May 21, 2010

Nick Gillespie gets soooo intellectual about the basis for judging Reason Magazine's "Everybody Draw Mohammed" contest...

... that I was forced to look up his educational background. Turns out he has a PhD in English literature. Ah, it makes too much sense to me.

Now, they got 190 entries in the contest. (I disapprove of the "Draw Mohammed" day, you should know.) I would love to see what the whole pile of drawings looked like. How many were stick figures or crude scratchings on the level of the "Draw Me" pirate? How many were loaded with embarrassingly violent or racial fantasy? I wish someone had had the foresight to film a documentary of these Reason guys cooking up their contest and then opening the various envelopes? I wonder if there was a point — one particular drawing? — when they felt bad about what they were doing.  And then something pushed them in the direction of getting super-elitist intellectual about picking the winners.
In coming to a consensus, we discussed standard concerns such as originality of vision, playfulness, a sense of proportion (both in terms of craftmanship and message), and relevance to the goals of the contest.
See? Read between the lines! What were they looking at when they reached that consensus? How many pieces of paper went into the discard pile over "craftsmanship"? How much did they laugh as they did a first cut over craftsmanship, and what did they say as they tossed these things aside? I would love to have been a fly on the wall... or a vole in the corner. "Sense of proportion"... what were the drawings that made them frame that standard? "Originality"? What percent of the artists drew Muhammad as a dog or as a guy with a turban-bomb? "Playfulness"... throw all the gruesome, gory things over there. "Relevance to the goals of the contest"... ha ha... so many of you scribblers did not get it. You thought it was about telling Muslims their prophet is evil, and not that free expression is precious. You fools! Did you think Nick Gillespie went to grad school for this?! 

Okay, I'm picturing approximately 90% of the drawings eliminated over these standards.

So Gillespie reveals the true test of a proper "Draw Mohammed" drawing.
The single most important element...
It's one thing.
.... and the thing that ties these selections together–is that each image forces the viewer to do two things.
I mean... it's 2 things!
First, they consciously call into question the nature of representation, no small matter in fights over whether it is allowed under Islamic law to depict Mohammed (for the historical record, there is no question that the idea that is always wrong is only of recent vintage; there is a long history of sacred and superficial images of the Prophet). The homage to Rene Magritte below states "This is not a pipe. This is Muhammed"...
He's translating the French for us. (And respelling "Muhammad" as "Muhammed," splitting the difference between the contest-name spelling — "Mohammed"— and the artist's use of the presumably politically correct spelling — "Muhammad.")
... playing with the surrealist's famous statement about the necessary disjuncture between a picture and the thing it seeks to represent. 
An insight that somehow fascinated people who studied post-modernism circa 1990. (Gillespie received his English PhD in 1996. I'd love to know more about what he studied. Can we see his dissertation?)
Just as the drawing is not a pipe (it's a drawing of a pipe), it cannot be Mohammed even as it insists it is. Even more, it is plainly not even a drawing of Mohammed or of any human figure.

Similarly, the invocation of the popular Where's Waldo? series forces the viewer to ask Where's Mohammed?, and to begin a hunt for a figure in the midst of an overstuffed scene. One assumes the black-robed character in the upper right-hand quadrant of the image is our quarry, but then what does it mean to confer on a small dot any significance whatsoever?

Second, each of the images forces the viewer to actively participate not simply in the creation of meaning but of actually constructing the image itself. This is clearest in our grand prize winner, the image below, which pushes iman and infidel alike to do the work that would condemn them to death under the most extreme reading of injunctions against representing Mohammed.
I like the way the winner — with a connect-the-dots puzzle — avoided drawing Muhammad altogether. Man, if I entered a "draw Mohammed" contest and the winner didn't even draw Mohammed, I'd be kind of pissed... and reading Gillespie's revelation of the highly intellectual but previously secret standards would not calm me down. "Reason"?! Bah!

107 comments:

ricpic said...

The mark of a true elite is that he is terribly discomforted by courage.

GMay said...

I wonder how some of the older Mohammed depictions would have fared in this contest.

Scott M said...

Draw Mohammed and Piss Christ (the comparison I keep seeing from people that are against the Draw day) are apples and oranges.

The outrage that sparked the Draw day is due to the fact that free speech seems to be wilting in the face of radical Islam. Not just in one place in one isolated Mohammed incident, but throughout the Western world.

I don't recall anything like that when the Piss Christ thing happened. Isn't the NEA thankful that Christians in the US don't strike out violently at such "heresy"? Sure. we've got our wackjobs just like every other group of people, but nowhere near the 1/4 of Muslims that are just hunkydorey terrorism in the name of their faith.

RuyDiaz said...

Professor Althouse;

Do you know the Muhammad of the Muslim scriptures? Not the Muhammad of the Koran, which is a ranting angry guy, but the Muhammad of the Hadith and the Sunnah, the one Muslims are supposed to imitate.

That Muhammad was a moral monster. Genocidal moral monster. You may be uncomfortable with what I'm writing, but it is the truth. (Truth, I suppose, is still a proper defense, even on something like this.)

Palladian said...

This may or may not be a drawing of Mohamed. It is most assuredly, however, a transparent attempt to drive up my traffic.

Man, Althouse, you sure hold a grudge against those Reason guys, don't you?

Kakashi said...

The PhD explains a lot.

Cause I just scrolled down to the pretty pictures and skipped all the blathering preamble. If I want to read that sort of thing, I'll do it when I'm doing research.

Fred4Pres said...

Given Mark Steyn's revealing that Muslim Imans in Denmark actually fanned the flames of this by submitting offensive pictures they prepared, I am all for it.

So since Muslim Imans like to escallate this, I liked this one a lot. Although Mo was probably not so well endowed. I find stabbing and physically attacking people you disagree with more offensive than any picture.

The Reason play on Magritte's pipe sketch sums it up well.

bagoh20 said...

I still don't get the opposition people have to this idea. I mean I get it in that we don't want to be mean to people by insulting their religion. But really, merely drawing a picture of an actual historic figure? If that alone insults someone then is it really the cartoonist who is out of bounds here and imposing on the the other? Then add that the offended is not just unreasonably offended but then threatens your life.

I think the logic here and even the compassion is backwards, and additionally spineless, without the courage to stand up to oppression, even if the only courage required is to be seen as mean by some when doing the right thing. It's the least a person could possibly be asked to sacrifice for doing the right thing. Get over yourself and your feelings, people are being murdered for drawing!

Comrade X said...

don't care about the judging. don't care about the execution. at least those libertarians stood up for what they believe and put themselves out there for it.

D. B. Light said...

I think the point of the connect the dots image is to force the reader/viewer to draw the picture of Mohammad/Muhammad in his/her own mind and to thus make him/her complicit in the subversive activity. It's not that the winning contributor avoided drawing Mohammad/Muhammad, it is that he/she forced you to draw Mohammad/Muhammad in your mind[s]. Face it, Ann, like it or not, you and your readers are all Spartacus.

A.G. said...

I agree (again) with Ann.

And muchos kudos to iowahawk- one of the funniest, most creative guys on the internet for announcing the reasons that he didn't take part in EDMD:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/05/why-i-wont-be-participating-in-draw-m-day-pbuh.html

Skyler said...

I have no defense of the choice of the winning entry, the point I am interested in is the pure insult to the insane fanatics who wish to inflict their beliefs on us.

We are a free people (or we claim to be, anyway) and freedom does not come without cost.

Ann, you are a moral coward.

Adam said...

Impressive artwork, Palladian.

I can't draw at all, but I can steal images tolerably well.

Fred4Pres said...

I think it is perfectly okay and fine for Ann and Iowahawk not to participate. It does not make them cowards. Frankly, I do not typically engage in insulting people for no reason.

But for the reasons Mark Steyn lays out, I am good with this exercise. I am not going to have extremists improperly and unreasonably use violence as a threat to coerce my actions. Had they merely expressed that they opposed the Danish cartoons, this matter would be over. I am not going to critcize those who did not participate (I did not submit an entry either), but I did enjoy looking at the entries and thought some of them were very good.

William said...

Burning the American Flag is free speech and protected. Burning the Confederate Flag is free speech and encouraged. Burning the Mexican Flag is hate speech and prohibited. It's not the symbol but the people who wave the symbol that count.... Some are confused by the vagaries of all this. Here is the key concept: White people are ontologically wrong. It is the duty of all art and all enlightened government to bring this fact home. Once you understand this key concept, all things fall into place.

Adam said...

P.S. I think "moral cowardice" is too serious a charge to wield at AA here. The idea behind "Draw Mohammed Day" is that distributed affronts are impossible to retaliate against, so we insignifcant anonybloggers are safe to show our pseudo-bravery. But the eminences of the blogosphere face a much higher potential price for a blatantly provocation like this.

Fred4Pres said...

This little piggie went to Althouse.com

Skyler said...

P.S. I think "moral cowardice" is too serious a charge to wield at AA here. The idea behind "Draw Mohammed Day" is that distributed affronts are impossible to retaliate against, so we insignifcant anonybloggers are safe to show our pseudo-bravery. But the eminences of the blogosphere face a much higher potential price for a blatantly provocation like this.

If you look at the definition of "coward" I think you would find that what you describe exactly fits. If she is afraid of consequences to herself, then cowardice is the only appropriate word.

If she has some misplaced principle that makes her think that someone might be offended if she does what is clearly right, to stand up and defend free speech and free press, then she is a moral coward.

We no longer have free speech when we allow others to be murdered or their houses firebombed for innocuous speech. If we don't stand with them, then we have lost our freedom.

Moral cowardice is the only appropriate term. Or maybe, immoral might be better.

ken in sc said...

Drawing Mohammed is like protecting freedom of the seas. One of the US Navy’s missions is to guarantee freedom of the seas. When some country tries to block off passage through a place that’s considered international waters, the Navy goes there and confronts anybody who tries to stop them. The last time I know about this happening was off the coast of Libya and one or two Libyan jets were shot down.

To guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press, somebody has to say and do what some Moslems say not to do, in order to prove that we have the right to do it.

BTW, as GMay pointed out, the world’s museums contain numerous portraits of Mohammed, most of them produced in Moslem countries, notably Iran (Persia). Depictions of Mohammed are not universally blasphemous in Islam.

mszabo said...

Perhaps I'm reading the iowahawk post differently than A.G. but I didn't get the impression that iowahawk had the same opinion as Ann here.

The iowahawk post was funny and on topic. The ironic thing about it is it should be seen as 1000 times more offensive to Muslims than any drawing of Mohammed. I assumed that this was the point. He jested he wasn't participating because he didn't want a rusty scimitar swung at him and 25% of Muslims were terrorists.

I thought Ann's views here was that Draw Mohammad Day was wrong because it offends Muslims.

Alex said...

The sad thing is Althouse doesn't want to care about who Mohammed was. She just automatically assigns reverence to ALL religions just like that. The question is why?

Alex said...

Does Ann have the same respect for the KKK's religious belief about racial superiority? After all they believe that God has made white people superior to non-whites. Why no respect to them?

MarkW said...

I think the point of the winning effort was similar to the South Park 'depiction' of Mohammad in a bear suit--which it to say it wasn't a picture of Mohammad at all.

But it turns out that just labeling something, virtually any damn random thing as a picture of Mohammad sets off the religious loonies anyway (here -- this is Mohammad in his tent: /\ )

edutcher said...

Well, maybe Ann is a little miffed that they didn't ask someone with a Fine Arts degree to judge :)

ricpic said...

The mark of a true elite is that he is terribly discomforted by courage.

The people to whom I believe you refer aren't elite, except to get past the Admissions board of an Ivy League school. I hate the use of the word to refer to them

The true elites - SEAL, Special Forces, Rangers, etc. - prize courage above all else.

PS Not picking a fight. I understand what you say.

RJ said...

The flag analogy is a good one. If there was a small but vocal minority of Americans who constantly threatened to harass, attack, and even kill anybody who burned the flag (in the name of Americans everywhere, of course), and this group's threats were historically plausible enough to send flag burners into hiding fearing for their lives, then I would have no problem with a flag burning demostration organized to show solidarity with the people who are having their lives threatened. Hell, I think I would join them. America is more than just a flag, and Islam is more than just a prohibition on images of Mohammed. (Isn't it?)

Joel said...

I don't see Ann's stance as moral cowardice, but I don't like it much either. This post, in particular, this desperate attempt to hold the moral high ground and find some principle, any principle, to justify her opposition to this thoroughly ridiculous exercise, is not cowardice, it's... I don't know, specious? False taking of offense? As though she were saying with a gasp, "I have a friend who's Muslim! How can you say that?!"

The point, Ann, of EDMD, is that we in the West are tired of our self-designated moral betters telling us that we must control our speech around certain groups. EDMD is nothing more than collectively telling a bunch of crazy Muslims, and do-gooders the world over, to piss off. And celebrating our freedom to do so.

And that freedom is not granted to me by the Constitution, or blogger.com, or even you. It is a natural, God-given right of every person to define the boundaries of her own conscience by telling people who intrude upon it to piss off.

Try it. It's liberating.

AC245 said...

How many were loaded with embarrassingly violent or racial fantasy? I wish someone had had the foresight to film a documentary of these Reason guys cooking up their contest and then opening the various envelopes?

Poor Althouse must be so terribly disappointed.

You know she scoured the internet looking for depictions of Muhammed "loaded with embarrassingly violent or racial fantasy" to try to justify her opposition to EDMD.

That the worst thing she could find to hold up for ridicule was a "too intellectual" drawing contest at Reason tells you just how unsuccessful her boogeyman hunt was.


EDMD - Final Score
==================
Free Speech: 1
Althouse: A big ol' zero.

Fred4Pres said...

Some of the images were quite clever. Some were just juvenile and mildly offensive (but funny). So what. Time to grow up Muslims and not go insane over this. Do you really think the Supreme Being Allah cares about childish doodles?

Ken said...

Ann has missed the point here, a point made elegantly by the actual cartoon. The real offense is not drawing Mohammed but asserting the right to do so. And the real point of the event was to assert that right, not to enlarge the world's supply of caricatures.

Maybe she missed two points? Maybe I mispelled Muhammad? What's my degree in anyway?

E.M. Davis said...

"Can we see his dissertation?"

Oh, Ann, such the academic.

Doug Wright said...

Given "Christ Piss" and other put downs of Christianity exhibited in American art museums, why should anyone care about an effort to ridicule other faiths?

So, perhaps "Draw Mohammed" is fair too! As for me, a pile of shit could well represent Mohammed.

It'll be interesting to see if Althouse is going to become another Charles Johnson, who doesn't allow negative terms used to describe Arabs. For example on his site, calling an Arab a "raghead" would appear as an "Arab" being called an "Arab!"

Civility is one thing, however becoming a "Dhimmi" is wrong IMHO!

God Bless the First Amendment.

Cheers.

Alex said...

I have a feeling that Ann is about to turn into Charles Johnson faster then you can blink.

Dewave said...

Why would you be against draw Mohammed day? Unless you want to send the message that threats of violence are an acceptable way of doing business in a free country?

The issue is pretty simple: does Islam get a special pass to avoid criticism/mockery that other religions do not, because of how its adherents threaten death and violence to those who would, in their view, disrespect it?

If we wish our society to remain civilized, free, and tolerant, the answer cannot be 'yes'.

There are lots of excellent reasons not to draw Mohammed under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, we are no longer in normal circumstances, and all these reasons are trumped by the one reason to draw Mohammed - some bigoted barbarians have said they'll kill anyone who offends them. This a throwing down of a gauntlet, and if we are going to retain the principles of tolerance and open discussion upon which this country was founded, it is utterly imperative that we demonstrate this threat doesn't deter us in the slightest - indeed, it encourages more of what they wish to avoid.

The Crack Emcee said...

I drew Mohammed.

A.Worthing said...

Well, if you want to see the cartoons almost unfiltered, come to my blog. You can start with the "Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy." http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/search/label/Dreaded%20Stick%20Figures%20of%20Blasphemy

And of course the main page is here:

http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/

Personally I like the more less "professional" ones better. it means all kinds of normal people were angry about this and wanted to do something.

Btw, my site will still post cartoons if you want to send them.

James said...

Skyler:

Since looking at your profile, I see that you are a Marine, I certainly cannot question your bravery in general. But when it comes to this specific instance, "Draw Mohammed Day" how exactly can you get off calling her a coward?

Essentially everyone who participated in the "event" and call people like Althouse and the execs at Comedy Central, did so anonymously, sending in pictures to other websites, or posting them on their own meaningless, unread blogs. And they fail to see that there is a difference between thousands of unknown, insignificant people posting pictures, and people who are well known.

The thousands of anonymous posters act all brave when there is literally no chance they will ever face any threats, then call the people who would have to deal with threats and violence "cowards" for not doing what those anonymous cowards want them to do.

rhhardin said...

Check out Belmont Club's entry.

dbp said...

I don't think one can fairly accuse Althouse of cowardice, she has clearly stood up for what she believed in plenty of other adversarial situations.

That being said, I think her reason for being against DPMD is wrongheaded.

1. It is the radicals who mostly make the claim that images of the prophet are offensive. Why should we let them speak for the whole religion, most of whoom are supposedly moderate?

2. True moderates will realize that we members of Western civilization are defending our values against their radicals.

3. Direstly to the extent that any moderates cannot understand our need to defend our values in this way, makes them not moderate at all.

4. We should want to insult and stand up to Islamic radicals in every way we can. Why should they take our values seriously if we won't?

BarryD said...

Note that South Park routinely depicts Jesus and other religious figures, and has even done a cartoon of God (a likable creature). On the other side of the equation, they've done graphic cartoons of Richard Dawkins having sex with a transsexual that looks like a bald man with boobs, while the townspeople crap from their mouths.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153496/?searchterm=religion

AND... They've done Mohammed in the past, and nobody said a damned thing. It seems to me that the whole "moral high ground" thing is utterly ridiculous.

For the record, I am a fan of Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

So, I have a question: were they to have their lives threatened by a group Christians, or atheists, or Jews, or whomever (and they were sued by the Scientologists), would it be the "moral high ground" to insist that it was the cartoonists who were wrong? Would anyone be insisting that we must not risk offending anyone with our response?

Puh-lease!

A.G. said...

Mszabo,

I wasn't saying that they agreed on the same points, tit for tat. I do agree with Ann's position; but if one is going to take a stand on the matter, all I'm saying is do it in a clever, interesting way (like the original South Park idea)-or take a subtle funny position that makes you think (ala iowahawk), rather than some of the lame, juvenile "Mo depictions" that suggested that people were motivated more by hatred rather than purely 1A concerns.

Alex said...

A.G. - let's say for the sake of argument that the motivation is sheer bloody religious hatred of Muslims. Shouldn't SP have the right based on the 1st amendment? We aren't the UK yet.

bagoh20 said...

"how exactly can you get off calling her a coward?"

That depends on the motivation. I respect much of what Ann does and I think she is often brave in her blogging or at least confident. But the motivation for being against this is either principled: not wanting to insult people, or cowardly: not wanting people to think you are mean spirited or a rube or some such vanity.

I don't know which it is with Ann, but I disagree regardless because the challenge is serious and requires defiance and the more wide ranging the participation the more effective it will be at promoting peace and understanding. Yes that right, because it's much harder for assholes and bullies to feel justified when a wide range of people defies them. Publicly disagreeing with that defiance only encourages them to believe that they may be justified. Imagine chiding the victim of a bully for standing up to him just because the bully has decent friends that may be insulted. It's just too bad, and the victim's rights supersede that. This is not just swapping insults, this is fighting intimation that has already incorporated murder.

Penny said...

While Althouse has a preference for satire, I have a preference for irony.

My favorite quote regarding the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" contest comes from Brendan O'Neill, editor of "spiked".

"This points to a powerful irony in the shit-on-Muhammad lobby: it is far more reliant on irate Muslims than it realises. Indeed, these two camps – the Muhammad-knockers and the Muslim offence-takers – are locked in a deadly embrace. Islamic extremists need Western depictions of Muhammad as evidence that there is a new crusade against Islam, while the Muhammad-knockers need the flag-burning, street-stomping antics of the extremists as evidence that their defence of the Enlightenment is a risky, important business. And as this mutually masturbatory performance of a new culture clash continues, the true threat to freedom and Enlightenment goes unanalysed and unexplained."

Fred4Pres said...

I took my pen and drew a face
And horror found ‘twould not erase
I’d drawn a turbaned fulsome beard
And drawing thus I greatly feared
That muslims would the drawing see
And cry that it was blasphemy
I drew a cat and that was worse
My pen now seemed to be a curse
For on the cat to my surprise
I’d drawn the great Mohammed’s eyes
And on Mohammed, how I wail
I’d placed the cat’s beguiling tail
What could I do, a knock, the door
Three bearded men stood there before
They said my infantilish art
Not worthy of Mohammed’s fart
Then open mouthed they all three blinked
Mohammed’s cat had smiled and winked

Walt, a Belmont Club commentator.

AC245 said...

What a load of uninteresting twaddle, Penny.

I'll listen to equivocating lectures about a "deadly embrace" between two sides when the people peacefully and unobtrusively drawing pictures change course and decide to stab, behead, bomb, stone, and threaten Muslims.

People like you, Althouse, and that Brendan O'Neill douchebag are obviously just aching to depict EDMD as some hateful, racist, bigoted assault on Islam.

It must really chap your collective asses that reality didn't cooperate with your fantasy.

dbp said...

It is really too bad Althouse didn't want to participate in DPMD. She being both and artist and public intellectual, the result would have been interesting.

Here is a thought. What would Althouse have drawn, had she been on the side of making a drawing?

A.G. said...

Alex,

I'm not the thought police. And there still are "hate speech" limitations in the US, mind you. But hell, if you're motivated by pure hate, and you can come up with something brilliantly funny and interesting, yet still disguise your inner motivations...Salute.

I just think it's kinda interesting that I know people just giddy about getting to draw Mo as a piece of dung... who somehow found it extremely offensive that Comedy Central is producing a new show called, "You lied to me, Jew Producer!" So I wonder about the veracity of the 1A free speech concerns. Would everybody still be talking about the importance of free speech if say, we had a bunch of Muslim comics cracking jokes about Jewish people? I don't know. Would "Springtime for Hitler" be as funny if we knew that an anti-Semitic radical Islamic follower wrote it, instead of a Jewish comic genius like Mel Brooks? Would it be HaHa funny if Muslims instead of reacting with violence to a depiction of Mo as a piece of sh-t turned around and started drawing depictions of Jews in the gas chambers? Me no likey. I think it would open up a Pandora's Box that we don't want.

Like I said, satire- cool. Hate- uncool.

Skyler said...

And there still are "hate speech" limitations in the US, mind you.

There are? Pray tell, when did they get enacted?

Skyler said...

Just to be clear: I hate anyone that thinks there should be hate-speech laws.

Alex said...

A.G. - do you support hate speech laws?

AC245 said...

Add A.G. to the list of people whose collective ass is chapped that reality didn't cooperate with his fantasies of the prejudiced hatefest EDMD would be.

Alex said...

AC245 - so for the sake of argument - should hatefests be outlawed?

AC245 said...

Alex -

Peaceful, unobtrusive "hatefests" should not be outlawed.

If you want to sponsor an international "Draw a Lutheran Being Shat on by a Giraffe Day" or a "Write a Song About How Backward and Stupid Norwegians Are Day" or a "Dance Because You Love Hitler Day", knock yourself out.

And by "peaceful" and "unobtrusive" I mean that you should make sure that you don't cause any physical harm to anyone, and that you don't interfere with anyone else's right to peacefully and unobtrusively express themselves. (e.g. make sure to hold your "Lie Down and Play Dead To Show You Hate George Bush Day" on your own property, not in the middle of a public road or in some office lobby, and participants in your "Yodel If You Hate Bloggers Day" shouldn't be trying to drown out others' speech or causing a disturbance.)

Alex said...

AC245 - I don't think you get to set the terms of the protest. Frankly the left got away with a lot of shit in the last decade.

AC245 said...

Alex, I'm not setting the terms of the protest. I'm clarifying the terms that I used.

I had thought for a minute you were dropping your usual mendacious troll persona and were asking a question in good faith. Since you've demonstrated you're back to just trolling, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to you.

knox said...

A cheap and offensive stunt? Maybe. But a necessary one.

Moderate Muslims should be grateful when anyone stands up to the radicals. Any offense they experience *should be* outweighed by their relief and gratitude.

If they are angered and offended to the point where they are radicalized, then they were never really moderate to begin with, were they? A rational person doesn't become enraged by a drawing.

Doug Wright said...

IMHO: Professor Althouse is quite a brave person and I also absolutely disagree with her on the subject of the "EDM" contest. So far, she's allowed me to express my views on her private turf along with everyone else here also.

However, some commenting here forget that while they expect to exercise their 1A rights, they seem to want to deny those same rights to others. Big f'ing surprise, eh?

More than anything, this EDM post is about us, how we treat others and how we stand up for American values, which now seem to be extremely different from European values on the subject of dissent.

A.G. said...

Alex,

Do I support hate speech laws? No. I'm very uncomfortable with unelected judges dictating public morality.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

However, some commenting here forget that while they expect to exercise their 1A rights, they seem to want to deny those same rights to others.

I don't follow- who has indicated that they want to deny free speech rights to others?

- Lyssa

AC245 said...

However, some commenting here forget that while they expect to exercise their 1A rights, they seem to want to deny those same rights to others. Big f'ing surprise, eh?

Who here has tried to deny anyone else's 1A rights, Doug?

It would be a "Big f'ing surprise" if it were true. But it looks like you're lying about what people have said in an effort to score some cheap moral equivalency points. Coming from the chapped-ass camp, that's not a surprise at all.

A.G. said...

Skyler,

And there still are "hate speech" limitations in the US, mind you.

There are? Pray tell, when did they get enacted?


Ok, I should proofread: "Hate speech", no. "Hate crimes" regulations, yes. There are penalty enhancement statutes that will punish an existing crime if the crime was bias-motivated.

Lyle said...

What is wrong with drawing a racialized or violent drawing of Muhammad? He comes from a certain race and he was violent. Yes?

You're too for school on this issue Althouse and your on moral and intellectual preening is equally insulting to me as Nick Gillepsie's is to you.

I show you two fingers!

A.G. said...

AC245,

Add A.G. to the list of people whose collective ass is chapped that reality didn't cooperate with his fantasies of the prejudiced hatefest EDMD would be.

Huh? I've personally seen depictions on the Internet. Personally, I could care less what you depict Mo as. I just have my doubts about where the instinct to do so is actually coming from.

But more importantly, what now? Two possibilities: (1) some psycho commits Jihad because of this, in which case we'll have deaths/injuries over this. Or, (2) Nothing happens.

If it's (2) will this mean anything to you? Will your "ass be chapped" that no violence occured, or will you give the Muslims credit for this?

AllenS said...

What the fuck is a hate crime? Was the 8 year old girl being raped and having her throat slit, then left to die, a hate crime?

AC245 said...

But more importantly, what now? Two possibilities: (1) some psycho commits Jihad because of this, in which case we'll have deaths/injuries over this. Or, (2) Nothing happens.

If it's (2) will this mean anything to you? Will your "ass be chapped" that no violence occurred, or will you give the Muslims credit for this?


You demonstrate a continued (willful?) ignorance of the purpose behind EDMD. People chose to peacefully and unobtrusively exercise their right to draw something as a response and contrast to violent, threatening, disruptive, repressive activity by various Muslims.

If the reaction of Muslims to this peaceful exercise of free speech is to become violent, that's entirely their choice and their fault. I'll condemn them for it.

If the reaction of Muslims is to not respond with threats and violence, I'll give them the same amount of "credit" I'd give to any other group of human beings who manage to not fly into a homicidal rage when someone else draws a picture.

Your turn:
If it's (1), will you condemn the Muslims committing the violence, or will you try to lay some/all of the blame on the person for their offense of drawing a picture?
If it's (2), will you admit that the hysteria over the risk that Muslims will mindlessly rampage over pictures instead of reacting like rational human beings to ideas and viewpoints they might disagree with was overblown?

Lyle said...

A.G.,

What are your doubts exactly? You think this is simply about racism or religious bigotry?

Gillepsie and Matt Welch explain the day quite well. You might try excepting their rational whether than pretending something more wicked is behind it all. Your like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or something. :)

Lyle said...

A.G.,

Furthermore, what is overblown about the Times Square attempted bombing and the Lars Vilk headbutt and home arson attack? Why are you underscoring these acts of violence?

A.G. said...

Allen S,

What the fuck is a hate crime?

Um:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell

A.G. said...

AC245,

If the reaction of Muslims is to not respond with threats and violence, I'll give them the same amount of "credit" I'd give to any other group of human beings who manage to not fly into a homicidal rage when someone else draws a picture.

Ah, so basically no different than the leftists who keep harping about "violent, racist, hateful Tea Baggers" even though there has been no violence, no real hate or racism at each Tea Party. Take a stand that "they" are going to do something violent, etc., and when that event doesn't happen, just gloss over it and move on.

As for your (1) Yes, I would condemn violence in this case-violence is much stronger than simply taking offense.

But wouldn't you expect violence against you if say, you grabbed a Confederate flag and rubbed it in Mike Tyson's face, and called him the N-word? It's just a flag- a symbol that has no real meaning in a vacuum, and just a word, you could argue. But I have a hunch you wouldn't do it.

As for (2), that seems to be what I was saying, if you look at it from my perspective.

Doug Wright said...

Realize that Muslims have made images of Mo for years. especially back in the good old days.

Those old images made Mo look like his ass was chapped, maybe because he was a dear friend of AC245 and LLRed, those two stawart defenders of the faith.

Cheers!

A.G. said...

Lyle,

Gillepsie and Matt Welch explain the day quite well. You might try excepting their rational whether than pretending something more wicked is behind it all. Your like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or something. :)

Or should I say,

Gillepsie (sic) and Matt Welch explain the day quite well. You might try excepting (sic) their rational (sic) whether (sic) than pretending something more wicked is behind it all. Your (sic) like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or something. :)

HeHe.

I gotta call it like I see (and hear) it. My bullshit detector went off, just like it did the first time I heard Barry O speak. Sorry...

AC245 said...

Ah, so basically no different than the leftists who keep harping about "violent, racist, hateful Tea Baggers" even though there has been no violence, no real hate or racism at each Tea Party. Take a stand that "they" are going to do something violent, etc., and when that event doesn't happen, just gloss over it and move on.

Ah, A.G., I didn't realize you were so fundamentally dishonest.

Your implication that there has been no violence, no real hate or racism in the recent past on the part of Muslims in response to cartoons is completely contrary to reality.

I had presumed up to this point that you were arguing in good faith. My mistake.

AC245 said...

Hey Doug Wright, still waiting for you to come up with any examples to support your claim that people here have tried to deny the 1A rights of others.

Alternately, you could belatedly demonstrate some integrity, admit you were wrong with your accusation, and apologize.

Doug Wright said...

AC245, by implication you along with others have tried to shut down others. Your feeble attempts are ridiculous. You disagree with my statements, so be it and seem offended that I do not bow down to you.

Accept that and move on, little one.

AC245 said...

Doug, I accept that I can't make you tell the truth, and that I can't make you be decent and honorable enough to apologize for your baseless accusation.

Those are things that a man has to choose to do for himself. For some reason you've chosen not to.

A.G. said...

AC245,

Your implication that there has been no violence, no real hate or racism in the recent past on the part of Muslims in response to cartoons is completely contrary to reality.

Doesn't compute. Timothy McVeigh killed people in the "recent past", too. The Left bases its accusations of Tea Party violence upon his actions. When the expected outcome (TP violence) doesn't occur, the Left simply ignores that fact, retains its original biases, and moves on. Basically "coming together" (despite what John McCain may think) is not the goal of the Left, and no amount of good actions from TP members will ever matter one iota to them.

Again, how is this any different for you (and others) towards the Muslims if there is no violence after EDMD?

AC245 said...

If you're just deeply ignorant, A.G., you can educate yourself. I can help you with that:

Brothers jailed for arson attack on Swedish Mohammed cartoonist's house (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)

Police: Swedish cartoonist object of attempted attack (May 11, 2010)

If you're just deeply dishonest, which looks more likely to be the case based on your comments, then you're in the same boat as Doug Wright. I can't make you be honest, or honorable; you have to choose to be those things on your own.

Revenant said...

I wanted to submit a drawing, but I was too busy with work and didn't get around to it.

A.G. said...

I can't make you be honest, or honorable; you have to choose to be those things on your own.

Okey-dokey.

Yeah, I know what happened in Sweden. What I'm asking you, for the umpteenth time, is if the violence doesn't occur after EDMD from American Muslims, will this have any substantive effect on you, or will it slide on by, just like it does with the leftists?

And further, you never answered my provoking Mike Tyson hypo. The Sweden film was arguably provoking a violent response as well- which is a huge world of difference from a 9/11 where the Jihadists killed innocent people out of the blue.

Lyle said...

A.G.

You understood what I meant, now respond to it. Be a good a sport instead of a jackass.

Lyle said...

A.G.,

Ipso facto, people will applaud the Muslim world if they just collectively turn the other cheek. You seem to not understand that this all about non-violence and celebrating non-violence in response to speech. Of course people want to see a more healthy, non-violent response to such cartoons and criticsm.

You need stop projecting your own bigotries on to people friend.

Doug Wright said...

AC245: You are a paranoid idiot. You resented my original statement here and demand I apologize to you for not attacking you personally?

Stop being a maroon and slink back into your hole! Get a life.

Cheers!

A.G. said...

Lyle,

You seem to not understand that this all about non-violence and celebrating non-violence in response to speech.

But why aren't we all going around screaming "n-----r" at black people, then? If you're a small white guy and you go up and say that to a big black football player, odds are pretty good that you'll get an ass-whoopin'. That's violence in response to speech.

I know the answer, but why don't you tell me?

Lyle said...

A.G.,

There are in fact white people who actually do go around yelling nigger at blacks.

... but what a woefully ignorant and unintelligent analogy. Again, go and read Reason's rational for supporting EDMD. It's about the violence and intolerance of Muslims in response to criticism and caricature, and not about going out of the way to mock Muslims for the sake of making them feel bad (aww, poor Muslims... some people don't believe in God). It's simply a defense of free speech in light of acts of violence in reaction to free speech.

... oh, and go ahead and put my dick in your mouth and suffocate. Drink up my free speech man!

Penny said...

"Again, go and read Reason's rational for supporting EDMD."

But please don't try to leave any gung-ho, free speech arguments...They didn't have comments open for that story.

There's that wicked irony again.

Lyle said...

Penny,

That's because they were nearing a 1,000 comments on one thread. And lots of ridiculousness in the comments.

I agree though, they should have let their server fry if they could.

amba said...

If that thing at the bottom is the grand prize winner, it's not a connect-the-dots puzzle, it's direct plagiarism from Antoine De Saint-Exupéry's "Draw me a sheep!"

AC245 said...

Doug, as I said in my previous comment, I can't make you be an honest or honorable man. You have to choose to be those things on your own.

Your decision to behave dishonestly and dishonorably on this comment thread is not my fault.

AC245 said...

Yeah, I know what happened in Sweden.

If so, that only confirms that you were being deeply dishonest when you equated the observation of actual, recent, specific violent acts by Muslims against cartoonists with the groundless speculation of possible violence by the Tea Party.

What I'm asking you, for the umpteenth time, is if the violence doesn't occur after EDMD from American Muslims, will this have any substantive effect on you, or will it slide on by, just like it does with the leftists?

And I'll point out, for the umpteenth time, that you demonstrate a continued, willful ignorance of the purpose behind EDMD. So I'll answer your question for the umpteenth time: People chose to peacefully and unobtrusively exercise their right to draw something as a response and contrast to violent, threatening, disruptive, repressive activity by various Muslims.

Your insinuation that Muslims deserve or require some sort of special prize for reacting to the expression of dissenting viewpoints like mature, civilized human beings is, frankly, offensive.

And further, you never answered my provoking Mike Tyson hypo. The Sweden film was arguably provoking a violent response as well- which is a huge world of difference from a 9/11 where the Jihadists killed innocent people out of the blue.

You're right, I didn't answer your bizarre, offensive hypothetical; I choose to deal with the actual real-world situation rather than hare off into the weeds. As soon as you find an instance of someone using EDMD as an excuse to scream racial epithets at a black man while assaulting him with a confederate flag, that situation may become relevant.

(Althouse tried to pull the same "I demand you avoid discussing reality and answer my increasingly slanted hypotheticals instead!" trick on the original thread for this topic; it didn't work for her, either.)

Doug Wright said...

AC245: You choose to feel offended over a statement not directed at yourself and you want me to apologize to you? You really need to put on your man armor, wearing it while out among people. Of course, since you and El Presidente O feel the desire to protect Mother Islam at all costs, your life's work is mostly before you.

Now, AC245, you of the little mind and smaller appendage, slink away in the night you love so much. You silly maroon!

I still claim that the best drawing of Mo would be a pile of shit, maybe with a dribble of piss upon it!

Cheers!

Gordon Flashart said...

Quick retort to Ann Althouses' (Mz Goody Two shoes) pathetic objection to "Draw Muhamad Day"(there are myriad forms of spelling of this name) from Bookworm. Bookworm clearly understands what intellectually challenged Althouse doesn't .

Their rage over these images isn’t about the images themselves. It is, instead, about incrementally drawing all of us into the Muslim faith. The reality is that, once you’ve stopped creating images offensive to Muslims, and stopped making movies offensive to Muslims, and stopped writing books offensive to Muslims, and stopped saying things offensive to Muslims, and stopped your stores from selling the pork and alcohol offensive to Muslims, and attired your women in burqas to protect them from rampaging Muslims, well — you’re pretty much a practicing Muslim. You’ve been converted, and you didn’t even realize it was happening.

A.G. said...

Lyle,

...oh, and go ahead and put my dick in your mouth and suffocate.

I'll pass.

A.G. said...

AC245,

You're right, I didn't answer your bizarre, offensive hypothetical; I choose to deal with the actual real-world situation rather than hare off into the weeds...

Althouse tried to pull the same "I demand you avoid discussing reality and answer my increasingly slanted hypotheticals instead!" trick on the original thread for this topic; it didn't work for her, either.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in the "real world"-that special place that you prefer- law professors, like Althouse, torture young, future legal eagles every day with hypotheticals and the Socratic method.

I'm not saying that my hypos are the "end all be all" by any means, but your refusal to even attempt to answer them is telling.

Can't stand the heat, get your...

AC245 said...

Doug, I'll point out one last time: I can't make you be an honest or honorable man. You have to choose to be those things on your own.

Your decision to behave dishonestly and dishonorably on this comment thread is not my fault.

AC245 said...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in the "real world"-that special place that you prefer- law professors, like Althouse, torture young, future legal eagles every day with hypotheticals and the Socratic method.

I'm not saying that my hypos are the "end all be all" by any means, but your refusal to even attempt to answer them is telling.

Can't stand the heat, get your...


I can only imagine how stupid you must be to equate a college classroom with the "real world."

Instead of dealing with reality, you have retreated into a hypothetical fantasy world of your own creation. That's fine. You stay safe in the cozy, "hypothetical" kitchen you've conjured up in your imagination.

I'll continue to deal with the real one, heat and all.

Doug Wright said...

AC245: You are not my judge nor am I yours. However, your last statements are idiotic on their face and they are wrong.

Do what you wish and claim as you wish. I do however, give you fair warning to cease and desist claiming that I acted dishonestly or am being dishonorable on this blog or in any other place.

Now, go bother someone else. IMHO, you need to withdraw to your own special place with your own special friends.

Cheers.

AC245 said...

Do what you wish and claim as you wish. I do however, give you fair warning to cease and desist claiming that I acted dishonestly or am being dishonorable on this blog or in any other place.

See, Doug, what you said here would be an example of someone trying to deny the 1A rights of others. The problem for you is, no one else on this thread said anything like that. Only you.

I accept that I can't make you act honestly or honorably. A man has to make that decision for himself.

Your decision to continue to behave dishonestly and dishonorably on this comment thread - to the point where you're now issuing threats - is not my fault.

Ann Althouse said...

amba: "If that thing at the bottom is the grand prize winner, it's not a connect-the-dots puzzle, it's direct plagiarism from Antoine De Saint-Exupéry's "Draw me a sheep!""

Click on it, and you'll see it identified. It's my little joke. I hoped someone would get it.

Ann Althouse said...

Note the pun.

Doug Wright said...

AC245: Interesting that you claim no responsibility for your own statements or for your own actions. My last posting was not a threat nor it this one, if you wish to treat it as such, your judgement is false as is other false choices you have seemed to make.

Do realize that while you are free to open your pie hole, or use your typing, as you wish, we each have responsibility for our own expressions. So, it's fascinating that you disclaim such for yourself. Truly fascinating.

Cheers. Now, go away and sulk in your special place!

AC245 said...

I have not disclaimed responsibility for my own statements or actions, Doug.

I take full ownership of my statements highlighting the fact that you lied. I take full ownership of my statements reiterating that you have chosen to continue to lie and name-call rather than correct and apologize for your initial lie.

I also take ownership of my statements pointing out your effort to deny my 1A rights. I take ownership of my statements noting that you've threatened me because you disagree with what I say.

I accept that I can't make you act honestly or honorably. A man has to make that decision for himself.

Your decision to behave dishonestly and dishonorably is not my fault.

I take ownership of my words and actions. Man up and take ownership of yours.

A.G. said...

AC245,

Instead of dealing with reality, you have retreated into a hypothetical fantasy world of your own creation.

Projection; it's not just a river in Egypt. ;-0


I'll continue to deal with the real one, heat and all.

Well, let's say- hypothetically- that there's a guy who presumes he is well-equipped to dash off into the real world and handle it ably, "heat and all" without ever questioning anything before he enters it.

But once he enters the hot kitchen of the real world, he encounters a barrage of unexpected issues without any real, easy answers, and no real mental tools (other than what his own ego tells him he has) to confront them. Say, for example- something topical: just how do we pay off trillions of dollars of existing national debt, without raising taxes (and keep the economy from sinking into a double-dip recession, at the same time)? Um, hypothetically, what happens if we mess up, and we experience hyper-inflation?

Me, silly guy that I am, I'd at least like to have pondered things beforehand so I have some idea what to do when the hypothetical turns into a real-life grease fire in the hot kitchen. What say you?

AC245 said...

A.G., it's your choice to construct and retreat into the imaginary realm of comfortable hypotheticals wholly under your control, rather than continue the discussion about actual situations occurring in the real world whose objective facts might not align with your worldview.

I can't make you face up to reality, but I feel no obligation to engage your fantasies.

Methadras said...

Fuck Mohammed and what he stands for. You hear that Muslims? You can go fuck your pedophilic prophet in the ass while screaming Allah Ackbar. That sub-human piece of shit doesn't deserve a single bit of notoriety at all.

Methadras said...

It's not that hard to draw Mohammed. Just scribble together a steaming pile of pig shit and there he is. Viola, instant Mohammed pictorial.

A.G. said...

My depiction of the thoughts inside AC245's head:








!

josil said...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/jihad_funtime/