I don't make any assumptions as to what people who belong to another faith other than Christianity will face upon their death. I sometimes cite to my fellow-Christians who take a different view about who will attain salvation the exhortation of Jesus: "Judge not lest ye be judged".

As far as the use of satire and freedom of expression, I have no issue with these being fundamental to a democratic society. My question is not whether one has the right to publish satire that would be deemed offensive by some but whether doing so is likely to result in ramifications that are tragic. This is not to justify those who use violence or to blame the victim. We use discretion everyday in our dealings with others as to what to say or not say because it would hurt others or backfire on us.

I also have an issue with the selective issue of censorship. Many who support the publishing of cartoons of Mohammed have no problem or are silent when it comes to laws in some countries in Europe that have made holocaust denial a crime. As I posted in the political forum, a historian was jailed for questioning the holocaust. He was exercising his right of free speech and went to jail because of it. It is not a question of whether the holocaust occurred or not - it has to do with the right of free speech if one is to follow to its logical conclusion the argument of those who defend the right to publish cartoons of Mohammed.

Muslima wrote:With freedom comes responsibility, as the saying goes. People focus on their rights, maybe once in a while, we should focus on our duties to mankind. Hate begets Hate. I have never understood the principle of "right to offend". Why would you like to offend someone? What's the usefulness of this right? What was the value added to the world of the distasteful cartoons? They didn't make the world a better place, they contributed to the marginalization and mockery of minorities and contributed to adding more hate to a broken world. Just because you have a right to say something, doesn't mean you should!

You're misconstruing the right. What matters is the right to not have others tell you what is offensive and therefore what is forbidden. The man who stands on the corner trying to convert people who walk by to his religion will offend some people. That's not his aim but it will happen. I want him to have that right even if he offends me. This is a question of liberty. I will teach my children to be kind to others and also teach them that they do not have the ppower to suppress others' ideas because they disagree.

We don't need a freedom of speech to say nice things. The freedom that needs to be protected is the right to say things other people would rather you didn't.

I thought the most interesting part of OP's question was why do people draw Mohammed or unflattering drawings of Mohammed when they know it will upset some (most?) Muslims?

Among other things, it is satire as an argument against the idea that certain images or words should be forbidden or even legally banned. I wouldn't personally draw an image of Mohammed in a bad situation, as some have, but I understand the idea behind representing him as a protest of the desired restriction on doing so.

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this thread, and I'd like to emphasize a distinction that may already have been made. Saying that gratuitously offensive expression is a bad idea does not justify murder as a response.

I strongly believe that freedom of speech gives us the right to say things that are stupid or offensive. But we also have the right to point out stupidity or offensiveness and to recommend that such things not be said. That is what OP did in the case of some of the cartoons.

But I saw nothing in OP's comments, or those of others making that point, to blame the victims for the violent response. When an impropriety provokes an evil, one can abhor the evil without glorifying the impropriety.

OP here: Thank you for your comments and for making my point more cogently than I did.

Frankly, I ignored those who claimed that I was blaming the victims because it was such a ludicrous suggestion. I am convinced that the world would be a better place if in conjunction with freedom of expression people would exercise it in a way that examined and considered the ramifications of what they say.

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it,” Winston Churchill

Anonymous wrote:Because these beliefs appear ridiculous to some people, and because ridiculing the ridiculous is natural.

No, it is not. (well, to junior high schoolers, yet. to adults, no).

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why should their political grievances affect us here or those anywhere else who don't believe? You make no sense.

You can't think critically, so I will let you live in your ignorance. Maybe one day, you will find out ~

Oh, okay. Good answer!

Better answer.

if I believe it is fact!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing the least bit wrong in mocking the ignorant, reactionary rubbish that is religion.

To each his own, I'm happy with my religion.

Me too!

Because these beliefs appear ridiculous to some people, and because ridiculing the ridiculous is natural.

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing the least bit wrong in mocking the ignorant, reactionary rubbish that is religion.

To each his own, I'm happy with my religion.

There is nothing the least bit wrong in mocking the ignorant, reactionary rubbish that is religion.

I'm new to this thread, and I'd like to emphasize a distinction that may already have been made. Saying that gratuitously offensive expression is a bad idea does not justify murder as a response.

I strongly believe that freedom of speech gives us the right to say things that are stupid or offensive. But we also have the right to point out stupidity or offensiveness and to recommend that such things not be said. That is what OP did in the case of some of the cartoons.

But I saw nothing in OP's comments, or those of others making that point, to blame the victims for the violent response. When an impropriety provokes an evil, one can abhor the evil without glorifying the impropriety.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why should their political grievances affect us here or those anywhere else who don't believe? You make no sense.

You can't think critically, so I will let you live in your ignorance. Maybe one day, you will find out ~

Oh, okay. Good answer!