I think it’s a rather fair defense in that I didn’t think I needed to address issues that simply weren’t in your post. The fact that you chose to highlight the actions of the cartoonists and not the disproportionate response of the loonies may not indicate approval, but I felt it showed a rather odd sense of priority. The usage of the word “kosher” was meant as a shorthand way of representing that.
A reasonable reaction, but even that doesn’t work since I expressed a negative opinion of the violent protesters and you did not. I could simply reply that you would rather blame the cartoonists than the people responsible.
I’ll be sure to make a note of this to prevent future overreactions on your part.
If I said something and someone died as a result, I would feel sorrow and guilt. I wouldn’t be responsible (unless it was some Harry Potter death spell thing), but I would feel responsible. The more foreseeable the death, the more responsible I would feel.
We don’t need to condemn rights to condemn behavior. We don’t need to support behavior to support rights.
These crowds are ignorant, vicious, and cruel. Their violence is disgusting and unreasonable. I would hope these things would go without saying (though I see in this thread we are required to state the obvious).
By the same token, I suppose being a rat bastard asshole terrorist, I could just go ahead and publish whatever the fuck I feel like, including doctored versions of whatever is already out there, targeted at the locals, according the current attack schedule.
There are essentially two ways to stop a man from being your enemy: change his mind, or kill him. I much prefer the former, if that makes me a weakling umbrella toting apologist appeaser, make the most of it. Its not always easy to get people to listen to reason,but it gets tougher if you have just poked them in the eye with a stick.
No, we can’t make stuff like that illegal, it goes against our Prime Directive. But that is not a defense of their actions, it is merely the reason we can’t do anything much about it. All we can do is loudly disapprove, it isn’t enough, but that doesn’t excuse us from doing it.
The Middle East has at least a solid century of being fucked over by the West. Not unreasonably, they resent it. Tres duh, mais non? Our most fanatical enemies are trying to convince them that its all about Islam, that its a war of religion. The truth is, of course, it was just business.
That’s where the whole religious angle fails miserably. The business plan is a non-starter. Funding the cause with poppies doesn’t buy much in the way of effective security. What’s a raghead supposed to do?
This is true. There are some laws on speech aimed at provoking hatred and violence in the UK. In my opinion they are too broad and too vague and therefore open to abuse by authorities. The USA places limitations on speech that incites imminent lawless action also.
We also have the European Convention on Human Rights as protection of free speech rights and an independent judiciary that fights back against flagrant abuse of hate speech laws.
However we have abolished the blasphemy laws amidst the most appalling screaming and shouting from the churches.
However - due to the chilling effect of violence - Islam still gets a much easier ride in my opinion. I know as a sometime writer I would not dare publish some perfectly legal and not that offensive things.
One of our TV channels recently had to cancel a private screening of a Tom Holland documentary on Islam (questioning aspects of the official story) because of security fears (but not the TV screening) even though the historian presenting it was visibly tip-toeing and measuring what he said.
Western governments have to confront, not placate, just like now in the UK it is more willing to deal with honor killings and forced marriage. Otherwise nothing will change.