News What Are the Limits of Satire and Free Speech?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquitaine
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
South Park faced censorship due to a Muslim death threat regarding an episode featuring the prophet Muhammad in a bear costume, leading to significant backlash from fans and commentators. The discussion highlights a tension between free speech and the fear of repercussions from extremist groups, with some arguing that censorship empowers terrorists. Others contend that the episode was pulled not solely due to threats but because it was deemed in poor taste. The debate also touches on the broader implications of satire and the limits of acceptable humor, especially when it involves figures revered by millions. Ultimately, the incident raises questions about the balance between creative expression and societal sensitivities.
  • #51
DaveC426913 said:
I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens. Whether or not you agree with that, the point is, it is an attempt to do the right thing for the right reason, not a reaction that terrorists "made" us do.

Let me give an analogy.

How about a better analogy.

John says he is going to draw a picture.
Joe says that he thinks its a bad idea and he'll stab John if John draws the picture.
John says "sorry bout that" and does not draw the picture.

If we consider that John has drawn several pictures and that many people have told him that they were a bad idea what do you think is the most compelling reason for John to have decided not to draw the picture in our scenario?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
DaveC426913 said:
I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens.
Dave, you have said this over and over and we get it - we disagree becasue your position does not match the facts. What *factual* basis do you have for believing that it was censored because it was offensive?

Have you read the synopsis of the episode? Have you considered the fact that images of Mohammed haven't been censored on South Park in the past? Have you considered that lots and lots of offensive images of others have not been censored in the past? Have you considered that lots of people and religions were insulted much worse in that episode and other recent ones (the Pope in particular has been getting slammed this season)? When starting with these facts, your position simply makes no sense. You've created a logic based on your own assumptions, not based on the facts.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
No (sigh) the knee-jerk reaction is : omg, we changed our minds about airing this, the terrorists have won!

I don't know why y'all hand them so much power.

I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens. Whether or not you agree with that, the point is, it is an attempt to do the right thing for the right reason, not a reaction that terrorists "made" us do.

South Park is regularly offensive to millions of law-abiding citizens. That is where it gets its entertainment value from. What makes you think they have suddenly and independently decided to "do the right thing" when they have showed no interest in doing so in the past?

If the show continues to be more respectful to all people, Muslim and otherwise, then I will begin to agree with you. Until then I will assume their decision to censor the show is based on avoiding expensive legal cases or threats of violence, not moral principles.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but have you ever watched the show? Before defending their decisions it might be prudent to aquaint yourself with their product.
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
I say we censored it - not because of terrorist threats - but because it's offensive to millions of perfectly law-abiding muslim citizens.
1. "We" did not censor it (unless you are speaking as an employee of Comedy Central). Comedy Central did.

2. If they similarly censored everything else in the show that was offensive to millions of law abiding citizens, there would be nothing left in the show. This is, after all, South Park we are talking about - it aims to offend. But you're not asking that they censor out everything that is offensive to people. So clearly, this is demanding a very selective form of censorship to appease a specific group of people without equal regard to the sensibilities of millions of others.

3. Despite all the evidence against it, is there some reason that we (as you do) should believe that this censorship was brought about by a new-found sensitivity to a segment of the audience?

Whether or not you agree with that, the point is, it is an attempt to do the right thing for the right reason, not a reaction that terrorists "made" us do.
How can you expect acceptance of your assertion that the underlying reason for censorship was just, irrespective of whether or not there is agreement on what the reason was?
 
  • #55
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:
 
  • #56
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:

**** Canada! ;-p

But seriously. I do not fully agree with the "The terrorists have won!" sentiment either and yet I feel I can contribute my opinion. One need be in bed with neither "terrorists" nor "nationalists" to have and opinion and participate in meaningful discussion. I might even argue that more meaningful discussion can be had from people who are not in either camp. You are simply depriving us of a more moderate voice Dave.
 
  • #57
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:

I'm Canadian and I am participating in this thread. Why do you think that participating in a thread titled 'we have given into terrorism' or 'the terrorist won' etc. means that the people participating agree with that sentiment? I definitely do not think that the terrorist have won... we have given them what they wanted though. As well we do continue to allow them to terrorize societies with pretty much no repercussions that effect terrorism.
 
  • #58
I love South Park, and their censorship by Comedy Central is distrubing to me. WHY it's distrubing to me is best summed up by a quote in the South Park 201 Wikipedia page:

UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh said Comedy Central's actions risk empowering other extremists:

"The consequence of this position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs. There are lots of people out there who would very much like to get certain kind of material removed, whether religious or political. The more they see others winning, the more they will be likely to do the same. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated."

At what point must this stop? America as a whole gets death threats every week, but no one really takes them seriously. Two TV producers are threatened, and we bow to their will? What's to stop extremists from forcefully taking anything they want through death threats?

"The real culprits here are not Muslims, but the cowards at Comedy Central. We no longer need a genuine terrorist threat to scare us into submission. We’re quite capable of doing it to ourselves. Caving in has almost become a cultural reflex."

Margaret Wente,
The Baltimore Sun
 
  • #59
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.

I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.

They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership. :rolleyes:
If the condition for winning is subduing Comedy Central with threats then I could accept the statement "the terrorists have won." Otherwise I agree with the statement as much as you do.
 
  • #60
DaveC426913 said:
I have cleared up the misunderstandings as I wished. I have not made my points but I am OK with that.
Dave, I'm absolutely flabberghasted that you can't see the obvious il-logic in your position. Your point simply makes no sense. But ok - opinions are opinions and you're allowed.
I simply cannot continue to participate in a discussion that uses the words "the terrorists have won!" and does so with a straight face.
I doubt anyone would argue that this constitutes an end to the war on terror. In that way, it's an exaggeration - and everyone makes such exagerrations. It isn't something to get hung up on. This is just one skirmish of one battle of the war. But it is a skirmish they won and one in which a collective "we" gave into them.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times - don't get too hung up on a minor/irrelevant exaggeration-for-effect.
They'd revoke my "I Am Canadian" membership.
Wait, is all this just about a chip on your shoulder over South Park's making fun of Canada?!
 
  • #61
If the condition for winning is subduing Comedy Central with threats then I could accept the statement "the terrorists have won." Otherwise I agree with the statement as much as you do.

I don't know about you, but I consider making threats of violence to advance an agenda to be terrorism of a sort, and then caving into said threat would be letting the ones who made the threats win.
 
  • #62
Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted on the makers of the TV series South Park because of a controversial depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7669402/Times-Square-car-bomb-police-investigate-South-Park-link.html"

Coincidence or a last second change in plans?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
So, they mock Mohammed:
- To prove Tom Cruise wrong.
- To tease terrorists.
- They’re being fair, as they mock every religion's symbols.

….. Honestly, none of them seems reasonable to me. In fact they all look stupid IMO. Do they even read about him before doing this?

The best analogy to this action is to mock a member of a family [Mohammed peace be upon him] in front of his family [ALL Muslims], I’ll let your logic work out the reaction… And I’m thinking the relation between the west and the middle east [or whatever you want to call it] is already tensed, who would benefit from making it worst?
 
  • #64
DaveC426913 said:
- we decide to censor the broadcast out of respect for millions of good citizens, not out of reaction to a bunch of fist-shakers.

Muslims - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155210
Christians -http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103393
Catholics- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104227
Mormons- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104253
Jews - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154465
Athiests- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155374
Hybrid owners - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155193

...and the list goes on and on.
:rolleyes:
 
  • #65
Flat said:
Muslims - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155210
Christians -http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103393
Catholics- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104227
Mormons- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104253
Jews - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154465
Athiests- http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155374
Hybrid owners - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155193

...and the list goes on and on.
:rolleyes:

You forgot one of the best ones!

Scientology- http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103804
 
  • #66
aquitaine said:
I don't know about you, but I consider making threats of violence to advance an agenda to be terrorism of a sort, and then caving into said threat would be letting the ones who made the threats win.

I agree, but there is also the matter of scale. Comedy Central doesn't represent the collective will of the entire US. Terrorists now know that they can subdue Comedy Central with threats, and may be encouraged to try similar tactics on on other businesses. That's what they have won. They haven't destroyed democracy and won some final victory. The scale of those two ideas is disproportionate.

Were any threats even made? Comedy Central was told that if they aired the episode then it would be likely that there would be consequences. Warning people of real danger isn't a threat, though it may be perceived as one.

I blame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0UejzZDZ8".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
drizzle said:
So, they mock Mohammed:
- To prove Tom Cruise wrong.
- To tease terrorists.
- They’re being fair, as they mock every religion's symbols.

….. Honestly, none of them seems reasonable to me. In fact they all look stupid IMO. Do they even read about him before doing this?

The best analogy to this action is to mock a member of a family [Mohammed peace be upon him] in front of his family [ALL Muslims], I’ll let your logic work out the reaction… And I’m thinking the relation between the west and the middle east [or whatever you want to call it] is already tensed, who would benefit from making it worst?

Yes they mock every religion's symbols. Your analogy would work equally as well with all religions that have been mocked. However, there seems to be one in particular that responds with violence and threats. Who is really making things worse?

The attempted bombing in New York was wrong but, it is equally sickening when Sunni and Shiite are blowing up each others mosques. Where is the logic there? In your analogy, this is like watching a family shoot at each other. That's not a home that I would care to visit.

The only way that violence will end is if the persons commiting the violence stop. That isn't going to happen if other Muslims don't stop making excuses for their actions, condoning their behaviour and making martyrs out of them.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Borg said:
That's not a home that I would care to visit.

And I wouldn't want them visiting my home. That's why I support and believe in those European nations that attempt to close off their border to such people.
 
  • #69
drizzle said:
So, they mock Mohammed:
- To prove Tom Cruise wrong.
- To tease terrorists.
- They’re being fair, as they mock every religion's symbols.
Did you watch the episode...?
….. Honestly, none of them seems reasonable to me. In fact they all look stupid IMO. Do they even read about him before doing this?
I'd have to say your the one looking kinda stoopid.

For starters if I want to make fun of Muhammad or draw a picture of him in a homosexual orgy I am under no obligation to read anything about him prior to... or even after.

The best analogy to this action is to mock a member of a family [Mohammed peace be upon him] in front of his family [ALL Muslims],
I don't really think so. The family gets mocked more than that family member... and they definitely do deserve to be mocked... look at how they act.

I’ll let your logic work out the reaction…
That's exactly what was being mocked... no one is really surprised by it. Only ANGERED.

And I’m thinking the relation between the west and the middle east [or whatever you want to call it] is already tensed, who would benefit from making it worst?

I hardly think that's a problem Americans should be having amongst themselves. If these Muslims would like to continue that 'tenseness' between the west and their home land then they should move the F*($ out of the west. SIMPLE.

Oh and BTW I guess the simple answer to your question is this: The Muslims benefit from making it worse. Cause that's exactly what they did (made it worse) and they benefitted (got what they wanted).
 
  • #70
zomgwtf said:
I hardly think that's a problem Americans should be having amongst themselves. If these Muslims would like to continue that 'tenseness' between the west and their home land then they should move the F*($ out of the west. SIMPLE.

Oh and BTW I guess the simple answer to your question is this: The Muslims benefit from making it worse. Cause that's exactly what they did (made it worse) and they benefitted (got what they wanted).
America is home to millions of Muslim people, and not all Muslim people, even angry Muslims, support terrorism. What I expect is the majority of Muslims did not get what they wanted. I doubt many people anywhere want terrorists to speak for them. It does make for a convenient excuse to mock someone though, even though I'm not aware of any terrorists making any threats in this incident.
 
  • #71
  • #72
Huckleberry said:
America is home to millions of Muslim people,

That's awesome. Maybe a bunch of Christians should move on over to Algeria and threaten everyone living there if they do things Christians don't like. Wonder what kind of opposition would be felt there? Oh not in America though! This is their home too! Screw that notion, it's only their home if they WANT to live there by THOES societal values, not if they want to come and make some sort of change. Like I said the Muslims that don't like it can gtfo.

and not all Muslim people, even angry Muslims, support terrorism.
Err so you don't think that the majority of Muslims were angry and supported the Internet postings on the creators of South Park on RevolutionMuslim.com? That's odd since right in their holy scripture it requires them to support it.

What I expect is the majority of Muslims did not get what they wanted. I doubt many people anywhere want terrorists to speak for them.
Oh that is what you think. Well I'd love to see some statistics to support this claim, because I have a plethora of statistics to support the opposition to this. Namely that the majority of Muslims, while not taking part in fundamentalist or terrorist activities do in fact support terrorism and they do in fact hate America quite a bit. The ones that don't? I don't really care about them... Like I said:
me said:
If these Muslims would like to continue
What point, exactly, does your statement make which refutes what I wrote there? Nothing. I'm talking specifically about 'these' Muslims (these being the ones who are in opposition to American societal values)
It does make for a convenient excuse to mock someone though, even though I'm not aware of any terrorists making any threats in this incident.
Again, I'll ask you what your point is?
 
  • #73
DaveC426913 said:
Let me give an analogy.

Child misbehaves.
Parent gets mad and threatens to spank child.
Child screams he will run away if spanked.
Parent calms down and decides not to spank child.

You see, if you react to the child's threat (by basically calling his bluff and spanking him anyway), you hand the child power over the relationship.

No, the appropriate thing to do is to ignore the child's threat - you chose not to spank him because you are a good parent, and because you call the shots, not because of some empty threat.

I don't take South Park too seriously and I don't want to get into that whole part of the argument but I can't help but to comment on the above quote. Look at this from the childs perspective. They see that they have just won. The child called your bluff and realized that what you say is irrelevant. They see this as you being terribly afraid of them running away so they will just threaten you with it every time you threaten to punish them in any way. I have seen first hand what threats that never materialize do to kids. If you don't believe in spanking or (pick your punishment) then don't threaten to do it in the first place. A child should never really completely know what a parent might do as punishment.
 
  • #74
Averagesupernova said:
I don't take South Park too seriously and I don't want to get into that whole part of the argument but I can't help but to comment on the above quote. Look at this from the childs perspective. They see that they have just won. The child called your bluff and realized that what you say is irrelevant. They see this as you being terribly afraid of them running away so they will just threaten you with it every time you threaten to punish them in any way. I have seen first hand what threats that never materialize do to kids. If you don't believe in spanking or (pick your punishment) then don't threaten to do it in the first place. A child should never really completely know what a parent might do as punishment.

Bill Cosby: My father established our relationship when I was seven years old. He looked at me and said, "You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out. And it don't make no difference to me, I'll make another one look just like you."

Funny to us but I bet it made him think twice about things. :-p
 
  • #75
zomgwtf said:
What point, exactly, does your statement make which refutes what I wrote there? Nothing. I'm talking specifically about 'these' Muslims (these being the ones who are in opposition to American societal values)

Again, I'll ask you what your point is?

Society is always in a state of change. That change includes Muslim beliefs, who have the same right to religious freedom as any other American. They also have the right to freedom of speech, which allows them to voice their opinions, even angry ones. If you don't like the democratic values of the society you live in then maybe you should take your own advice.

Mocking people does not help reduce the tenseness that you claim "these" Muslims create. It continues the tenseness, which is the same accusation you make of a majority of Muslims. They are angry because their faith is mocked, but if they speak out in anger then they are accused of supporting terrorism. Hardly.

My point is that all the behaviours that you are condemning the majority of Muslims for are the same ones you promote for your own values, which you call American societal values. They aren't my values, and I'm not moving anywhere regardless of how much you curse at me, but I would risk my life protecting your right to do so.
 
  • #76
Huckleberry said:
but if they speak out in anger then they are accused of supporting terrorism. Hardly.
Uhmmm a few posts back you said they WERE terrorist... I don't get it.

As well they didn't speak out in anger. They made public calls for death of these two people based on them 'mocking' Muhammad. Simply for putting him in their show actually. It's weird that there are plenty of paintings of Muhammad found in Islamic art (I knew Art History courses would be useful sometime...) As well they are certainly allowed to voice their opinions as long as those opinions are protected under the law. These were NOT protected statements. If you research into the situation what they had done was not protected by free speech.
However they feel that they can bully their way around with death threats and car bombs everytime something goes on they don't like in order to bring about change. Well, I'll repeat, if they hate it enough to call for change then they can GTFO.

The 'societal changes' you speak about will be brought about by Americans for the perceived better of ALL of America. Americans enjoy their freedoms very much and the Muslims are trying to take them away when it comes to Islam... I highly doubt this is an American change therefore it does not fall under your definition. Unless of course the Muslims who call for change somehow get a majority.

They aren't my values, and I'm not moving anywhere regardless of how much you curse at me, but I would risk my life protecting your right to do so.

Don't even give me that non-sense. I assume your a soldier from your statement? Great, I'm from Canada and I've enlisted too. In fact the majority of my family has.

If you think that the Muslims were within their rights to call for the death of these two cartoonist or van Gogh then yeah, you do fall into the category of GTFO of the country. Eventually these people will push the Americans too far and something will snap. I don't think it's going to end well for these people.
 
  • #77
zomgwtf said:
Uhmmm a few posts back you said they WERE terrorist... I don't get it.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you mean this...
Huckleberry said:
America is home to millions of Muslim people, and not all Muslim people, even angry Muslims, support terrorism.
...then hopefully you can see I was not calling angry Muslims terrorists. I have been cautioning against making that correlation because it appeared to me that you believe angry Muslims are terrorists.

As well they didn't speak out in anger. They made public calls for death of these two people based on them 'mocking' Muhammad. Simply for putting him in their show actually. It's weird that there are plenty of paintings of Muhammad found in Islamic art (I knew Art History courses would be useful sometime...) As well they are certainly allowed to voice their opinions as long as those opinions are protected under the law. These were NOT protected statements. If you research into the situation what they had done was not protected by free speech.
However they feel that they can bully their way around with death threats and car bombs everytime something goes on they don't like in order to bring about change. Well, I'll repeat, if they hate it enough to call for change then they can GTFO.

If RevolutionMuslim made death threats then they have broken the law and would have been arrested. Can you show me any clear death threats? I don't doubt RevolutionMuslim would be pleased if someone used violence against Comedy Central or the creators of South Park, but they claim that is not their intention. (In your above paragraph I'm assuming you mean RevolutionMuslim every time you refer to they or them.)

They can call for change as much as they like, as can any Muslim or other citizen. There's nothing illegal about calling for change. What they can't do legally is use violence or the threat of violence. If it can be proven that they did this then they should be prosecuted for their actions. They shouldn't be prosecuted for public paranoia (a witch hunt).

The 'societal changes' you speak about will be brought about by Americans for the perceived better of ALL of America. Americans enjoy their freedoms very much and the Muslims are trying to take them away when it comes to Islam... I highly doubt this is an American change therefore it does not fall under your definition. Unless of course the Muslims who call for change somehow get a majority.
(Here in this paragraph you are talking about Muslims as a whole, which is a different subject, to me at least, from the one in the paragraph before.)

If the US has a single set of social values that represents all its citizens then it would be the US Constitution. From state to state and community to community there can be large differences in how society chooses to live. Muslims are as much a part of their communities as any citizen, and their opinions affect the outcome of US social values. It isn't an 'us against them' scenario. I don't know what an "American change" means in this context unless Muslims are not included as a part of the larger group of Americans.

Don't even give me that non-sense. I assume your a soldier from your statement? Great, I'm from Canada and I've enlisted too. In fact the majority of my family has.
That non-sense you are talking about is a part of the US Constitution. Everyone who serves in the US military swears to protect it from enemies, foreign and domestic. If freedom of speech and religious freedom are incompatable with any individual, Muslim or otherwise, then their illegal actions will make them an enemy of the state. There is no democracy without equality. I do not support death threats to stem free speech, nor do I support marginalization and disenfrachisement of Muslims because of their religion.

If you think that the Muslims were within their rights to call for the death of these two cartoonist or van Gogh then yeah, you do fall into the category of GTFO of the country. Eventually these people will push the Americans too far and something will snap. I don't think it's going to end well for these people.
RevolutionMuslim is a small group with an extremist leader. They have about 20 members. It isn't clear to me that RevolutionMuslim called for the death of anyone, and even if they had, they do not speak for the whole of Islam no matter how many hateful posts they make.
 
  • #78
Borg said:
Yes they mock every religion's symbols...

Why?!...


The attempted bombing in New York was wrong but, it is equally sickening when Sunni and Shiite are blowing up each others mosques. Where is the logic there? In your analogy, this is like watching a family shoot at each other.

Actually, I’ll go crazy laughing if they mock this, or the terrorists but Mohammed!


That's not a home that I would care to visit...

:smile: Are you sure you're* not in the middle of that home already!

* Of course I'm not referring to you personally by saying that, you know what I mean :biggrin:
 
  • #79
Borg said:
Yes they mock every religion's symbols...
drizzle said:
Why?!...
I'm not a writer for Comedy Central. You would need to ask them. I've only seen the show once or twice so my guess would be that religious hypocrisy makes an easy target.

Borg said:
The attempted bombing in New York was wrong but, it is equally sickening when Sunni and Shiite are blowing up each others mosques. Where is the logic there? In your analogy, this is like watching a family shoot at each other.
drizzle said:
Actually, I’ll go crazy laughing if they mock this, or the terrorists but Mohammed!
There seem to be some South Park experts here. Maybe one of them knows of an episode where it's been done already. While you may find it funny, are you sure that there wouldn't be some backlash over an episode like that?

Borg said:
That's not a home that I would care to visit.
drizzle said:
:smile: Are you sure you're* not in the middle of that home already!

* Of course I'm not referring to you personally by saying that, you know what I mean :biggrin:

No I'm not sure what you mean (sorry, I'm a little slow sometimes :rolleyes:). I'm guessing that you think that the US is full of shootings from the abundance of personal weapons here. I don't know if you've lived here. If not, the US is probably very different from what you're thinking.
 
  • #80
If RevolutionMuslim had only posted something about how offensive the cartoon was and warned of likely consequences, I agree, it would not be a threat. However, after doing this, they poted the home addresses of the south park creators along with a picture of a man with a knife in his head. I would say this constitutes a veiled threat, as it their intent seems clear to threaten them without doing so in the strict legal sense.

It's kind of like me saying, well, you have to understand that for legal purposes, what I'm about to say to you is purely hypothetical and in no way constitutes a genuine threat, but if you come around here again, I will slit your throat.

The meaning is clear.
 
  • #82
As long as we have drones dealing death from above, let people get pissed about cartoons. If cartoons are your standard of outrage, but you're trying to make a car bomb with commerical fireworks, I feel safer already.
 
  • #83
Cartoonist against censorship and backing down when threatened are responding to the fundamentalist Muslims giving the threats.

Everyone is invited to participate in the response which will be made for display on May 20th. I wonder if this will result in even more death threats being made... perhaps more violence I'm not sure.

http://www.drawmuhammadday.com/

I kind of have a bad feeling about this...
 
  • #85
Yikes... I have to be honest, I write some fiction, and I am VERY careful not to anger Muslims. I do not have the same concern for my fellow Jews or atheists/agnostics, Christians, or anyone else. So, in that sense, while I admire Matt and Trey, I wouldn't make the same choice; I want to live in peace too much for that.

I would say that makes this a relatively effective terrorist tactic, and I recognize my own moral cowardice at least.
 
  • #86
Thought I heard something else from the crowd other than 'god is great', my mistake.
 
  • #87
mheslep said:
Thought I heard something else from the crowd other than 'god is great', my mistake.

It's possible all I could make out was chants of ''Takbir'' which is just allah akbar repeated by the crowd. You might have heard something else in there though, I don't undertsand Arabic that much :-p and I don't understand Swedish either.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top