I think the important thing (and I'm not sure but I think some of Louis' comments may have missed this distinction) is that the paper who published those cartoons did so because they were racist, not as a principled stand for free speech. However, defending their right to do so doesn't make you a racist.
On the other hand, their defenders shouldn't make up crap about the paper being champions of free speech. Its basically the same thing as the comment Noam Chomsky made about Robert Faurrisson being an "apolitical liberal" (which right wingers still harp on to hound Chomsky) when he could have just said he's a fascist asshole but still has the right to say what he wants. People should treat the Jyllands post (is this the correct spelling?) the same way. Also somewhat related, is I am wondering if the reason this cartoon has angered some muslims so much is because they (correctly) perceived it as a racist attack on them. A few years ago, South Park had an episode in which muhammed was not only depicted, but flew around and shot fireballs out of his hands. There was no outcry, but then again caricatures of Jesus, Moses, Joseph Smith, and the Buddha were also made, so it wasn't singling muslims out. > I guess that is a difference between me and Mr. Proyect -- I highly value > living in a culture where I can mock the ideas of others without fear of > being killed, and Mr. Proyect has other priorities. > > I should also add this is another reason why I am a big Leo Strauss fan -- > he wrote "Persecution and the Art of Writing." The man thought things > through. > > David Shemano > >
