Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Drawing a distinction

I don't draw very well, so even if I attempted to draw Muhammad, you wouldn't be able to tell what my drawing was trying to convey. More talented people can draw Muhammad, unless someone shoots them for trying. And as you likely know, someone did try to shoot some people in Texas who were engaged in a Draw Muhammad contest. It didn't end well for the shooters, either, as you likely heard.

Anyone who has studied the career of Pamela Geller understands that she's a provocateur. I don't pay much attention to her because I kinda got her point a long time ago and further inquiry isn't worth my time, or yours, most likely. I don't pay much attention to Dan Savage or Tom Tomorrow either. All of these individuals have their patrons and that's cool. Patrick "Patterico" Frey sums it up well:
There seems to be a debate between, on one hand, 1) the anti-Geller/Spencer/Wilders types, and on the other hand, 2) a group consisting of both a) pro-Geller/Spencer/Wilders types and b) people who worry about the effects on speech of fanatics claiming a heckler’s veto by virtue of killing anyone whose speech they don’t like.

You can put me firmly in the latter camp, and although I am more of a “2b” type of guy, it doesn’t really matter today whether I’m an “a” or a “b.” What matters is that I am a 2.
Being a 2 is the right way to approach the matter. Terrorism is more difficult in Texas than it is in Paris, too.


Gino said...

i dont want to take away anybody's right to free speech...
but a public shaming would be appropriate.

Gellar deserves the latter, and she'll be getting the 'Charlie' treatment if she keeps it up. i'll say, should it happen, it may not bother me as much as i'd like it to.

Mr. D said...

How do you shame someone who is shameless, Gino?

Gino said...

Its been done to her before. Not many know this, but she began her hate career as anti catholic.

Gino said...

Its been done to her before. Not many know this, but she began her hate career as anti catholic.

Bike Bubba said...

Public shaming? I would just be happy if the agents provacateurs didn't get government funding!

Specifically speaking to the images of Mohammed, something in me says "why not just limit the cartoons to things that are demonstrably true from the Qu'ran and history?"

OK, you can't require that from the 1st Amendment, but if you can quote Sura & verse, or point at the papers, you get to say "sorry, buddy, but in a portion of your religion, this is a fact." My take is that some of the cartoons of M. do not follow this principle--just bomb-throwing, really.

(word play not intended, but blame and revulsion gratefully accepted)