.--------------.
___| _ _ _ _ |____________________________
/ | || || || ||_|___ _ _ /;
/.--------------. /|___ +(_) (/) //
/ | _ _ _ _ | / ___ \ _ OUT //
/ | || || || || |____/ ___ \(\) -(_) //
/ | || || || || | | / \(\) _ //
/ |______________|____|/ (\) -(_) //
/ _ _ BAT _ //
/ (\) MJP +(_) 9v (=) //
/______________________________________________//
`----------------------------------------------'
"Students of history will recall that prior to Dispersion, our Earthian ancestors espoused civil liberties, " Haraldson explained. "Theoretical liberties, however, were too often assured at the expense of actual civilities, and as such civilities were lost, litigation emerged as a way of life with a consequent reduction in real liberties for all persons except lawyers, who, like mercenaries, are profiteers of discord. Persons were actually allowed, by law, under the guise of free expression, to shout into the faces of those who held different opinions and to intrude on their privacy. Liberty has two legs. Vigilance is certain one, but civility is as certainly the other.--Sherri S. Tepper, Six Moon Dance pages 28-29
"With this in mind, I hereby establish the defecation rule: A defecator is at liberty to commit the act, but he may not commit it on his neighbor's doorstep or in the quiet street in front of his neighbor's house, or in his neighbor's alley, or in his neighbor's customary place of work, or anyplace where the neighbor or any other passer-by may step in it by accident in his own zone of privacy and tranquility.
"This means that any opinion may be expressed privately or in incorporated communities of the likeminded from which the non-likeminded are at liberty to depart. When an opinion moves into another's zone of privacy and tranquility, however, civility shall reign. If the Hairless Supremacists of Thor plan to march through a quiet community of furry Krumats with the sole intent of discomfiting the Krumats thereby, they may not do so, for though freedom of expression is guaranteed, a captive audience for an incivility is not.
"Our neighborhoods are an extension of our homes. Our right to privacy does not stop at our front doors. Our rights to the tranquility of our own senses and the privacy of our own space only gradually decrease as we move from our homes to the neighborhood street, down that street through our incorporated community of like minded persons, out of that community and into the arteries of public commerce, waning gradually as we come to areas also used by other persons and ideas. Even there, we hold about ourselves a bubble of privacy which we lose totally only when we relinquish both senses and space by voluntarily choosing to become a tourist or part of a live audience.
"Despite this rule of civility, departure from the community and open expression of opinion must remain absolute rights, and every community and every government must provide both opportunities for departure and venues for expression. Such opportunities and venues shall be both fully accessible to and fully avoidable by all citizens. No one shall attempt to control the coming and going from such venues or the events occurring within them."
Next up: Everybody Poke a Hornet's Nest With A Stick DayWhat a bunch of B.S. I'm sorry but this was just some minor joke that happened to go viral. It's like being singled out for your posts on metafilter.
In retrospect, (right or wrong) fanning the flames of what's quickly become a religious war between the east and the west was probably not a very good idea.
Well, sometimes when you play with fire you get burned. Yes, this shouldn't be happening, but seriously one should consider these things before "playing" with Muslims.
1. (Islam) A legal opinion, decree or ruling issued by a mufti or other Islamic lawyer.The word "Fatwa" doesn't appear in the article at all. What happened is that Awlaki wrote an Op-ed in his English-language magazine "Inspire" criticizing several western cartoonists, and apparently calling for their death.
Instapundit links to this thread.God Glenn Reynolds is an idiot. He says "Blaming the victim is what people do, when they’re scared and don’t want to do anything about what’s scaring them."
I can't think of an example of a free speech controversy where the provocation is less extreme without it not offending anyone in the first place. If you can't take the pro-free speech line on this one, then being honest you should really just admit that you don't believe in free speech. You believe in promoting social harmony, and that it trumps freedom of expression. Hey, that's an opinion.Pretty much.
I'm not touching you. Does this bother you? I'm not touching you.You writing a comment on the Internet about how you're not touching me? No. How could it possibly bother me?
----------------------------Look at what the cartoon poster itself says:
Possibly, languagehat, because this sort of thing is often, if not generally, done to offend. And to do something primarily to offend a person or group of people generally makes one a jerk.
[...]
I'm not a vegetarian, but if you are, and I were to invite you over for dinner, I would not spike your soup with chicken broth. Some things are just basic etiquette.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:32 PM on September 15 [9 favorites +] [!]
---------------------------So you should only say or draw things if they will be effective at neutralizing extremism?No, but if there's no greater purpose to what you're doing, simply "because I feel like it," isn't necessarily the strongest justification when you know that people will be negatively affected. This is, of course, my personal choice to make. I would not excuse the violence done to anyone who chose otherwise, nor would I object to an artist's exercise of their freedom to create.
posted by klanawa at 4:24 PM on September 15 [1 favorite +] [!]
---------------------------Really? You think Molly Norris set out to offend people?Why'd she do it then?
posted by elsietheeel at 5:08 PM on September 15 [+] [!]
---------------------------
In light of the recent veiled (ha!) threats aimed at the creators of the television show South Park ... by bloggers on Revolution Muslim's website, we hereby deem May 20, 2010 as the firstShe wanted encourage people to do their part in making it safer to criticize islam by making it harder, by sheer numbers, to issue credible threats. You should give her more credit.
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"
Do your part to both water down the pool of targets and, oh yeah, defend a little something our country is famous for (but maybe not for long? Comedy Central cooperated with terrorists and pulled the episode) the first amendment.
A fatwa is huge (regardless of whether you think its crazy or not). its an actual decree...even if its against pokemon. just putting a hit on someone is akin to saying "im gonna kick your ass".The thing is, he didn't actually even say "we should kill her", what he said was that he didn't think she deserved to live. Given the fact that he's a hard-core terrorist the threat is kind of implied, though.
From some dude in NEW FUCKING MEXICO?He's from New Mexico, but he lives in yemen.
I didn't say that a fatwa was issued against Molly Norris. I said one was issued against Salman Rushdie. I'll take your grovelling apology as read.What you actually said was this:
I have no idea what status al-Awlaki has in the eyes of his followers, but the point is that people can be expected to follow his religious views. Surely that's enough to make him a Muslim authority. How else would you define it?Which is obviously talking about the topic of the thread -- Awlaki's threat against Norris.
I wrote, "Constitutionally-protected free speech (in other words: the First Amendment) is not in danger here."Including you, since you clearly missed languagehat's point.
It is possible for someone to understand what you're saying and still not agree with it.
You stated that the First Amendment is always in danger, and this thread is an excellent illustration of why. I stated that the First Amendment is not in danger in this instance, that is to say, I don't believe the First Amendment is always in danger. One rules out the other.What you don't seem to understand the nature of the threat to the first amendment that languagehat was talking about.
I understood you the first time, I understood you the second time and now it is the third time and I still understand you.Maybe that's true, but nothing you have typed here indicates that it is.
Could anyone who finds Molly Norris' cartoon offensive explain why that's the case? I don't understand what's offensive about it.Her cartoon is not even very offensive at all. Anwar Awlaki would probably like to cut of her head for not wearing a burqa.
« Older Dictionary.com has a blog! It explains, usually in... | Even as the Deepwater Horizon ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by goethean at 1:23 PM on September 15, 2010 [13 favorites]