Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Don’t Let the Islamo-Fascists Kill the Right to Free Speech

Don’t Let the Islamo-Fascists Kill the Right to Free Speech

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Some peacenik types, practiced in the art of highly selective observation and quotation, bleat that all that America or the West need do to defuse the threat of Islamic terrorism is forbear from ever getting involved militarily in conflicts overseas.

It’s not that the Islamo-fascists hate our culture or freedom, nor that they wish and strive for a global caliphate. After all, don’t the Bin Ladens of the world even announce explicitly on their videotapes that, hey, all you have to do is throw in the towel in your war against us and all will be well? And we all know what credible truth-tellers the mass-murdering terrorists are.

Sure, the only problem is our foreign policy, not our culture and freedoms; but only, it seems, so long as our culture and freedoms don’t permit publication of the wrong cartoons. Per the most recent update of the situation published by The New York Times, thousands of Palestinians are joining other Muslims around the world in demonstrations against “European nations” that allow the printing of cartoons waxing satiric about Islam or Mohammed. Some have called for beheadings of the cartoonists and others responsible.

While the huge rally here in Gaza was peaceful — and many leaders warned against violence — some of the oratory was not.

“We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible,” one preacher at the al-Omari mosque here told worshippers during Friday prayers, according to wire service reports. Other demonstrators called for severing the hands of the cartoonists who drew the pictures, unflattering to Muhammad and to Islam.

The cartoons have outraged Muslims as being provocative and anti-Muslim, while many Europeans have defended their publication under the right to free speech. One cartoon depicts Muhammad, the founder of Islam, with a turban in the shape of a bomb.

Since being published in Denmark in September, the cartoons have been reprinted in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, as well as in Jordan. Editors at the papers in France and Jordan were fired.

So, it’s all about foreign policy? Tell it to the recipients of the latest Islamo-fascist death threats.

Guess all we and the Europeans need to do is actually two things: 1) never respond to any national security threats that transpire beyond our borders, even if the day-after-tomorrow consequence of the threat is something that may well transpire within our borders; and 2) outlaw cartooning (and also outlaw, as we’ve learned, documentaries critical of Islamo-fascism, the making of which can also get you killed; might as well add Salmon Rushdie novels to the list while we’re at it).

When a non-psychotic Westerner is offended by a cultural effluence, he organizes a boycott, holds forth at the water fountain, or, these days, blogs. Chopping off the heads of those you disagree with is not generally entertained as a reasonable option. What does this disparity of response tell us about cultural differences?

Sure, the vast majority of Muslims would never actually sneak up on and behead anybody, and let’s assume that most in fact do not agree with beheading as a way of answering criticisms. But why then aren’t the killers who do advocate such courses of action booed off the stages at the mass rallies and prayer services? Why aren’t there immediate and even more massive rallies by Muslims against such calls for beheadings than are being held against…cartooning? Why is editorial cartooning, or criticism of Islam generally, whether in bad taste or not, thus implicitly regarded as more offensive than murder, and by so many Muslims? Or is it that so many Muslims are too afraid of the terrorists in their midst to dare protest the thuggery?

Whatever the full explanation may be, anyone who reads these stories and continues to claim that murderous Islamo-fascist antipathy toward the West and America is all or mostly about foreign policy, and would evaporate if only the governments of the West never acted militarily overseas, is not being altogether honest.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been posting about the Steve Kubby case, Google perfidy, and other burning issues of the day.

Powered by

About David M. Brown

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    A truly excellent piece here, David. I couldn’t possibly agree more.

    I think what this tense situation is teaching us is that the Lefties who normally side with Europe in its competition with America are ready to abandon their worship of the continent’s welfare states to voice compassion for all the poor, peace-loving Islamofascists … er, Muslims … who were offended by the exercise of free speech.

    Of course, liberals are used to free speech meaning only one thing and going only one way, so it’s no surprise.

  • David M. Brown

    Thanks Mark.

    Those who reprinted the cartoons in Europe after they were first published, as an act of defiance against the Islamo-fascists, deserve credit. Those who are firing editors for having published the cartoons or who are seeking to placate the Islamo-fascists with weasel-worded apologies are teaching the terrorists that the recent demonstrations and death threats are one effective way to make inroads against Western liberties and political will.

    BTW, a technical point re the quoted passage. At least as I see it in my browser, the Google ads make it hard to know where the indented passage from NYT ends and my renewed commentary begins. The paragraph starting “Since being published in Denmark…” is still part of the NYT article. “So, it’s all about foreign policy?” is the start of my commentary.

  • http://jeliel3.blogspot.com JELIEL³

    Actually I’m a big lefty and trust me when I say that all those protesters can suck it as far as I’m concerned. They need to be dragged into the 21st century. Kicking and screaming if needed.

  • Gordon Hauptfleisch

    Great piece–well said. I can’t believe the absurdity of the whole situation. “I’m not a real Islamo-Fascist cartoon, but I play one on TV.”

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    My apologies to you then, Jeliel. It’s good to know that not all “big Lefties” have drunk the Kool-Aid, if you’ll excuse that abused cliche. =)

  • Frank Denbar

    In the past and the present jokes in very bad taste were told also printed about Jesus Christ that he is gay or homosexual simply because he was always in the company of his apostles or disciples, now whomever said it or printed it being Christians or any other religion, no one went on the rampage burning International bldgs.
    such as Embassies, Consulates, and their Flags.
    Whomever those smallminded lowdown subhumans were, said Jesus Christ had a girlfriend, her name was mary Magdelene, those subhumans are not to be counted as people, if they were they wont be saying or printing extra sensitive comments involving religous beliefs, one does not make jokes or comments in bad taste no matter what or
    whose religion it is.

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    Take a look at these demonstrating guys, in the middle of London, flourishing placards advising fellow Muslims to “exterminate,” “massacre,” and “exterminate” “those who slander Islam.” Why haven’t they been arrested for inciting murder?

    What would the slander be? “Islam as often interpreted and practiced today encourages certain loser types to go around advocating the murders of those who criticize Islam! It’s true!” “Huh?? Slander! Where’s your evidence! Exterminate you, man! Only infidels should be decapitated, in our view! You call that murder??? Somebody kill this guy for slandering our religion!”

    If the above link to the photo at Yahoo has become kaput by the time you’re reading this, mayhap this Daily Pundit page with the photo will still be live.

    Perhaps the military should lay off the mortar rounds and just go into cartoon production?

  • http://www.davidmbrown.com David M. Brown

    Okay, Frank. So who was Christ’s girlfriend, then?

  • David M. Brown

    See also my comment (#20), in the thread about Vijay Sappani glaringly wrong-headed article, “The Hypocrisy of the Cartoon Controversy.”

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    “Knappster” Tom Knapp can’t link to this article without perversely leaping to the defense of those who rationalize and support the Islamo-fascist killers–and ignoring, among sundry other facts, the fact that the death threats are of cartoonists who do not run U.S. foreign policy. (See ping above.)

    No amount of evidence will dissuade such self-blindered persons, because they’re determined not to see the evidence. Knapp, again, lays the support for Islamo-fascism entirely on the doorstep of U.S. foreign policy–as if only by surrendering to mass murderers and exponents of installing Islamo-fascist regimes do you get mass murderers to drop their ambitions.

    The exact same rationalizations and counsels of surrender by the West could have been wielded in defense of the Nazis. “Try to understand where the Nazis are coming from…if only we’d stop resisting their invasions and murders, they’d stop the invasions and murders! No, really!”

    For such as Knapp, Islamo-fascist killers and their rationalizers are mere determined robots; the killers are preordained to be with us, like “the poor.” And no matter what the killers and their defenders say, no matter they mean, no matter what kind of polities they advocate, it’s all just a software program churning out an automated response to “American foreign policy.” I find such assumptions implausible. Ideas and motives do count, and the ideas these guys tout, explicitly Islamic in origin, and the vile motives they and those who rationalize for them exhibit, are extant and available for observation for anyone who does wish to observe.

    As an addendum and qualification, since it might be difficult for some to grasp on their own: My notation of the obvious fact that the Islamo-fascism is not a mere corollary of “American foreign policy” does not imply my endorsement of everything the U.S. has done in foreign policy. Obviously, though, the war on Islamo-terrorism must be fought; because, equally obviously, the Islamo-terrorists and the states that have been sponsoring them are waging it. Obviously.

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    Robert Bidinotto comments at the Bidinotto blog.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    David,

    Your comment above incorporates possibly the hands-down most piss-poor logic, combined with the most egregious — and since I know you’re not stupid, apparently purposeful — mischaracterization I’ve ever read of anything I’ve ever written.

    You wrote:

    “Knapp, again, lays the support for Islamo-fascism entirely on the doorstep of U.S. foreign policy” — David M. Brown

    In response to:

    “One of those reasons [for popular support of Islamist terrorists] is US foreign policy, especially since 1990.”

    Question: How does “one reason” translate to “entirely?”

    Answer: It doesn’t.

    I have never claimed that Islamism (of any variety, be it Sunni/Wahabe or Shiite, theocratic or fascistic) is a “corollary of US foreign policy.” As a matter of fact, I specifically note that there will always be assholes with those ideas — that’s what I meant by “we will always have them with us.”

    What I have claimed is that unsound US foreign policy can, and does, arouse mass support for the assholes. It’s not the only thing that does (and some of the things that do are not themselves bad things or things which should be sacrificed to appease either the assholes or their supporters — the existence of Israel, for example). It is, however, one of the things that does, and one of the more significant things that does.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    Bidinotto summing up his blog:

    Those intellectuals who spread the cancer of moral and cultural relativism are now seeing its consequence in the world. If Western civilization is “no better” than any other culture, then the barbarian atavists of radical Islam are “no worse” than we are. And if that is true, we have no moral right to try to oppose their onslaughts and demands.

    The barbarian hordes of radical Islam are actually no stronger than Western enablers have helped them to become. Having sewn the seeds of multiculturalism for decades, Europe is now reaping the deadly whirlwind of millions of jihadists in its midst (see the photos above).

    Europe’s fate will be ours if we don’t reject the same philosophical relativism that has rendered it almost helpless before Islamist thugs.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    David,

    I’m going to ask you to think for just a minute. Just what is an Islamo-fascist? Are you going to be able to rid the world of Islamo-fascists?

    Ther are 1½ billion Moslems in the world. Are they all Islamo-fascists? If so, would you kill off 1½ billion people?

    There is a very specific group of people with intents to take over Islam and your ranting only furthers their purpose. They are known as the Wahhabi and their capital is Riyadh. They are yet a minority within their own religion.

    The trick here is to dissuade other Moslems from following this bunch of mad fanatics.

    Taske the trouble to study the history of the Arab people and the Moslem religion. You’ll discover that there is no such thing as an Islamo-fascist. Period.

  • Mariam

    I think some elements of the Muslim community have over-reacted but most Muslims either do not care or can brush it off. I do find it hypocritical that Western newspapers can publish pictures which depict Muslims in a way that they would not dare to depict other minorities, especially Jews. Really, how is the picture of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban really any different to that of “The Eternal Jew” type of caricature? Both types of cartoons contain an element of truth in them yet at the same time, they are both efforts at a coarse stereotyping which seeks to further alienate the community being targeted. Of course a child growing up seeing these cartoons is going to have a negative reaction everytime he sees a bearded Muslim man (or turbaned Sikh). That said, newspapers in Muslim countries need to clean up their own act and stop publishing the stereotypcially anti-Jewish caricatures(big nose, fat stomach, hands on the money bags etc) too.

  • firdooze

    To tell you the truth, I feel sad for ANY religion that has been mocked especially by the media. I am a believer of free speech, but to what extent does free speech hold? Think about that….

    Will there be a time when anyone wants to say anything they want and get away with it? Yes it’s funny on the surface but the implications that underlie the “free speech/expression” could bring more harm then good. Look at the big picture for heaven sake! Do you want to live in a world where people can mock you or what you believe in, belittle your family or your friends? Or burn the bible/koran in your face and get away with it? What about mocking your birth country? What if one day some Asian dude comes out to the media and say nasty stuffs about the Europeans that you’d disagree with totally?

    Please! Free speech has its limits. Issues that are sensitive should be dealt with in a subtle way. I’m not addressing to the westerners only but to the world, as humans. Is it creative to deal with an issue with mocking ways? Is it more creative to deal with the issue in a more politically/societally correct way? For god sakes that’s the reason why Universities around the world offer political science for a degree.

    In my honest opinion, I condemn the terrorist attacks done by some of the Muslims. To say that Islam is not the only one with terrorists (compared with KKKs and what nots) is just one bull crap and another reason for them to create violence. But in true nature, I must agree that these actions are undertaken by minorities. These people are mislead to think that “jihad” is to kill. Islam by itself a very humane way of life. One have to understand and know more about a religion to comment.

    I’m not very sure about this but I must say that the media is gaining a lot from this she-bang. And it’s really have been blown over proportion: 1st by them knowing that it will cause chaos and still going ahead publishing the pictures. 2nd by making lots of fuss and creating much of an issue about it. 3rd Gaining all the credits and your penny worth of self-induced-troubled news which to me is rediculous. I say its folly.

    I’m not all out for full media censorship. But a certain degree of publishing ethics should be imposed, not only to western countries but everywhere.

  • Bliffle

    “But a certain degree of publishing ethics should be imposed, not only to western countries but everywhere.”

    Imposed? So you are in favor of full media censorship?

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    “I’m not all out for full media censorship. But a certain degree of publishing ethics should be imposed, not only to western countries but everywhere.”

    Let me get this straight, firdoozle. The cartoons, though tepid as satire, are said to be incendiary because they express the link between radical Islamist doctrine and murdering people. Islamist killers, those who rationalize the deeds of Islamist killers, and those who want to pretend that there is no connection whatever between the religious ideas and the murders, all heartily dislike seeing that link made. And, as a result of the publication of the cartoons (i.e., publication of criticism of murderous Islamism), many radical Islamists are advocating the murder and “extermination” of the cartoonists and others responsible.

    So…you’re blaming the messengers being threatened with death…and saying the only solution is to censor those who would criticize the killers and their religious rationalizations? You regard freedom of speech as more problematic than widespread threatening of one’s critics with death? And who would be the censors imposing these “ethics” on publishers? Would you be one of those censors, incorporating surrender to Islamo-fascist bullying into the regulations governing our speech?

    Pass. I’m going to keep my freedom of speech. I have a right to it, and moreover, it’s a salutary and necessary foundation of all the other benefits of a free society.

    There is no way to know in advance which particular criticism of murder-rationalizing Islamism is going to be regarded as “too” provocative. What we do know for sure is that all such criticism is offensive to those who wish no one to note the fact that Islam is being enlisted to such ends. The Danish cartoons did not constitute the first observation of the link between the religious rationalizations and the consequent murders.

    The issue here isn’t “bad taste” or the alleged “excesses” of those who undertake the criticism, satirical or otherwise, of any cultural phenomenon. Differences of opinion about content as well as form of discussion are endemic whenever such discussion is allowed to occur. If every time murderous killers and their allies were offended, the rest of us must agree to stop offending them, we would in fact giving the killers a green light to proceed. That is not ethical at all.

    Sure, radical Islamist killers and those who cheer them on “hate our freedom,” a much-maligned but true observation. But what kind of solution can it be to give up that freedom? Yes, of course one avoids conflict if one simply surrenders. But one doesn’t avoid the consequences of that surrender.

  • firdooze

    Brownie: “Islamist killers, those who rationalize the deeds of Islamist killers, and those who want to pretend that there is no connection whatever between the religious ideas and the murders, all heartily dislike seeing that link made.”

    Seriously, where in the Koran says that you can kill others, even if it they’re your ENEMY? Terrorist, like the KKK, Army of God evolve due to supression. And terrorist groups use ‘terror’ to try to crumble governments and establishments. They are using Islam just as a tool to ‘recruit’ unweary Muslims into thinking that dying in these acts brings them to heaven. But the fact is HELL NO! But they don’t know that. So you can’t blame a religion for killing innocent people. Islam is just a religion that is in the middle of all this assholes trying to harm not only innocent people but tarnishing an innocent religion. Thus, is it still justifiable to depecit Mohammad in those pictures? I’m afraid no!

    In fact, Muslim communities around the world condemn such terrorists acts. Don’t they tell you that in the countries that you stay? Everytime something bad happens, the fingers will be pointing at the religion. But no where in the religion advocates such acts. And people who are ashamed of such acts comes up to the pedestrial and apologize. BUt somehow these apologies didn’t make it to some countries for god knows why? Ever wondered?

    I too feel ashamed everytime something happens and it was later dicovered its a work of some ass Muslims. But they’re are doing it for what they think is RELIGION. But they thought wrong.

    “So…you’re blaming the messengers being threatened with death…and saying the only solution is to censor those who would criticize the killers and their religious rationalizations? You regard freedom of speech as more problematic than widespread threatening of one’s critics with death?”

    But does the depicting of the pictures doing any good at the moment? OR even in the future? Everytime you depict a picture, you get 1.3B Muslims feeling angry. Who knows it’ll fuel the terrorist even further, giving them another lame reason to strike? You think that somehow these pictures can actually help irradicate “Islamic” radicals? Wishful thinking I must say.

    It’s up to the governments to impose their degree of censorship. Because organizations don’t have the power like goverments do.

  • Kelder

    firdooze, I take offense in people using the letter M, especially for religious names. Please stop using that letter M or I will be forced to make statements about a holy war and burn your nation’s embassy.

    I hope you realize that nothing remains once you censor everything that might offend or hurt other people.

    If people do not like the concept of free speech, they are invited to stop using it.

  • http://www.davidmbrown.com David M. Brown

    Firdoozle, I don’t think you’ve answered me on the question of censorship.

    One fights bad ideas with good ideas. That involves stating what the bad ideas are. If it offends the purveyors of bad ideas to ever hear ideas opposed to theirs, and they’ll kill you for it, what is our “choice” in the matter? Walk around with masking tape on our mouths? Never opine at all? Bind our hands? Your counsel is actually a counsel of surrender to evil. I say that surrender to evil is wrong.

    You aver that many Muslims condemn terrorism. I don’t dispute that. So I don’t know what that part of your answer is in response to. Still, where are the mass demonstrations against beheading cartoonists, even larger than the demonstrations against…cartoons? Are these counter-demonstrations being hidden from the West? Are they harder to see with the cameras? Send us your pictures of the counter-demonstrations and their placards.

    You also write, “Seriously, where in the Koran says that you can kill others, even if it they’re your ENEMY?”

    Oh, I think there’s stuff in the Koran that can be read as a warrant to kill the unbeliever.

    The passages may be ambiguous. Islam is like any other religion: the text is only a part of what shapes beliefs and practices. Texts are interpreted in different ways; cultures, ideas and habits can develop in different ways, given the same sacred and foundational text. Does it matter culturally if the text says “The cat is on the hat,” but a certain influential sect of the religion reads that to mean, “Ah ha. We must kill the unbeliever”?

    Let’s say there are at least two sects in modern Islam, those who believe in terrorism and those who don’t. I don’t find it very implausible that the terrorists find what they need to find in passages like the following from the Koran, clarifying any ambiguities in the way that best helps them justify what they do. (Note, for example, per passage 4.93 below that the punishment for any believer who kills a believer intentionally is hell; from which one could easily draw the lesson, it’s not as big a deal to kill an unbeliever intentionally.)

    PASSAGES FROM THE KORAN:

    THe Cow

    • [2.90] Evil is that for which they have sold their souls– that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases; so they have made themselves deserving of wrath upon wrath, and there is a disgraceful punishment for the unbelievers.

    [2.104] O you who believe! do not say Raina and say Unzurna and listen, and for the unbelievers there is a painful chastisement.

    [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

    [2.254] O you who believe! spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers– they are the unjust.

    The Family of Imran

    [3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

    [3.32] Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

    The Women

    [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

    [4.93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.

    The Immunity

    [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

    The Spider

    [29.68] And who is more unjust than one who forges a lie against Allah, or gives the lie to the truth when it has come to him? Will not in hell be the abode of the unbelievers?

    [58.5] Surely those who act in opposition to Allah and His Apostle shall be laid down prostrate as those before them were laid down prostrate; and indeed We have revealed clear communications, and the unbelievers shall have an abasing chastisement.

    Nuh

    1. [71.26] And Nuh said: My Lord! leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers….

    ###

  • SB

    I support these cartoons and am tired of Muslims attempting to control my own freedoms of religion or speech. I am especially concerned about how Muslims (mainly those that follow strict Islamic laws) treat woman. Personally, this last points makes me feel that a great majority of Muslims are bigots and ignorant to the rights of others. When most Muslim women are given the “choice” to do X or Z, then I will be more open to listing to Muslims concerns about cartoons.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Everytime you depict a picture, you get 1.3B Muslims feeling angry.

    First we hear that the extremists are just a tiny fringe minority. Now we’re told their number is 1.3 billion!

    So you can’t blame a religion for killing innocent people. Islam is just a religion that is in the middle of all this assholes trying to harm not only innocent people but tarnishing an innocent religion. Thus, is it still justifiable to depecit Mohammad in those pictures? I’m afraid no!

    In this case it was Mohammed (a violent military man, not a peaceful prophet) who set the example. He was what you might call the ur-asshole of Islam. The cartoon I’d like to see is one of Mohammed with an anus for a mouth, spewing his Koranic shit all over this planet that is so much the worse off for him having existed.

  • Keith Rodgers

    I know Tom Knapp. Tom Knapp is no hugger of Islamo-fascists.

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    Tom Knapp is all over the anarcho-map. Sometimes he’s semi-reasonable, other times he’s making common cause with and ballyhooing the worst ravings of such slathering loons as Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com. Whether Knapp has a habit of hugging Islamo-scum or not is irrelevant to whether he’s exercising common sense on any particular question. I grant that in his more lucid moments he can be read without too much extra bourbon.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Yes it’s funny on the surface but the implications that underlie the “free speech/expression” could bring more harm then good.

    Firdooze, “implications” don’t “underlie” things, implications are assumptions about what might be expected to follow from things. When people display convoluted use of language like you do, it is a clear outward manifestation of the muddled thinking that produces it. It’s no wonder you can claim to believe in free speech, while at the same time advocating total government censorship of speech!

    Look at the big picture for heaven sake! Do you want to live in a world where people can mock you or what you believe in,

    Yes.

    belittle your family or your friends?

    Yes.

    Or burn the bible/koran in your face and get away with it?

    Most definitely YES!

    You’re the one who needs to look at the big picture, and realize the stultifying implications of the government trying to draw an arbitrary line beyond which freedom to criticize and make fun of will not be allowed.

    You started by asking:

    Will there be a time when anyone wants to say anything they want and get away with it?

    No. There is already a very OBJECTIVE and non-arbitrary, unmoveable line drawn. You cannot verbally assault a person or persons with threats of death or PHYSICAL injury. Too bad this is not enforced in Britain and elsewhere against those who carry placards calling for death to anyone who criticizes Mohammed!

  • Shane

    Freedom of speech is the very bedrock of Western civilisation, drawn from the spilt blood of countless millions across the centuries. We must not give this birthright away to the first extremist who starts frothing at the mouth.

    Islamo fascists systematically assume they have a god given obligation to threaten, maim, and murder in order to stifle any whisper of contrary opinion to their own narrow, personal, dogma. Whether this is ‘in-house’ (Sunni v. Shiite) or against external political or religious ideologies and individuals.

    To the ones currently sharpening the axes: it doesn’t stop where you leave it(or think you leave it), but merely paves the way for the next set of axe wielding madmen to take away yet more liberties. But perhaps , the next time it will be liberties that you yourself hold dear.