More censorship in the West

Submitted by Pat on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 9:18am

Cartoon by threatened Danish artist It is my strong and long-standing policy to stand in solidarity with those who are censored as a result of fear or threats of violence or prosecution. I did so when the subject was threats by radical Islamists against Dutch cartoonists who posted offensive drawings of Mohammed, and I did so when the subject was threats of "human rights" prosecutions against a Muslim group who published offensive drawings of Jews.

Last week, as most know by now, Comedy Central "bleeped" several words as a result of a "prediction" of violence posted on a video blog by a young idiot New Yorker who converted to Islam. The details are available through Powerline. Comedy Central should be ashamed of itself. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone promise to have something really good next week on South Park. They're not ones to take b.s. like this lying down, so I imagine they'll have something really special to see. I urge everyone to tune in.

Meanwhile, you should be aware that one of the original Danish cartoonists has now been fired... er, put on "indefinite leave". While the paper won't say why he's being let go, the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, says he believes the paper is concerned over their security, particularly after the recent arrest of two men in Chicago charged with planning to attack the paper, Jyllands-Posten.

On May 20, 2010, we will be participating in the First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammed day (idea originated here. I invite all of our bloggers, guest bloggers, and commenters to draw a depiction of Mohammed, and we will post them all.

As with all publications at Stubborn Facts of offensive cartoons or other artwork, the intent is not to offend the peaceful followers of any religion, but to fight back against those who seek to prohibit or deter, through violence, threats of violence, or legal proceedings, the exercise of our fundamental freedom of speech. If we do not stand united in defense of the freedom of speech, even "offensive" speech, then we will soon lose both that freedom and many others. To anyone who is offended by the images I have posted or linked here, I ask that you direct your anger to those truly responsible, the members of your religion who, in its name, threaten violence or legal action in an attempt to censor us. When those threats cease, I will join you in ASKING cartoonists and comedians to be more polite and respectful towards ALL religions. We will not be intimidated by threats. More threats will be met with more insults and more derision, until you must either kill us all or adapt your worldview to understand that you don't have a right to control what others do, and that violence is not an appropriate response to speech and cartoons.

Pat's blog

Add new comment

1823 reads

Media Bias

May I be the first to say

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 1:45pm.

May I be the first to say bravo....

Jon Stewart missed the point and his F==K you dance, did little. That some radical group in NYC could frighten away Comedy Central is sad and I informed them South Park will now be the only one of their programs I watch....

CC pulled the reruns of 201. It was also pulled from original spot last week by Time Warner.

On another insane note: women on Iran, show your stuff today and let's see if you cause an earthquake.....

Thanks, Max!

Submitted by Pat on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 1:55pm.

Sharpen up your drawing picture and submit something for our Draw Mohammed Day contest! First prize is a free one-year subscription to Stubborn Facts! ;-)

Ditto Max, and double shame on Comedy Central. I wonder, is the

Submitted by Rafique on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 2:24pm.

original version of the episode out somewhere--that is, the one without the bleeps CC put in? Parker and Stone should release it.

If there is one

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 10:52pm.

I'm sure Fox would be glad to run it. I heard that because CC wanted to censor the on-line version as well, South Park refused to post it.

I'm only slightly conflicted on this--not on the need and desire

Submitted by Rafique on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 2:20pm.

to stand firm against those who would threaten free speech, or their supine enablers who nonetheless enjoy the liberties they ostensibly despise, but on the Draw Muhammad day event itself. Althouse makes a serious point about why this event might not be the best idea. Now, I'm conflicted, because I think she makes an interesting point, that this could end up as something in which people go out of their way to offend Muslims, for the sake of offending Muslims, in order to make the nonetheless clear point that freedom of speech gives us that right, and many Muslims who aren't in favor of using violence and terror to intimidate critics of Islam would be caught up in that. The thing is, I don't believe that's the intent of this at all, and much like the solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, and with the heroic Parker and Stone, this is about taking a stand for free speech. This shouldn't be about offending Muslims--and for most clear-headed people, I don't think it is.

My artistic skills are limited, but I'll do what I can--count me in.

Oh, and let me say this again--mad props to Trey and Matt--they're probably the most patriotic and coolest duo on TV right now--and a clear example of how courageous dissent ought to be done.

Shame on Comedy Central, for their lack of consistency, and courage.

It's like this...

Submitted by Pat on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 2:42pm.

Rafique, I understand the argument that Althouse is making, but I ultimately disagree with it. Yes, Islam, properly understood, is a religion of peace. But how many of the hundreds of millions of adherents have that proper understanding? There were an AWFUL lot of people in the Muslim world seen on camera demonstrating, with violence and threats of violence, against the Danish cartoons. The CAIR organization here in our country regularly argues that "free speech" does not include the right to defame any religions or religious figures. I think the evidence fairly strongly suggests that a significant minority, and perhaps a significant majority, of followers of Islam believe that giving offense to religion should be punished, by law or by some other method. To me, the evidence of that is strong enough that I feel comfortable telling the truly peace- and freedom- loving Muslims that it's up to them to stop and protest the members of their religion from pursuing such violent and aggressive stances. Few and far between are organized Muslim groups which issue statements in matters like this to the effect that while they detest what the speaker has to say, they support his right to say it. That attitude is not very prevalent in the Muslim community, or at least I see little evidence that it is.

Thus, I think the only way to stop it, and the only way to protect the security of those who suffer most directly for it (like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is for all of us to stand together and do the same thing, over and over. There's that old American saying: "I despite what you say, but I'll fight to the death to preserve your right to say it." That attitude is a big part of what's made (and kept) America so free over the years. It's time for us to demonstrate that attitude again.

At any rate, as you correctly note, this is in no way intended to offend peaceful adherents of Islam, nor the prophet himself, nor God. It is aimed directly and squarely at those who abuse that religion in pursuit of their own selfish ends or their own small-minded, backwards interpretation of the Koran.

Yeah, you're right--consider me no longer conflicted.

Submitted by Rafique on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 3:15pm.

I think it's clear what's trying to be accomplished here, when our target is properly understood--those who would terrorize critics of a religion for exercising their free speech rights to criticize a religion. It's about taking a stand. Like I said, I'll have to hone my skills, but I'm in.

Well, intended to offend

Submitted by Bobby on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 9:40am.

Well, intended to offend Muslims or not-- having lived among them for quite some time now-- I can assure you that it will do that quite as assuredly as Christians were offended by Serrano's pathetic "Piss Christ." Yes, I understand that Christians reacted to that insult far more responsibly than did (and will) Muslims, and that threats to free speech should not be tolerated. But out of my own sense of etiquette, I obviously won't be participating.

Of course, this isn't an epic freedom of speech issue on the lines of when the ACLU sued to allow the American Nazi Party to burn down ACLU headquarters...

You're on a mission...

Submitted by Pat on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 9:54am.

Bobby, you're on a specific mission on behalf of our country, and were you to participate (and such participation become known), it would hinder (to put it mildly) your ability to perform that mission and promote our interests, so of course you won't participate. The mission comes first, for sure!

I'm certainly open to ideas from someone with your significant exposure to middle eastern Islamic culture (notice how careful I was not to say "Arab," so as not to exclude the Persians, and do the Afghanis consider themselves Persians or Arabs or is Pashtun something else entirely?) about how we might best bring about a change in their culture to understand, at least, our concept of freedom of speech, so that they will stop reacting so violently (or supporting their co-religionists who react violently) to mere speech?

I think that's at least a few

Submitted by Bobby on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:01am.

I think that's at least a few generations and an Islamic-equivalent of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation away. The simple fact is that contemporary Islamic culture values protection and reveration of the Prophet Mohammed more than it values freedom of speech. Yes, of course, in practice all cultures have some kind of limit on freedom of speech -- the Germans ban all Nazi references and Americans won't allow someone to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- it's just that their limits seem (to us) to be so far on the other end of the spectrum, not to mention what we would consider to be a completely disproportionate response (death) for any transgression. Like, we all agree that people under the age of 50 should be allowed to marry, but most Westerners set it at 18 (or maybe 16 in some states), and so we are stunned by the Afghan "standard" of 12. But there you have it. Not justifying it, just explaining it.

Except for those few Arabs and Persians living here and there, Afghans are neither Arab nor Persian. The Tajiks and Hazara speak a form of Farsi (known as Dari), but they are ethnically quite distinct from the Persians and Arabs (Tajiks having believed to have been displaced from what is now Iran by the Persians, and the Hazara believed to be descendants of Genghis Khan's Mongol invaders). The Pashtun, Uzbeks, Balochi, Nuristani, and Turkmen are all ethnically and linguistically quite different from the Persians and Arabs. (The Afghan "Persians," known as the Aymak, are concentrated not far from me in Ghor Province, where they live as nomads. Iranians don't really recognize them as Persian, however, as they are believed to have mixed with the Mongols centuries ago. Pretty much no one thinks they're "Persians" except for the Aymak themselves).

I think that's at least a few

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 4:06pm.

I think that's at least a few generations and an Islamic-equivalent of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation away.

I think an Islamic Martin Luther is called for here...

Martin Luther, and other

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 12:56pm.

Martin Luther, and other protestant leaders of the time, were fanatics. They executed Catholics, desecrated churches, encouraged witch-hunts, and were anti-Semitic. Luther wrote one paper where he called for the houses of Jews to be burned to the ground.

And while Protestants were concerned with persecution in the Church, their biggest problems were with excess and indulgence allowed by corruption. Martin Luther began his crusade when a Dominican Friar, Johann Tetzel was sent to Germany to collect money to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Luther, Calvin, etc. were on the heels of Girolamo Savonarola, who just shortly earlier led Florence to burn books and destroy art to redeem them them from their corruption.

The glorification of the Reformation, and expectation that all Islam needs is a Reformation like we had in the West is a just a gross misunderstanding of history.

And out of all that, Brian...

Submitted by Pat on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 1:57pm.

I'm certain nobody is defending the excesses of either pro- or anti-Catholic zealotry, Brian. But out of all that conflict, probably at least in part because of that conflict, we in the West got to the general cultural understanding that live-and-let-live was the better course of action for all of us. Without Martin Luther, the indulgences and corruptions of the Church would have continued probably for a long time.

Some events can result, historically, in good, even if the events themselves are pretty vile. Do you think Western society today would be better off had we never experienced the Reformation?

Change in the Muslim world WILL result in violence, because the fanatics are willing to use violence to intimidate and control people into adhering to the fanatics' view of the Islamic religion. When movements to, say, stop women from being arrested or stoned or whatever just for having suntans take root in Iran or Syria or wherever, those self-appointed defenders of decency have proven that they will fight back, with violence, against this "decadence." So those who promote greater freedoms are either going to have to defend themselves or adopt an unflinching practice of non-violent resistance of the likes never before seen even in India or the U.S. Deep South.

And who is going to organize that movement? It's going to take a damn brave cleric or group of clerics to stand up and give voice to the oppressed, and to call on the oppressed to resist the backwards, male-dominated terroristic control of the ayatollahs and the bin Ladens and the Taliban. And they're going to have to unify people behind some newer, more modern interpretation of the Koran and Islamic traditions that that put forward by the hate-mongers. That's going to be a reformation of some sort, and it's necessary, and it's not going to be pretty.

I agree with you that there

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 2:46pm.

I agree with you that there can be some reform movement within Islam, but what I'm warning against is making analogies with Western history. Too many people see the Protestant Reformation as an incidental event, that Christianity just happened to have, and Islam just didn't happen to have. And, that it was just a matter of good timing that Christianity had it first.

The Reformation, of course, followed the Renaissance, where -- under the influence of the Catholic Church -- there was an increase in scientific learning, monasticism, and humanism. Christianity in the West was never a theocratic religion -- it was only so in the Byzantine Empire -- saw its purpose as to put a check on the abuses of kings and other secular rulers, and believed in interpretation of the Bible over literalism. The Protestant Reformation was only part of a larger, gradual transformation of society that began at the fall of the Roman Empire.

Islam, going in a different direction -- becoming theocratic -- avoided a lot of the war and conflict within their own countries that was exhibited in the West.

The reason this is important is because people need to have a better understanding of the role of religion in history. People often link the Protestant Reformation to the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, and its dubious to say that. And Islamic reformers will also need to go back and take a fresh look at the roots of Islam and why it diverged from Christianity.

Well, you have a point, Brian, and yeah, Luther's ideas cannot

Submitted by Rafique on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 7:33pm.

be taken in full-his antisemitism is infamous. I was simply talking about the Reformation in general--(and I have to dispute your one-sided view of it), and similar shift in Islam, towards modernism and reason, would be good.

I don't think the Reformation

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 7:52pm.

I don't think the Reformation was a bad development at all -- the Church hierarchy had become corrupt, and it was good thing in the end to remove the Church from political affairs.

But whats important to realize is the Protestants at that time were more intolerant and fanatical than the people they were criticizing. They objected that the Catholic church wasn't strict enough. Far from being a movement for reason and secularism, the Reformation ushered in a new age of religiosity.

So, really, replicating the Protestant Reformation in the Islamic world (accurate to history) would mean that they would be less theocratic, but more fundamentalistic. That's not a good thing necessarily.

Also I disagree with you about modernism, which I don't think particularly has anything to do with reason. The term is meant to apply to the Enlightenment onwards, but is really a 20th century idea, and is used to justify a positivist world view. People of the Enlightenment certainly wouldn't identify with the concept, I think.

Two things: First off, you're right about modernism, I used that

Submitted by Rafique on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 8:31pm.

carelessly.

Yeah, I see your point, although I think the idea of the Reformation was to return to the original principles, and away from the corruption that had arisen, due to tradition. This led to some interesting results, particularly with the Puritans, but I think that's the general idea.

But putting the Reformation

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 10:19pm.

But putting the Reformation in its full context leads to the larger point I was making. There's a standard view of Western history around that at one point the West was just like the Islamic world, under the yoke of religion, and its only when the Church hierarchy broke down that we advanced as a society, embraced science, and created secular governments. The Protestant's role in this version of history is that they challenged the Church, so they're heroes. The great event that transformed western society and freed us from the yoke of religion is called the Reformation.

But thats a very simplistic account of history. The West was not like the Islam, a lot of scientific scholarship during the Renaissance was patronized and encouraged by the Catholic Church, and universities were founded by Catholic monks. Protestantism influenced later developments in the West, but its pretending that Europe was in the dark ages before Protestants came on the scene that bothers me.

Now, your point about the Reformation is that it was a call for a return to original principles. Ok, well, I think we have to really critically examine what the original principles of Islam were and whether it makes sense for Islam to do the same thing.

In fact, although Islam had its Golden Age, Muslims like Protestants were reactionary, but in a more extreme way. The more Islam set into Arabic culture, the more it turned away from science and philosophy. We need to have a discussion on how Christianity and Islam are different.

Its not as if I don't think most Muslims disagree with clerics in the Middle East, I think they do, and I think Islam can undergo a reform movement. I also think it doesn't have to embrace modernism or modern liberalism. They can stay true to what they think are their religious values. But reform in Islam will require a very honest and critical account of history. As of now, the subject is only broached by unsympathetic people like Anne Coulter and Jihad Watch, because its taboo. But it will be necessary.

Thinking it over, I think you're right that there are let's say-

Submitted by Rafique on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 11:38pm.

some compatibility problems, between the Reformation vis-a-vis Christianity, and Islam. I think what I was getting at, was a more general idea of a radical reform movement within Islam, that challenges the standing institutions and clerical orthodoxy. A new order, so to speak. I'm not sure how this will play out, but...

Hey Bobby. Hope things are

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:33pm.

Hey Bobby. Hope things are working out well. I wish I could submit twenty questions for you from Club K to the Grand Bargain, but alas you are not on call......

Do you keep up with your own blog these days?

I agree with your thrust,

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:04pm.

I agree with your thrust, but I am not sure that Islam literally interpreted is "peaceful". I am certainly not one of those "eternal Islamic enemy thesis" advocates like Spencer, but given the behavior of Mohammad himself, I think it rather incredible making mocking pedophilia and racism punishable by death. I think you are being too kind. South Park mauls Priests yet can't take aim at Mohammad approved 6 year old wives and public stoning?

Creators of 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day' drop gag after everybo

Submitted by SimonsWife on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:32am.

Creators of 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day' drop gag after everybody gets angry

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/creators-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-abandon-effort-after-it-becomes-controversial.html

Hey, V!

Submitted by Pat on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:40am.

Sort of ironic, isn't it? I don't think she's being cowardly the way Comedy Central was, though. She seems to just be an artist who had an idea and wanted to spread it among her friends, and was astonished when it went viral. She also strikes me as perhaps being something of a lefty-type who is suddenly aghast to find "conservatives" embracing an idea of hers.

So, are we still on with this? Is she the only one backing out

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 4:04pm.

or have others followed suit? I suspect she didn't realize how big this was going to get, and being a small-time artist, I don't see her as being a coward. I can almost understand the leeriness of finding that others, with potentially different visions of what the protest is to be about, latch on. Still, I think--despite small reservations that keep creeping in, I'm still on board.

Uh-oh...That conflicted feeling is coming back again--It seems

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 4:27pm.

that James Taranto has backed out as well, and, makes another compelling point (via Althouse):

Because the taboo against depictions of Muhammad is not a part of America's common culture. The taboos against flag burning, racial slurs and Holocaust denial are. The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others--Muslims--as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.

Disagree...

Submitted by Pat on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 6:18pm.

Two points.

First, it doesn't actually treat Muslims as being unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. Insiders are poked and prodded and made fun of constantly, and they take it and dish back as appropriate. We rarely have need to go to the extreme of having everybody defend a particular right by exercising it, because most insiders never start resorting to violence. It's part of our very core, respect for the idea that when one group is being threatened unfairly, we all stand up for that group. We expect that the ideal for action is, when they come for the Jews, we all say we're Jewish. When they come for the Muslims, I would expect us all to say we're Muslims. But we record that respect only to those who we feel would do the same for us...

Which brings up point two, which is that, IN FACT, as Bobby points out, Muslim culture is, for the most part, actually outside of ours. It has, as it stands today and is practiced in most parts of the world, refused to recognize fundamental rights and ideas which we in the West take for granted in our daily lives... separation of church and state, equal rights for women, tolerance of homosexuals (i.e., not stoning them or denying that they exist at all in your country), freedom of speech, etc. While there are many Muslims in the U.S. who have managed to adapt those fundamental Western concepts, that is not the Muslim culture as a whole, around the globe. If the "entire Muslim world" is incapable of understanding the distinction between standing up for freedom of speech and intentionally insulting Muslims, isn't that a sign that the "entire Muslim world" really is NOT an "insider" of our culture, and therefore should be treated with different rules anyway?

Good point, and while I wasn't necessarily buying into Taranto's

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 9:47pm.

(or by extension, Althouse's) argument, I do think they kind of have a point when they talk about how some Muslims may unnecessarily be alienated by this event. Again, I don't doubt for an instant that the intent is to offend, but I'm wondering if we're going to have to with the fact that Muslims are going to be offended, and many of those will be the ones we're trying to reach. I agree with you and Bobby that there are certain things uniquely different about Muslim culture, and there are indeed issues within the the Muslim world writ large that need to be addressed, to put it mildly. One of the key issues relevant here is the belief amongst various Muslims that dissent from, or offenses to their religion should be met with terror and violence, and that freedom of speech should be compromised. I obviously oppose this view, and I think we need to stand firm against it, which is why I'm on board.

My only real concern has always been that this could end up becoming a "let's offend Muslims for the sake of fighting for our right to offend Muslims" day, and while I know that's not what it's about, I do have some concern that it may be perceived that way by those whom we seek to persuade.

Not backing out, just trying to wrestle with these issues.

This is absurd (in ref to being considerate)

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 11:37pm.

This is absurd. I have heard terrible jokes about the Holocaust but I never thought of killing the speaker. Denying the Holocaust is also insulting, but Cheney didn't create a hit squad to terminate hate speakers. He was more interested in hate doers...

Yes absurd. Calling a black person the N-word is not making fun of him or mocking him. It is calling him/her lesser and sub-human. Many clerics in the ME do this all the time calling Jews Pigs or Apes. There is nothing South park was lampooning that was racist.

What is pathetic is that Liberals thought flag burning was free speech. Rappers utter the N-word all the time. In fact, an official in Iran called Obama the N-word as reported by PBS, yet media said little. Bobby points out the ACLU defending neo-Nazi desire to burn down an ACLU office.

I don't care if Iranians make a law about the depiction of Mohammad. That is their business. We DON'T readily accord those here the courtesy you suggest. We insult and mock everyone's talking points and symbols. I would suggest the Muslim world think twice about making us their enemy and understand that most of the world does not find Islamic sensibilities the measure of conduct from the treatment of women to the logic of linking moral sentiment to earthquakes.

To put it another way, today Hamas suggested that Westerners were punished by Allah who caused the Icelandic volcano to erupt. Cloaking such nonsense in Mohammad's words, Hamas seeks to protect such idiocy from criticism. Instead, such words and more militant actions invite mockery of the very system of justification that ultimately leads back to Mohammad. This was exactly why in episode 200 Tom Cruise wanted to harvest Mohammad's power and why ME terrorists want Mohammad's power too.

Inconsiderate? More than 300 million died in the name of Mohammad. That was supremely inconsiderate.....

you think?

Uhhmm...you do realize that

Submitted by Jim M on Wed, 04/28/2010 - 7:11am.

Uhhmm...you do realize that the ACLU thing that Bobby posted was a joke article from the Onion?? Talk about joke flying over at 30,000 feet.

LOL

Submitted by Maxtrue on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 11:38am.

Given the stance coming from the ACLU I admit I assumed it was true...LOL

Well, this ain't a joke: No sun for you!

As long as these clerics justify their drivel with the Koran, it is irrational to keep it off-limits. Now if Christian were saying Jesus says freedom is a bad thing, I'm sure South Park would take aim. After all, they certainly explained the association between rabbits and Easter.......

Mohammad

A petition...

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 05/04/2010 - 5:28pm.

All opposed to Islamist intimidation, and the assault on free speech, ought to check this out.

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search

More censorship in the West

Recent comments

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Who's online

Centerfield

The Volokh Conspiracy

Edward Tufte

Scrappleface