This is pretty much what I was thinking when I heard about the Mohammed-South Park debacle. We need enough people to depict Mohammed that threats will be entirely meaningless.
Isn't that a bit like handing out free tickets to paradise? Right now, a fanatic has a choice of a few cartoonists to kill, many of whom might be under police protection. After May 20th, all a fanatic has to do is google for one of thousands or even millions cartoonists, choose one to kill, instant paradise. It might not be a DDoS on the fanatics, it is a DDoS on the police.
In any case it seems very unlikely that fanatics would be deterred by such an action. One could perhaps hope for confusing them (can't decide whom to kill). Or an individual might feel safer in drawing a cartoon, because the random chance of being the selected victim among thousands has become smaller.
Absolutely wrong. These guys thrive on the fear they can stir up. You let them win this relatively small battle, then the larger ones follow.
Every single American lost an amount of freedom when Viacom caved to thuggish threats. I am no longer able to choose to watch South Park. Someone else chooses what I can and cannot watch based on their non-pluralistic religious sensibilities.
"Absolutely wrong. These guys thrive on the fear they can stir up"
They may thrive on it, but I'd guess many of them are primarily motivated by trying to stop what they see as blasphemy. If they can stir up fear while doing so, they'll be happier, because that fear might stop future blasphemy.
However, I don't think its safe to assume that if they aren't causing fear, they'll let the blasphemy slide.
Agree. Caving to threats generates more threats. It's like when you've got a rabid dog snarling at you - you don't get it to go away by throwing meat at it.
I do not want to live in a world where I have to "watch what I say" under the constant threat of death. The recognition of the inalienable right to speak your mind, using property that you own (and that includes your mind and body!), is fundamental to any legitimate government.
Patrick Henry said it best: "Give me liberty or give me death."
But how do you remove the threat? That is, how do you eliminate the crazies?
Granted, I don't know how many crazies there are. Suppose it would go down as in my worst case scenario, with crazies killing cartoonists left and right. Assuming most crazies would be caught after the deed, after a while all crazies might be used up. The cost would be quite high, though (lots of dead cartoonists).
It is a crime threaten people with violence. When someone holds up a sign that says "Death to so-and so!", and they're in America, arrest and prosecute them. And this doesn't go just for Islamic terrorists: anyone that threatens a particular person with violence, incites or instructs people to violate the rights of another particular person or exactly delimited set of persons (such that their rights could be violated independently of government action), they have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.
The point is that you shouldn't have to wait until someone is dead to put a stop to violence, and you don't. The laws we already have do this.
I don't think that's exactly right. The religious doctrine that supports "Behead those that insult Islam/Muhammed" is based on sha'ria - Islamic law. The murder would just be an enforcement of the law, and not a ticket to paradise. (I believe you are thinking of jihad, as best I can remember the only ticket to paradise is not fighting in jihad, but dying in jihad.)
Bit of a quibble, but there's a bit of a difference between a ticket to paradise and simply enforcing religious law on people who do not live under sha'ria or follow that religion.
I don't know much about it, to be honest. But what incentives do the fanatics have to enforce islamic law? Maybe in some cases some spiritual leaders make extra promises? Like for the famous british author who has been living in hiding for years now? (Somehow I am braindead today, can't recall his name).
I feel sad about this whole ordeal. I feel that this is unwarranted provocation. (Disclosure: I am a muslim. And long time hacker news participant.)
Muslims value their prophet a lot, as they also value Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other prophets. The prophets are human, but they excelled in their lives by the choices they made, they served as great examples and deserve respect. Out of respect to prophet Muhammed, muslims would always follow with a short prayer every time they utter his name. Most muslims will refuse to name their children "Muhammed", because they don't want to call/yell their children with the name of the prophet, so they use variations on the name, such as Ahmed, Mehmed, Mustafa.
Dead threats by the fanatics are unfounded and despicable. But, following on this with a provocation like this is equally unfounded and hurtful towards the muslims.
As for people who feel like their freedoms are restricted if they were not allowed to draw and make fun of prophet Muhammed, I have hard time understanding them. Muslims are not dictating them to actively respect him. Not at all. They are just asking them not to go over their way to actively insult his memory.
Instead of this hurtful and easy shot, why don't they all consider practicing their freedom of speech by wearing t-shirts that has bomb pictures and arabic inscriptions on it to the airports? Or, any other way that is offensive to the government?
I take issue with your claim that these "prophets" served as great examples and deserve respect. They may do, they may not do, but I'm not going to self censor just because you claim they do.
This isn't about believing our freedom to draw Mohammed is restricted. It's about believing our freedom is restricted full stop.
Any time anyone says "We threaten to kill anyone who does X", where X is an activity that causes no more harm than hurt feelings, I think we should all take it upon ourselves to do X regardless of whether we would have wanted to or not beforehand.
That's the way to preserve our freedom. To make sure we take (very limited) action to assert that we are not going to be bullied into submission (pun intended).
Very few would ever have drawn a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed if it had not been for these death threats. If no radical muslims existed they wouldn't feel the urge to defend the free world from them, and would have no wish to insult the feelings of tolerant muslims.
I don't think the people behind this look at this as provocation, but as retaliation.
For those that haven't see this: Philip Pullman (who wrote a book titled 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' had a comment on free speech and the right not to be shocked that I think was quite beautiful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=playe...!
"It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on that subject"
What is the line between freedom of speech and hate speech?
Government also has a lot of limitations to freedom of speech.
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
People should be stopped when a particular instruction is given to violate the rights of a specific person.
"People belonging to group <x> are terrible. They are snotty and we should shun them." Statements like these are usually vile examples of collectivism/racism. However, they do not call for the specific violation of another person's rights, and for that reason, must be regarded as protected speech, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them. Remember that the right to advocate a boycott is protected by this same principle.
"John Doe is a member of <x>. It would be no bad thing if someone were to kill him, burn his house down, etc." Statements like these are not (and must not be) regarded as protected speech. They specifically incite people to violent behavior that violates the rights of a specific individual.
or:
"Jack and Jill live at 123 Gumdrop Lane, The North Pole, 12345. Their home phone number is (123) 456-7890. This is not a threat, but I think they are in great danger of something bad happening to them, because they have offended the Great Prophet." This statement, when posted on a web forum, is a specific call to action. Its poster should be prosecuted.
To look at things this way is to do so objectively. The problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is that it criminalizes thought, which is a dangerous power for the government to have. Instead, we must fight actual threats, when someone makes them.
All of us have the right to think whatever we want, to advocate for any position we want, as long as we don't call for the violation of a specific person's rights to life, to property, and to speech using property they own or are allowed to use voluntarily.
One last bit: groups do not have special rights, e.g., ones not possessed by the individuals that make up the group. There is no right to not be offended by a statement that someone makes, and it doesn't matter if you're a group of one or a billion.
I don't think this is a very productive line of action, very agressive and confrontational. This comment does not mean I am defending the actions of an extreme minority who threatened the South Park guys.
However, with freedom of expression comes a responsibility to not offend others. What did the South Park guys hope to achieve by portraying the prophet onscreen? It smacks to me of a cheap publicity stunt, hidden behind the banner of freedom of expression.
If someone finds something offensive, would you go out of your way to deliberately offend them? Why? At the very least it is bullying, at most it is a very agressive act.
The muslims who counter this threats, and acts of violence are just as ignorant, and deserve to not be called Muslim. Look back to Persian (and even Ottoman too, I believe) art, there the prophet is depicted, granted not in a derogatory way.
Live and let live everyone, why do we feel we have to go out of our way to offend others (on both sides)? Are we doing it because we want to exercise the fact that we can? Less of the dick waving, be humble and respectful of others, and their beliefs. Its not hard.
