Draw Mohammad Day

[aleflamedyud]

My concern for Draw Muhammad Day is that you will have little to no effect on discouraging extremists, but will very effectively continue to Otherize Western Muslims, increasing the likelyhood of discrimination and bigotry. I kind of thought it was for granted that you'd probably offend a shit ton of foreign Muslims too, but since my concern with the day has to do with otherizing Western (read: Liberal/Moderate) Muslims I didn't bother discussing how this will affect the blood pressure of Iranian Clerics.

Wait a second, you keep saying western as if this is a locality/culture issue but you're presenting 'western Muslims' as though they're synonymous with 'sane' (as someone else put it) Muslims. You do realise that DMD originated because RevolutionMuslim, an Organisation based in New York City, threatened the creators of South Park, right?

I'm not saying all of US muslims are extremist of course, it's just disingenuous to suggest that Western = Nice and Liberal and Eastern = Ax Crazy Fanatics.

It's more than a little Orientalist, but then again the terrorists themselves are more than a little Occidentalist.

[Xeio]

So Facebook officially deleted the page now. Last time was apparently one of the group administrators accounts being hacked.

Well, there's another reason I don't like Facebook. Though really there are way more reasons to hate them anyway...

[aleflamedyud]

Goddamn it, do American corporations have to be such fucking pussies?

[Oregonaut]

Goddamn it, do American corporations have to be such fucking pussies?

Yes.

The FCC has the right to fine broadcast companies responsible for broadcasting offensive imagery.

Some broadcasters wouldn't show Saving Private Ryan because of the violence and language in the movie.

The federal government has to investigate publicly held companies that engage in offensive activities.

Investors have shown (see: Tiger Woods + Sex Scandal) that many of them will take their money elsewhere if something morally incorrect is occuring.

Mistakes are punished, frequently when they are yet to be proven, simply because it is more convenient.

[aleflamedyud]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

[Kayangelus]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

There are Muslims in America too. To many Americans, moral values include not pissing off others - who are supposedly suffering because of the Americans - just for the sake of pissing them off.

There isn't a single set of American moral values. Every American is allowed to have their own moral values, and fuck what the values of their neighbors are.

[Oregonaut]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

But what exactly are *American* moral values? The values of Muslims in America don't change simply because they are in America. My values (pro-Death with Dignity, Pro-choice, anti-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility) aren't the same as one of my wingmen who is still in the Air Force (anti-death with dignity, pro-choice, pro-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility). Who's values are *American*?

[aleflamedyud]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

But what exactly are *American* moral values? The values of Muslims in America don't change simply because they are in America. My values (pro-Death with Dignity, Pro-choice, anti-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility) aren't the same as one of my wingmen who is still in the Air Force (anti-death with dignity, pro-choice, pro-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility). Who's values are *American*?

How about "don't abridge the freedom of speech", the one so important that we actually wrote in down in the law of the land? Some pissed-off Saudi Arabian who "has to" look at a picture of Muhammad in a Facebook group is not suffering.

[Kayangelus]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

But what exactly are *American* moral values? The values of Muslims in America don't change simply because they are in America. My values (pro-Death with Dignity, Pro-choice, anti-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility) aren't the same as one of my wingmen who is still in the Air Force (anti-death with dignity, pro-choice, pro-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility). Who's values are *American*?

How about "don't abridge the freedom of speech", the one so important that we actually wrote in down in the law of the land? Some pissed-off Saudi Arabian who "has to" look at a picture of Muhammad in a Facebook group is not suffering.

If you look at history, the American moral tends to be "Don't abridge the freedom of speech unless X", where X changes with time, place, and people.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

How about "don't abridge the freedom of speech"

Is facebook abridging anyone's freedom of speech? It is censoring its own users, but it's normal for any publisher to restrict what speech goes through it (and the freedom to perform this sort of private censorship is also an important constitutional right). Since facebook does business in Pakistan, it's reasonable for facebook to comply with Pakistani wishes, regardless of whether facebook finds those wishes to be well-founded.

the one so important that we actually wrote in down in the law of the land?

There are a lot of controversial things in the law of the land.

[aleflamedyud]

How about "don't abridge the freedom of speech"

Is facebook abridging anyone's freedom of speech? It is censoring its own users, but it's normal for any publisher to restrict what speech goes through it (and the freedom to perform this sort of private censorship is also an important constitutional right). Since facebook does business in Pakistan, it's reasonable for facebook to comply with Pakistani wishes, regardless of whether facebook finds those wishes to be well-founded.

the one so important that we actually wrote in down in the law of the land?

There are a lot of controversial things in the law of the land.

There's a difference in both legal force and level of democratic endorsement between mere law and the bloody Constitution.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

As a rule of thumb, perhaps, but there are a lot of things in the Constitution that are controversial and a lot of things in mere statutes that are extremely popular. But that's neither here nor there, as facebook is not transgressing the Constitution.

[Oregonaut]

There's a difference between "morally correct" and "offensive to a bunch of fanatic jerk-offs 4000 miles away". An American corporation, if it is to abide by moral values, ought to abide by *American* moral values, or just go back to its usual amoral self.

But what exactly are *American* moral values? The values of Muslims in America don't change simply because they are in America. My values (pro-Death with Dignity, Pro-choice, anti-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility) aren't the same as one of my wingmen who is still in the Air Force (anti-death with dignity, pro-choice, pro-dickhead, pro-fiscal responsibility). Who's values are *American*?

How about "don't abridge the freedom of speech", the one so important that we actually wrote in down in the law of the land? Some pissed-off Saudi Arabian who "has to" look at a picture of Muhammad in a Facebook group is not suffering.

A specific example to refute what you are saying is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building. That is specifically against freedom of speech, and does abridge the right to say what you want when you want.

The First Amendment does state: "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

However, libel and slander both involve forms of speech, and both have been termed illegal.

I'm not sure where I am coming down on this particular issue, but I also know that it isn't as simple as we'd like.

[Shivari]

There is a huge lack of pictures in this thread.

Spoiler:

If you were wondering, the octopus is a Hindu god.

[Forum Viking]

My problem with this is such:

The people taking the "protesting action" in question (drawing Muhammed) have defined the parameters of the protest based on things that they personally have no interest in. In other words, they have no strong feelings about depictions of Muhammed, and are acting merely to offend those who have an opinion. Technically, they have a right to do this - they are generally within 1st Amendment limits (yes, the 1st Amendment has limits. See Schenck v US and related cases) or corresponding national laws.

But... raising your middle finger is considered offensive by probably more people than would be offended by a depiction of Muhammed. And as a bonus, flipping people off in a public park full of children is even more likely to get your ass kicked than drawing Muhammed is to spark a violent reaction. Why don't you go raise awareness for the right to raise the one-finger salute then? Perhaps because it's your own culture you're dealing with, or maybe because the threat of ass-kicking is so much higher.

EDIT: That is a horrible example that I will not delete because it's quoted below.

That was a sort of extreme example, admittedly, but I think it's fair to conclude that this action and other acts of thinly-veiled religiously/racially inspired "protest" do little to further the cause of anti-censorship. This isn't defiance; it's looking for a fight, and it's getting us nowhere.

[Aikanaro]

My problem with this is such:

The people taking the "protesting action" in question (drawing Muhammed) have defined the parameters of the protest based on things that they personally have no interest in. In other words, they have no strong feelings about depictions of Muhammed, and are acting merely to offend those who have an opinion. Technically, they have a right to do this - they are generally within 1st Amendment limits (yes, the 1st Amendment has limits. See Schenck v US and related cases) or corresponding national laws.

But... raising your middle finger is considered offensive by probably more people than would be offended by a depiction of Muhammed. And as a bonus, flipping people off in a public park full of children is even more likely to get your ass kicked than drawing Muhammed is to spark a violent reaction. Why don't you go raise awareness for the right to raise the one-finger salute then? Perhaps because it's your own culture you're dealing with, or maybe because the threat of ass-kicking is so much higher.

That was a sort of extreme example, admittedly, but I think it's fair to conclude that this action and other acts of thinly-veiled religiously/racially inspired "protest" do little to further the cause of anti-censorship. This isn't defiance; it's looking for a fight, and it's getting us nowhere.

It depends.

If there was one or more organizations out there that released public statements, "Flip people off in public and we will come and kick your ass," that's a threat, and a lot of folks would get pissed off enough to respond to that THREAT on general principle.

[Forum Viking]

A valid point. But just because some people are violently opposed to an idea and a whole lot more are passively offended by it doesn't mean you should push their buttons 'on principle,' particularly when you had no interest whatsoever in the subject until you found out someone disapproved of it.

[Rakysh]

Two things:

Not everywhere is the USA.

See thing 1.

I'm sorry, it just gets on my goat (aha!) when people use the constitution to make international things legal.

[Gelsamel]

Except this was never a constitutional or legal issue in the first place...

[Rakysh]

That's also true. The anti people are more saying it's morally wrong not legally, and the pro people are saying "so?"

I say we let this thread die again.

[Gelsamel]

The anti people are more trying to apply their own morals to people who don't think the same way... I wonder why that seems so familiar.

[Xeio]

That's also true. The anti people are more saying it's morally wrong not legally, and the pro people are saying "so?"

I say we let this thread die again.

Don't worry, I'll make sure to mark my calendar to bump it. Or create a new one, we'll see...

The anti people are more trying to apply their own morals to people who don't think the same way... I wonder why that seems so familiar.

You're dangerously close to pointing out the relationship to someone's mother religion.

In any case, I think we can all agree it's a good thing religions don't make laws (unless they do where you live, in which case, sucks to be you).

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The anti people are more trying to apply their own morals to people who don't think the same way... I wonder why that seems so familiar.

Well, you're trying to get us to agree with you about morals, so it's not at all surprising that this is familiar to you.

[aleflamedyud]

My problem with this is such:

The people taking the "protesting action" in question (drawing Muhammed) have defined the parameters of the protest based on things that they personally have no interest in. In other words, they have no strong feelings about depictions of Muhammed, and are acting merely to offend those who have an opinion. Technically, they have a right to do this - they are generally within 1st Amendment limits (yes, the 1st Amendment has limits. See Schenck v US and related cases) or corresponding national laws.

But... raising your middle finger is considered offensive by probably more people than would be offended by a depiction of Muhammed. And as a bonus, flipping people off in a public park full of children is even more likely to get your ass kicked than drawing Muhammed is to spark a violent reaction. Why don't you go raise awareness for the right to raise the one-finger salute then? Perhaps because it's your own culture you're dealing with, or maybe because the threat of ass-kicking is so much higher.

That was a sort of extreme example, admittedly, but I think it's fair to conclude that this action and other acts of thinly-veiled religiously/racially inspired "protest" do little to further the cause of anti-censorship. This isn't defiance; it's looking for a fight, and it's getting us nowhere.

I've got nothing against Muslims. The instant that death threats and assassination attempts for "those who insult Islam and the Prophet" stop being common, I'll never draw Muhammad again.

Until they do, I'll draw him every year.

[Gelsamel]

The anti people are more trying to apply their own morals to people who don't think the same way... I wonder why that seems so familiar.

Well, you're trying to get us to agree with you about morals, so it's not at all surprising that this is familiar to you.

I may hold different morals than you, but as far as I remember in this thread I've never really presented my morals as an argument for Draw Mohammed Day. In one post I said "It's absolutely not okay to censor people for being dicks" (or something like that) but that isn't relevant to the topic because the person who said that just phrase what they said wrong (and thus weren't claiming that the Draw Mohammed Day should be censored).

As Rakysh said; "pro people are saying "so?"". Other than replying to certain claims the only thing I've really said is "So? I, and others, don't hold the same morals you do". I don't care if people are pissed off or offended by Draw Mohammed Day. And this isn't in the least an argument for why you shouldn't care, just an argument as to why the argument "drawing Mohammed is dickish or immoral" holds as little weight to anyone that doesn't have your exact same moral reasoning as telling a non-Muslim "do not blaspheme Islam because Islamic teachings say not to since it's immoral or you'll be punished by Allah etc." does.

At least you don't say you'll kill me if I don't adhere to your morals though, thanks.

[Steax]

I'd like to bring a separate point of view into the argument here, something I realized today while listening to young children from a small town near mine.

One problem I see is that drawings are sort of targeted at all Muslims instead of specifically those issuing death threats. I know, I know, in normal cases most sane Muslims won't care about drawings. What I've recently found to be problematic is that such drawings are often delivered as 'insults' - not in the depiction, but in the way people make them: "I'm just going to keep drawing him until all you guys listen to me and stop giving death threats". It's like an act of superiority.

I know, it's more complex than that. The problem I noticed is that young children don't understand the politics of this all, and most have no idea what South Park is and that there are death threats at all. All they know is that people online have started drawing something sacred in their religion, and they're bewildered. They stumble across it in blogs, news articles, and forums. What they see, in their eyes, is that people are poking fun at their religion. This in turn can cause one of many things. Some children outright hate the west for allowing people to do such a thing. Some children feel depressed or outraged. Some become ashamed of themselves. And these kids aren't the target of the campaign.

Again, disclaimer: I'm not saying who's right or wrong, just showing a point of view of what's going on in islamic countries. I'm no psychologist so there's really no point saying "they don't need to feel that way" or "how come". Just passing along the information.

[achan1058]

Given by the lack of artistic talents that goes into some of the pictures here, I think I will be pissed off if someone draws Darwin this way. I mean, if you are going to do it, do it with style.

[smw543]

But... raising your middle finger is considered offensive by probably more people than would be offended by a depiction of Muhammed. And as a bonus, flipping people off in a public park full of children is even more likely to get your ass kicked than drawing Muhammed is to spark a violent reaction.

Before even considering Aikanaro's point, that is patent nonsense. If you went to a public park and started flipping the bird, you'd just get some weird looks, and maybe some parents would ask you to leave (but if you refused, they would just take their kids elsewhere).

One problem I see is that drawings are sort of targeted at all Muslims instead of specifically those issuing death threats. I know, I know, in normal cases most sane Muslims won't care about drawings. What I've recently found to be problematic is that such drawings are often delivered as 'insults' - not in the depiction, but in the way people make them: "I'm just going to keep drawing him until all you guys listen to me and stop giving death threats". It's like an act of superiority.

(A minor alteration of a point that's been done to death, but whatever.) Part of living in a global society of over 6 billion people is that you need to develop thicker skin. Hell, even hanging out with a group of five people will probably mean being offended from time to time. If we are to have a civilized society, we need to act like grown-ups, and the burden falls on the offended (for two reasons; first, because a drawing of Mohammad fucking a pig doesn't actually hurt anyone, and second, because sometimes people will offend you by accident). Part of the problem, as has been alluded to, is putting anything on such a high pedestal that you get violently offended when someone says mean things about it. Personally, I hold nothing sacred—go on, draw a picture of me having a three-way with Hitler and my mom. I'll hang it on my fridge.

I know, it's more complex than that. The problem I noticed is that young children don't understand the politics of this all, and most have no idea what South Park is and that there are death threats at all. All they know is that people online have started drawing something sacred in their religion, and they're bewildered. They stumble across it in blogs, news articles, and forums. What they see, in their eyes, is that people are poking fun at their religion. This in turn can cause one of many things. Some children outright hate the west for allowing people to do such a thing. Some children feel depressed or outraged. Some become ashamed of themselves. And these kids aren't the target of the campaign.

Spoiler:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But you don't honestly expect us to take that argument seriously, do you?

[Kayangelus]

I know, it's more complex than that. The problem I noticed is that young children don't understand the politics of this all, and most have no idea what South Park is and that there are death threats at all. All they know is that people online have started drawing something sacred in their religion, and they're bewildered. They stumble across it in blogs, news articles, and forums. What they see, in their eyes, is that people are poking fun at their religion. This in turn can cause one of many things. Some children outright hate the west for allowing people to do such a thing. Some children feel depressed or outraged. Some become ashamed of themselves. And these kids aren't the target of the campaign.

If you see some such event online, and decide to get offended, or hate the West without doing any research like "why are they doing this?", then, well sucks to be you. If you are surfing online, and aren't willing to put in the extra effort of understanding something before making a judgement on it, you are going to get offended rather frequently. And honestly, people shouldn't have to moderate themselves for your sake; you just aren't mature enough for the internet yet

[Forum Viking]

But... raising your middle finger is considered offensive by probably more people than would be offended by a depiction of Muhammed. And as a bonus, flipping people off in a public park full of children is even more likely to get your ass kicked than drawing Muhammed is to spark a violent reaction.

Before even considering Aikanaro's point, that is patent nonsense. If you went to a public park and started flipping the bird, you'd just get some weird looks, and maybe some parents would ask you to leave (but if you refused, they would just take their kids elsewhere).

Fine. Bad example. There are lots of cases dealing with freedom of expression already (How about Nazi imagery in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood?), and I don't see how this one is really different other than being international and on the internet.

But really, I think we should let this thread die.


Closing statement:
In the immortal words of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Alex Kozinski, "The parties are advised to chill." Part of living in a civilized society is learning to exercise one's freedom's responsibly - not stepping on other people's toes because you can, but also not killing people who do.

[smw543]

Fine. Bad example. There are lots of cases dealing with freedom of expression already (How about Nazi imagery in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood?), and I don't see how this one is really different other than being international and on the internet.

How are they different? One group was being purposely antagonized with a symbol under which they were systematically tortured (and in the case of many of their friends and relatives, killed). The other is a bunch of immature fucks who throw a fit (or a grenade) when someone is just trying to make a point.

But really, I think we should let this thread die.


Closing statement:
In the immortal words of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Alex Kozinski, "The parties are advised to chill." Part of living in a civilized society is learning to exercise one's freedom's responsibly - not stepping on other people's toes because you can, but also not killing people who do.

*punch* "Now we're even, truce!"

Yeah, no. And WRT to your closing statement, also no; there is no "stepping on other people's toes because [we] can" going on here. You're disregarding what's been said ITT in order to further the notion that DMD is a troll-fest.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

You're disregarding what's been said ITT in order to further the notion that DMD is a troll-fest.

Likewise, you're ignoring examples of trolling presented in this thread.

[Steax]

@smw543: I don't consider it an argument, just an observation I've seen on the ground, that people on the fora would otherwise not know about. Think of it as a piece of news, so I can't really ask people to take it seriously if they don't want to.

I know, it's more complex than that. The problem I noticed is that young children don't understand the politics of this all, and most have no idea what South Park is and that there are death threats at all. All they know is that people online have started drawing something sacred in their religion, and they're bewildered. They stumble across it in blogs, news articles, and forums. What they see, in their eyes, is that people are poking fun at their religion. This in turn can cause one of many things. Some children outright hate the west for allowing people to do such a thing. Some children feel depressed or outraged. Some become ashamed of themselves. And these kids aren't the target of the campaign.

If you see some such event online, and decide to get offended, or hate the West without doing any research like "why are they doing this?", then, well sucks to be you. If you are surfing online, and aren't willing to put in the extra effort of understanding something before making a judgement on it, you are going to get offended rather frequently. And honestly, people shouldn't have to moderate themselves for your sake; you just aren't mature enough for the internet yet

They're kids. They don't know any better. They just see something and suck it up. I agree that they need to learn that the net has a lot of screwed up stuff, but they just don't know that (and/or aren't capable of it).

[Xeio]

I know, it's more complex than that. The problem I noticed is that young children don't understand the politics of this all, and most have no idea what South Park is and that there are death threats at all. All they know is that people online have started drawing something sacred in their religion, and they're bewildered. They stumble across it in blogs, news articles, and forums. What they see, in their eyes, is that people are poking fun at their religion. This in turn can cause one of many things. Some children outright hate the west for allowing people to do such a thing. Some children feel depressed or outraged. Some become ashamed of themselves. And these kids aren't the target of the campaign.

If you see some such event online, and decide to get offended, or hate the West without doing any research like "why are they doing this?", then, well sucks to be you. If you are surfing online, and aren't willing to put in the extra effort of understanding something before making a judgement on it, you are going to get offended rather frequently. And honestly, people shouldn't have to moderate themselves for your sake; you just aren't mature enough for the internet yet

They're kids. They don't know any better. They just see something and suck it up. I agree that they need to learn that the net has a lot of screwed up stuff, but they just don't know that (and/or aren't capable of it).

And what if they come to this forum and see us criticizing Islam but don't bother to read where we're only criticizing the extremists? Or, really any other contrived example.

[Forum Viking]

The other is a bunch of immature fucks who throw a fit (or a grenade) when someone is just trying to make a point.

I meant the issue is "Can I say whatever I want whenever I want? And should I?" - not comparing either side to Nazis.

*punch* "Now we're even, truce!"

Mea culpa. True enough.

But let's think about the purpose of this whole thing. Is not the purpose of an argument to get the other side to agree with you? Or at least convince the undecided to come to your side? I don't see how this is doing either. You're definitely marginalizing Muslims here. At the same time, throwing grenades and murdering people is driving people to participate in stuff like Draw Muhammed Day. If the purpose of free speech is to create a "marketplace of ideas" (Oliver Wendell Holmes), how can a marketplace exist when everyone's drawing battle lines?

[Kayangelus]

But let's think about the purpose of this whole thing. Is not the purpose of an argument to get the other side to agree with you? Or at least convince the undecided to come to your side? I don't see how this is doing either. You're definitely marginalizing Muslims here. At the same time, throwing grenades and murdering people is driving people to participate in stuff like Draw Muhammed Day. If the purpose of free speech is to create a "marketplace of ideas" (Oliver Wendell Holmes), how can a marketplace exist when everyone's drawing battle lines?

That might be because DMD is not an argument in the traditional debate kind of manner. It is more of a "make a point day" kinda thing.

There is a difference between a verbal battle line, that is only being called a battle line for the sake of sensationalization, and an actual battle ground. One of those can exist in a "market place of ideas". Now, if people are throwing grenades when they see ideas they don't like however, they aren't letting you have a "market place of ideas". If you give in to violence, the "marketplace of ideas" is gone. At which point, DMD could be argued to actually be supporting the concept.

Last, the "market place of ideas" is just an interpretation of the purpose of free speech. Free speech can have other purposes as well. Especially if DMD is not compatible with the marketplace. Since DMD is within what is allowed by free speech.

[Forum Viking]

Yes. You are making a point. But the point that you are making is not going to further the cause of free speech in any way, nor is it going to solve any problems with extremism and violence. You are in fact, inciting violent action and offending millions of Muslims by ganging up on them in a "haha look how many we are, you can't get us now" sort of way. This will lead to further alienation and gives extremists even more ammunition to recruit vulnerable members of society. Yes, you are correct, you can do this. But please, have some respect for civil society, and refrain.

[Greyarcher]

Yes. You are making a point. But the point that you are making is not going to further the cause of free speech in any way, nor is it going to solve any problems with extremism and violence. You are in fact, inciting violent action and offending millions of Muslims by ganging up on them in a "haha look how many we are, you can't get us now" sort of way. This will lead to further alienation and gives extremists even more ammunition to recruit vulnerable members of society. Yes, you are correct, you can do this. But please, have some respect for civil society, and refrain.

Beg to differ. Participating in an act of free speech does further the cause of free speech; refraining from an act of free speech in a climate of threats against that speech does nothing to support free speech and, arguably, is detrimental to it.

Most--perhaps all--religions are made fun of, and Islam is merely being treated equally. That some extremists fired off threats because they disliked it only caused more mockery in defiance of their threats. An act of defiance isn't meant to "solve the problems with extremism and violence", and saying that the speech act is "inciting violent action" misses the point and context of "supporting freedom of speech".¹

That the act could aid extremist recruitment is a detrimental consequence. But on the contrary hand, if people did become more violent in response to the act, I am willing to accept this as unfortunate side effect of culture clash. One should not compromise important values/principles simply because it brews violent tendencies to another side.

Consider a hypothetical opposite scenario. In this hypothetical world, most of Islam is fine with Mohammed being drawn by others, but a few are vocally offended. The people who are vocally offended are then threatened with death or killed by Western extremists. In response, many other Islamic people--who aren't offended, but disagree with people getting killed over this--produce imitation declarations of offense.
Would you say, "Islamic people should stop saying they're offended, because it causes violence"? If you would, I must disagree. The problem is not with drawing, nor taking offense, but with extremist groups reacting violently. That behavior is what must be rejected. And one does not reject such violence by submitting to it--one rejects violence by standing up in defiance to it.

And, on that note, I must say I am puzzled by your reference to civil society. There are many ways that these events could be construed as entirely in line with civil society. Could you explain further?

¹Which is to say, if engaging in a free speech act results in violent action, then it is all the more important to defend that speech act. It is when free speech is reacted to with violence that it is most important to support that speech act. For instance: by engaging in it, in defiance to violent threats.

[Forum Viking]

Yes. You are making a point. But the point that you are making is not going to further the cause of free speech in any way, nor is it going to solve any problems with extremism and violence. You are in fact, inciting violent action and offending millions of Muslims by ganging up on them in a "haha look how many we are, you can't get us now" sort of way. This will lead to further alienation and gives extremists even more ammunition to recruit vulnerable members of society. Yes, you are correct, you can do this. But please, have some respect for civil society, and refrain.

Beg to differ. Participating in an act of free speech does further the cause of free speech; refraining from an act of free speech in a climate of threats against that speech does nothing to support free speech and, arguably, is detrimental to it.

Most--perhaps all--religions are made fun of, and Islam is merely being treated equally. That some extremists fired off threats because they disliked it only caused more mockery in defiance of their threats. An act of defiance isn't meant to "solve the problems with extremism and violence", and saying that the speech act is "inciting violent action" misses the point and context of "supporting freedom of speech".¹

That the act could aid extremist recruitment is a detrimental consequence. But on the contrary hand, if people did become more violent in response to the act, I am willing to accept this as unfortunate side effect of culture clash. One should not compromise important values/principles simply because it brews violent tendencies to another side.

Consider a hypothetical opposite scenario. In this hypothetical world, most of Islam is fine with Mohammed being drawn by others, but a few are vocally offended. The people who are vocally offended are then threatened with death or killed by Western extremists. In response, many other Islamic people--who aren't offended, but disagree with people getting killed over this--produce imitation declarations of offense.
Would you say, "Islamic people should stop saying they're offended, because it causes violence"? If you would, I must disagree. The problem is not with drawing, nor taking offense, but with extremist groups reacting violently. That behavior is what must be rejected. And one does not reject such violence by submitting to it--one rejects violence by standing up in defiance to it.

And, on that note, I must say I am puzzled by your reference to civil society. There are many ways that these events could be construed as entirely in line with civil society. Could you explain further?

¹Which is to say, if engaging in a free speech act results in violent action, then it is all the more important to defend that speech act. It is when free speech is reacted to with violence that it is most important to support that speech act. For instance: by engaging in it, in defiance to violent threats.

So. South Park airs a cartoon. Extremists are offended by it, and make threats. An appropriate response at this point is to engage with the Muslim community and make an attempt to include them in our society (our civil society, which includes law-abiding civic participation and dialogue - give-and-take). This draws vulnerable members of society away from extremists, who are more than happy to point out ways in which the West is anti-Islamic. This works - the current mayor of Amsterdam has been using this approach very successfully. Instead, you choose Draw Muhammed Day, which offends all Muslims (based largely on the offensiveness of the images). What message does this send? How about "We don't want you here." Who do they turn to instead? Extremists who are more than happy to fire your images back at you as evidence of the West's animosity to Islam. Great work. You went looking for a culture war, and you got one. The fact is, you can't just defiantly overwhelm extremism and intolerance. It takes work, and bridges, not walls.

[Greyarcher]

So. South Park airs a cartoon. Extremists are offended by it, and make threats. An appropriate response at this point is to engage with the Muslim community and make an attempt to include them in our society (our civil society, which includes law-abiding civic participation and dialogue - give-and-take). This draws vulnerable members of society away from extremists, who are more than happy to point out ways in which the West is anti-Islamic. This works - the current mayor of Amsterdam has been using this approach very successfully. Instead, you choose Draw Muhammed Day, which offends all Muslims (based largely on the offensiveness of the images).

First of all, Draw Mohammed Day and "engaging with the Muslim community" aren't mutually exclusive. There's no problem with supporting a free speech act in defiance to extremism and dialoguing with moderates. Sure, there's some friction between the two, but merely doing one or the other is an unreasonable compromise.

What message does this send? How about "We don't want you here." Who do they turn to instead? Extremists who are more than happy to fire your images back at you as evidence of the West's animosity to Islam. Great work. You went looking for a culture war, and you got one. The fact is, you can't just defiantly overwhelm extremism and intolerance. It takes work, and bridges, not walls.

The message of Draw Mohammed Day is pretty explicit. Anyone who read anything about it knows why it occurred and what it's about. Free speech is important; rejecting extremist threats to it is important. I don't consider the fact that some people will use the day to draw stupid pictures of Mohammed that offend Muslim moderates sufficient reason to reject the day itself.