Remove ’Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ from Facebook

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm joining Smoke

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Free speech isn't at risk here: the right exists, it's there. Nobodies saying "you can't do this". If there were some piece of legislation pending outlawing depictions of Mohammad on the internet I could see some sense to this thing. But there isn't, These people aren't defending or protecting their 1st amendment rights, they're abusing them.

Nobodies saying "you can't", just "you shouldn't". Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

I think there's more to it than that, though. I think it's about where the societal line should be, and about the basis for respect of a person's beliefs.

I think the message behind the campaign is that religious beliefs shouldn't be respected simply because of their religious nature. That part I agree with - I don't think that religiosity should be held up as having some special weight. However, I can see another side to it: these sorts of religious beliefs matter deeply to people, and it's the people, not the religion, that dictates respect as an extension of our respect for the person holding the beliefs.

I dunno - I'm conflicted about the whole thing. The secularist in me wants to say that it's good to push toward a society where religious beliefs hold no special weight, but the humanist in me says that it's a bad idea to antagonize people unnecessarily.

 

[Quagmire]

That's one perspective. However, when people see things like self-censorship occurring in US media in response to threats from those would limit our right to free speech, some people may see this as the first signs of us willingly giving up our right to free speech, and may want to use their right to make a statement.

Make a statement to who? Do you think the any violent religious extremeists are going to see this and say, "Gosh! Guess they told us! Maybe we should mellow out"!

And for anybody trying to sell this as a refusal to be intimidated, like I said: it's an easy and empty gesture from behind the anonymity of the internet.

Actually, if it were up to them, they would say "we can't." And, if they weren't saying this, or the US media wasn't capitulating, then people wouldn't be doing it.

It isn't up to them (whoever "them" might be in this instance). And if the network executives or anybody else who's actually in danger of direct reprisals decides to eliminate the risk, that's up to thm, not their safe, secure, anonymous audience who don't have anything to lose excepta little off-color entertainment.

Doubtless this will occur anyway when you have a culture which views itself at war with the west, and is constantly looking for ways to be offended.
I don't see how giving in is going to do anything other than let them know they can push even more, and that they are justified by getting results.

This whole "draw Mohammad" thing actually is an instance of giving in.

It's better than people thinking so little of their rights, and taking them so for granted, that they don't care enough to do anything.

People who use their rights selfishly, irresponsibly, and indiscriminately like this are the one's taking them for granted.

But why shouldn't we?

Because it's going to offend a bunch of people who don't deserve it.
It's going to create even more division.
It's going to offend and alienate innocent bystanders and do nothing but encourage extremists and make them feel even more that their actions and attitudes are justified.

All of the ridiculous demands and overreaction invites it,

The extremists maybe, but taking it upon ourselves to decide whether or not the objections of the Muslim world in general are "over-reactions" is an extremely ethnocentric attitude.

and it's important to let people know where things really stand.

Which people? What things? And who's making a stand here?

Why should people stand down just to humor other people's irrational absurdities?

You're right man. I've seen the light. I guess I'll start surfing the web for pictures of Little Black Sambo or some beady-eyed, hook-nosed caricature of a Jewish person and start our own drawing contest.

Why not? Why should we stand down just to humor other people's irrational absurdities?

Sure, our freedom of speech might not be threatened now, but If we keep making concessions we'll eventually have nothing left.

Ah. The 21st century version of the Domino theory. Guess it was due for a comeback.

Like I said, I don't believe that their religious figure is worthy of my respect or reverence, and I see no reason to pretend otherwise just to spare their dainty egos and emotions.

Would you be paying any attention at all to their religious figure if you didn't know that depictions of him offended people?

 

[JustWondering2]

I have a question. Which is worse to a muslim, 911 or some silly website?

If you don't like what they say about your religion, don't got to their site! Did someone twist your arm, tie you down and make you look at this stuff?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Make a statement to who? Do you think the any violent religious extremeists are going to see this and say, "Gosh! Guess they told us! Maybe we should mellow out"!

Of course not. But, they're also not going to say, "look we are right - we tell the Americans to stop drawing Mohammed and they do it - let's see what else we can make them do - praise allah."

Additionally, it's a statement to our own society. People take all our freedoms and rights for granted here, and it's good for people to actively be aware of them. If nobody cares about our rights, then what's to keep them from disappearing?

And for anybody trying to sell this as a refusal to be intimidated, like I said: it's an easy and empty gesture from behind the anonymity of the internet.

So? Why does it have to be hard to be effective?

This whole "draw Mohammad" thing actually is an instance of giving in.

Giving in to what? People expressing their feelings about their right to free speech, and to not being intimidated out of them by those who neither share, nor respect, our freedoms? I'll give in to that.

People who use their rights selfishly, irresponsibly, and indiscriminately like this are the one's taking them for granted.

Wrong - not using something you can, when it's needed, is taking it for granted. In fact, freedom of speech is not only a right, but a responsibility. Not expressing it when needed is an implicit rejection of that right and responsibility altogether.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's called free speech. And it's also called some people need to grow up. South Park has made fun of everybody, but who was it that made threats about being insulted? It wasn't the Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hare Krishna, or even sane Muslims.
If I used facebook, I would join the group not to insult Islam, but to flip a middle finger to those who think violence is the answer to their prophet being made fun of. I do not live in fear, and apparently the people who founded the group do not live in fear, and are tired of people living in fear. They cannot be terrorist if we are not afraid.

 

[dust1n]

The Forum ’Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ on facebook is against moral values and mutual respect for all cultures. This forum contains graffiti including sexual images, defamatory slogans and images containing extreme gore depicting the Prophet of Islam. Despite over 20000 reports against this group as hate speech/racism, facebook has not removed this group during the past month.

Link to group: facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/121369914543425?ref=ts

it is also a breach of 3 different laws within the United States that restrict freedom of Speech w.r.t. rights of individuals regarding ethnicity, race and religion. Facebook qualifies for a lawsuit if it does not remove this group before the 20th of may 2010, by US law.

Details of the legal practicalities can be seen here:
Link: zohaibhisam.com/?p=185

People from all religions and races should refrain from exercising free speech in defamatory hate statements, hate crimes and incitement to violence. Mutual respect for each others beliefs and sanctity of all religions should be kept intact on all social forums to ensure we bridge gaps between all men, instead of aggravating relations more. Genuine efforts towards removing such communities, be they against any religion, is our duty as responsible individuals. Ideas for better, responsible regulation of content over facebook and other social networks would be greatly appreciated.

Holy ****... how frivolous people are...

Well, it's not technically illegal, and I didn't really see anything advocating violence against Muslims... so I have no reason to participate. There is as another group that is bigger than group that is advocating the other side of this argument.

Why any thinks a page of half-baked truisms and a witty one liners deserve any attention at all, I do not know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's called free speech. And it's also called some people need to grow up. South Park has made fun of everybody, but who was it that made threats about being insulted? It wasn't the Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hare Krishna, or even sane Muslims.
If I used facebook, I would join the group not to insult Islam, but to flip a middle finger to those who think violence is the answer to their prophet being made fun of. I do not live in fear, and apparently the people who founded the group do not live in fear, and are tired of people living in fear. They cannot be terrorist if we are not afraid.

That's the thing, though: this campaign uses something of a scattergun approach. Even if you're only concerned with flipping a middle finger to people who think violence is an answer, you'd be flipping it to pretty well every single Muslim at the same time, including the "sane Muslims" you mentioned.

 

[monta]

Why does free speech only apply to the people who find this funny? Anyone who speaks against it, is just told to shut up and grow up. The only reason I can see for wanting to draw Mohammed is the knowledge that there are people who it will upset. That doesn't strike me as particularly mature, more like the actions of a bratty child making his arms into propellors and declaring that he is just walking across the room and if you get hit, it's your own fault.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's the thing, though: this campaign uses something of a scattergun approach. Even if you're only concerned with flipping a middle finger to people who think violence is an answer, you'd be flipping it to pretty well every single Muslim at the same time, including the "sane Muslims" you mentioned.

Yes, well free speech doesn't guarantee freedom from being offended. Perhaps this is another lesson that a lot of people need to learn.

 

[Magic Man]

Why does free speech only apply to the people who find this funny? Anyone who speaks against it, is just told to shut up and grow up.

Where did anyone say that? Everyone has the right to speak out against it, too.

The only reason I can see for wanting to draw Mohammed is the knowledge that there are people who it will upset. That doesn't strike me as particularly mature, more like the actions of a bratty child making his arms into propellors and declaring that he is just walking across the room and if you get hit, it's your own fault.

Actually, it's more directed at the people who would threaten someone's life just for drawing a religious figure. It's not the most mature thing in the world, but I don't think your depiction of it is quite accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, well free speech doesn't guarantee freedom from being offended. Perhaps this is another lesson that a lot of people need to learn.

And perhaps another lesson that a lot of people need to learn is that a legal freedom to do something doesn't mean that you're somehow not responsible for your actions when you do it.

 

[Smoke]

Nobodies saying "you can't do this".

That's exactly what the OP is saying.

Stirring up **** from the safe, secure position of your own anonymity, risking nothing personally, entirely willing to let someone else---most likely innocent bystanders---deal with the consequences of your actions isn't noble, it's cowardly.

Would you care to elaborate on the type of consequences said innocent bystanders are likely to have to deal with?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And perhaps another lesson that a lot of people need to learn is that a legal freedom to do something doesn't mean that you're somehow not responsible for your actions when you do it.

Indeed - free speech is not only a right, but a responsibility. If people don't care enough to engage in both, then there's nothing to keep those rights from withering away.

 

[monta]

Where did anyone say that? Everyone has the right to speak out against it, too.



Actually, it's more directed at the people who would threaten someone's life just for drawing a religious figure. It's not the most mature thing in the world, but I don't think your depiction of it is quite accurate.

So you think people made threats before images of Mohammed were being used to mock Muslims? And it is ok to upset a lot of innocent people who never made any stupid threats, in order to take a pop at some jerks with an axe to grind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed - free speech is not only a right, but a responsibility. If people don't care enough to engage in both, then there's nothing to keep those rights from withering away.

Would one example of exercising this responsibility be to point out that deliberately insulting and offending huge numbers of people who have done nothing against you at all is a bit of an ******* move?

 

[Smoke]

Make a statement to who? Do you think the any violent religious extremeists are going to see this and say, "Gosh! Guess they told us! Maybe we should mellow out"!

<-snip->

It isn't up to them (whoever "them" might be in this instance). And if the network executives or anybody else who's actually in danger of direct reprisals decides to eliminate the risk, that's up to thm, not their safe, secure, anonymous audience who don't have anything to lose excepta little off-color entertainment.

Oh, I see you have elaborated.

The extremists maybe, but taking it upon ourselves to decide whether or not the objections of the Muslim world in general are "over-reactions" is an extremely ethnocentric attitude.

Really? Which "ethnicity" is it, exactly, that believes in free speech and holds that violence in response to cartoons is an over-reaction? Because that's the "ethnicity" for me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Would one example of exercising this responsibility be to point out that deliberately insulting and offending huge numbers of people who have done nothing against you at all is a bit of an ******* move?

Sure, if you're goal was to insult and offend huge numbers of people. For example, in the case of Muslims thinking they can dictate the behavior of our society to us.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Amen Smoke

 

[Quagmire]

Of course not. But, they're also not going to say, "look we are right - we tell the Americans to stop drawing Mohammed and they do it - let's see what else we can make them do - praise allah."

If these people are actually at war with us then you can bet they're already doing everything they can.

No one said "You can't depict our prophet" they just made veiled threats to a specific group, and that group decided it was in their best interests to capitulate, which is also their right.

Nothing was taken away from us here, nothing that really belonged to us anyway, and nothing's being threatened.

Additionally, it's a statement to our own society. People take all our freedoms and rights for granted here, and it's good for people to actively be aware of them. If nobody cares about our rights, then what's to keep them from disappearing?

Yeah, I wish people were this up in arm when he Patriot Act came out, you know: an actual threat to our rights.

So? Why does it have to be hard to be effective?

Again: what effect are you going for here?

Giving in to what?

Self-righteous indignation.

People expressing their feelings about their right to free speech, and to not being intimidated out of them by those who neither share, nor respect, our freedoms? I'll give in to that.

Again: it's easy (and meaningless) to stand up to a threat that isn't there.

This stunt has all the nobility of a crank phone call. And I expect it to be about as effective.

Wrong - not using something you can, when it's needed, is taking it for granted.

Needed? How is any of this necessary? The whole South Park incident was a private matter between the shows executives and a specific group. None of it had anything at all to do with the rights of Americans in general.

In fact, freedom of speech is not only a right, but a responsibility. Not expressing it when needed is an implicit rejection of that right and responsibility altogether.

When needed. This isn't necessary.