I'm still kinda sorting all this out, so I'll ask you the questions I'm asking myself.
Maybe you haven't been following the latest in the Charlie Hebdo matter, what with the elections in Canada and the UK and all. Here's an excerpt to catch you up.
First question: are we all still "je suis Charlie"?
Closer to home: was Pam Geller yelling fire in a crowded theater when she sponsored her Muhammed cartoon contest? (Let's look past her ridiculous and Orwellian "I'm saving lives" justification for what she says and does for the moment.) Is it a good thing that she hires her own heavily armed security for these events -- you know, Second Amendment remedies for First Amendment provocations? Less important question: Were the two single cells in the Garland, TX "terrist network" ready for jihad... or just martyrdom?
Update: Ted Cruz blames Obama, of course.
Most important question: do you really and truly feel like defending to your death the right for Geller, or Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else to keep on like this, under the current global socio-political circumstances?
Report. Decide. Ted Rall's opinion.
When exactly does free speech cross over the line to hate speech? What is the proper reaction when it does? (Obviously not shootings and bombings... but what?) Certainly it's got to be okay to tell people to shut up. That's free speech also, yes? Or is that censorship? If it's not OK to tell them to shut up, is it acceptable to ask them to tone it down a little?
Is this just an endless loop of point/counterpoint, as Nick Anderson shows? (Don't skip the petulant complaints and baiting taunts from the very worst of Houston's conservatives in the comments.)
If you have the right to insult people to the point that they become so angrily deranged that they kill you -- religious excuses aside -- why is it wrong for others who don't want to be caught in the crossfire or maimed by the blast or the shrapnel to tell you to pipe down?
No answers here yet. Still just asking the questions. But a few more toons posted here on Sunday will further illustrate the quandary in which we we all find ourselves.
How much intolerance is tolerable?
Maybe you haven't been following the latest in the Charlie Hebdo matter, what with the elections in Canada and the UK and all. Here's an excerpt to catch you up.
Critics argue that Charlie Hebdo routinely engages in Islamophobia, and many Muslims take issue with its depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous.Defenders counter that Charlie Hebdo, a provocative left-wing publication, lampoons religious leaders and politicians of all stripes and has devoted more time to attacking conservative politicians who favor anti-immigration laws — such as the National Front — than Islam.
First question: are we all still "je suis Charlie"?
Closer to home: was Pam Geller yelling fire in a crowded theater when she sponsored her Muhammed cartoon contest? (Let's look past her ridiculous and Orwellian "I'm saving lives" justification for what she says and does for the moment.) Is it a good thing that she hires her own heavily armed security for these events -- you know, Second Amendment remedies for First Amendment provocations? Less important question: Were the two single cells in the Garland, TX "terrist network" ready for jihad... or just martyrdom?
Update: Ted Cruz blames Obama, of course.
Most important question: do you really and truly feel like defending to your death the right for Geller, or Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else to keep on like this, under the current global socio-political circumstances?
Report. Decide. Ted Rall's opinion.
When exactly does free speech cross over the line to hate speech? What is the proper reaction when it does? (Obviously not shootings and bombings... but what?) Certainly it's got to be okay to tell people to shut up. That's free speech also, yes? Or is that censorship? If it's not OK to tell them to shut up, is it acceptable to ask them to tone it down a little?
Is this just an endless loop of point/counterpoint, as Nick Anderson shows? (Don't skip the petulant complaints and baiting taunts from the very worst of Houston's conservatives in the comments.)
If you have the right to insult people to the point that they become so angrily deranged that they kill you -- religious excuses aside -- why is it wrong for others who don't want to be caught in the crossfire or maimed by the blast or the shrapnel to tell you to pipe down?
No answers here yet. Still just asking the questions. But a few more toons posted here on Sunday will further illustrate the quandary in which we we all find ourselves.
How much intolerance is tolerable?
