

Dan Savage declares May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" - tome
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day

======
kevinh
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.

------
Tichy
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.

~~~
adelevie
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.

~~~
Tichy
"These guys thrive on the fear they can stir up."

Maybe, I don't know - maybe they are just crazy. Anyway, just playing devils
advocate here. I am certainly not in favor of censorship.

~~~
adelevie
Masses of people showing solidarity for Stone and Parker will not cause more
terrorism.

Letting these fanatics know that their tactics of petty intimidation actually
work will create more terrorism.

~~~
lionhearted
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.

~~~
Tichy
Um, how do you get rid of a rabid dog? I don't see how this comparison is
helping resolve the issue at all.

------
tome
Related to this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1284420>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1284466>

------
mad44
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?

~~~
amvp
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...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded#)!

"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"

~~~
mad44
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."

~~~
maxharris
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.

------
wr1472
Lets all bully the muslims.

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.

------
cgranade
See also: [http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0424/seattle-cartoonist-
promotes...](http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0424/seattle-cartoonist-promotes-
everybody-draw-mohammed-day/)

------
Kilimanjaro
Religion, the hand brake of freedom.

------
adelevie
I subscribe to an ideology in which not drawing pictures of Muhammed is
blasphemy. Who am I to say that my ideology trumps your rights?

------
smgy
related:

[http://muslimmatters.org/2010/04/25/salon-misreading-the-
qur...](http://muslimmatters.org/2010/04/25/salon-misreading-the-quran-to-
threaten-the-south-park-guys)

------
smgy
Muslims' response:

[http://muslimmatters.org/2010/04/26/south-park-episode-
censo...](http://muslimmatters.org/2010/04/26/south-park-episode-censorship-
of-mohammeds-s-depiction-the-script-played-to-perfection/)

------
hackermom
Good. Let the human filth that thrives on extinguishing others' voices honk
their little horns like the clowns they are.

~~~
hackermom
Lots of radical muslims here, huh? :P

