Tuesday, September 21, 2010

How are these different?

Seattle Weekly cartoonist, Molly Norris, goes into hiding because of threats from radical Muslims; journalists ignore her plight and refuse to report on her story.

Mexican journalists offer a deal to the drug cartels and agree to stop reporting on the drug war so long as the cartels stop killing their journalists.


  1. Differences: 1) The Mexican paper was reporting news, not engaging in unnecessary ridicule of others' religious sensitivities - just try publishing a cartoon ridiculing the Christian Trinity and see what happens. 2)There are many more armed and dangerous cartel members in Mexico than there are violently dangerous Muslims in the US (I assume that the FBI wasn't too concerned about non-US threats). Muslim violence in the US just isn't as big a problem as cartel violence in Mexico. Big problems get more media attention. 3)Making this a big widely-reported deal on the basis of "freedom of speech" (which I really don't think applies here, just as there is no freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater) might actually be more dangerous to the cartoonist by drawing more attention to her. Or maybe you think she should become an unintentional martyr for the anti-Muslim cause?

  2. "just try publishing a cartoon ridiculing the Christian Trinity and see what happens" Are you kidding? Seriously? You've said some things I definitely disagree with but I thought you were at least reasonable. Wow. Are you aware of how totally and completely often Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion are needlessly ridiculed almost every day, somewhere in America? A newspaper editorial, South Park, lots of other TV shows, rock music, books, editorial cartoons, Bill Maher, and on and on. Please. Apparently you don't understand what terrorism is. Terrorism is intimidating people into changing their behavior and thoughts and speech by threatening violence. I think it is the ultimate test of our freedom of speech to draw whatever religious figure we want to draw without having to worry about getting our heads cut off. I suppose you also think a woman walking down a street by herself, in sexy clothing would be asking for it if she was assaulted. I mean, she's putting herself in the situation, right? Just like Molly Norris put herself in that situation. And, taking your logic further, the criminal or the terrorist has no self control and can't stop themselves from giving in to the temptation presented by the woman/Molly Norris. You'll whine and scream about the analogy, I'm sure, but it's spot on. You are blaming the victim while simultaneously erasing the responsibility from the crazy person perpetrating acts of violence. PS - speaking out for freedom of speech in a free country like the US is not anti-Muslim. It is anti-intimidation and pro-free speech. Sheesh.


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.