Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest

[bedstuy]

Pamela Geller is pretty much all you need to know about this story... jesus she's crazy.

I'm all for expressing your free speech rights and what have you but isn't a "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Context" a bit flagrantly offensive? 

How is it offensive?

[bedstuy]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever. 

[bedstuy]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever. 

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

[bedstuy]

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.

Well, Mr. Lawyer, isn't the legal definition of "offensive" an objective definition, based on community standards, rather than a subjective standard, based on the subjective feelings of the person complaining?  I would think so, right? 

And, I personally think it's more offensive to muslims to normalize the behavior of the people who are offended or take to violence.  I think most American Muslims don't care about these cartoons, because they understand free speech.  This isn't about those majority of Muslims in my mind.  It's about the Muslims who use violence and threats to silence people, and their fellow travelers.  That group of muslims who hate the western world, our cosmopolitan free countries and cling to fundamentalist religion, we should offend them.

I don't respect this post.

You're mistaking my post for an advocacy of censorship or government action. I support no such thing. I'm merely stating that, in context, this cartoon drawing contest is a hateful, vile scheme designed to flagrantly bash Islam in a non-constructive manner. Although I believe it is rooted in racialized bigotry directed at group, I would still find it distasteful and vile if it was directed at Catholics or Presbyterians.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't agree with your ideas or values on this topic. My norms aren't your norms either. That's, more or less, the point of my posts: there are no commandments or rules that determine what is respectful and what isn't respectful. Judging whether or not something is tasteful, inoffensive or respectful must be done on a case by case basis that is attentive to social, cultural and political contexts. In most cases, trying to draw cartoons of Muhammad is pretty tasteless. It's tasteless because it's a weak critique of Islam, it's designed to anger/irritate/provoke Muslims rather than engender a conversation about Islam etc.

I suppose this is okay with you, right? After all, it's only attacking an idea. It's not necessarily directed at Jews, right?

I distinguished racism and criticizing a religion. 

Let me also distinguish criticizing Judaism from criticizing Islam.  You can criticize Judaism in the media or the public without being silenced by violence or threats.  You can't criticize Islam in the media without that implicit threat.  So, it's necessary that we change that and stand up for free speech.  I would say that same thing if Jewish violence made people reticent to criticize elements of the Jewish faith. 

That's why these Mohammed cartoons are being done, remember?  It's not a critique of Muslim people or the religion of Islam, it's an affirmation that freedom of speech is paramount.  Do you really think a majority of American Muslims are offended by this cartoon exhibition?  I don't think so. 

Another thing about standards of what is offensive, they can't be individualized.  Jews don't get to censor advertisements for Big Macs, Mormons don't get to censor ads for Hennesy, animal rights activists don't get to censor advertisements for horse racing.  Offensive means offensive to the general public.  The reciprocal right to free exercise of religion is that you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on other people.  That's exactly the fight here.

[bedstuy]

What is this sophistry? No one is discussing "offensive" in the legal sense of the term but rather in the sense of the term as it is defined by society. In most contexts, "offensive" means something that is done specifically to "offend" the sensibilities of another individual or another group. My point is incredibly simple: this exhibit was designed to flagrantly offend the sensibilities of Islam.

It's legal in the United States to call Mexicans "beaners", to call African-Americans the n-word, to call Jews "kikes" etc. It's legal to buy Bibles for the sake of burning them in a large bonfire on public property, it's legal to call generalized groups nasty, nasty things. Although I'm reluctantly opposed to legal censorship, I still look down upon all of these acts. I would boycott any store owned by someone who did any of these things. I would call the proponents of these acts "racists" or "bigots" or "chauvinists".

Likewise, I condemn Geert Wilders' fun gathering of quasi-fascists and extremists.  I think they're chauvinistic bigots. This is the beauty of free speech: any speech act that is deemed to be offensive by a community may be countered, condemned and punished by other speech acts. I don't need a government mandate to oppose stupid and vile behavior. I certainly don't need your permission. Your interpretation conforms to your belief that Islam is a threat to Western society. I don't think that's accurate or correct or constructive or remotely interesting. It's propagandized nonsense. Just because a few extremists are willing to kill someone for printing a cartoon means that people need to support bashing an entire community for the sake of punishing a few.

Okay, I'm done. I don't care to persuade a hypocrite who is willfully ignorant to condemn bigotry.

You're missing the point.

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

A small, sometimes violent group of muslims have been asking for special rights to have their religions taboos respected by our diverse society.  That's the offensive thing.  When you back up that kind of request with violence, it becomes a positive act of free speech to disregard that threat.  This is a religion acting like the mafia.  They way you deal with that behavior is not to just give in a little bit, but to be defiant. 

And, you're insulting American muslims by insinuating that they're offended by this.  Why do you think they're offended?  I think we're letting the violence and radicalism speak for the majority which is not fair at all.

But, let me bring up the gay people hypothetical again.  Should gay people refrain from holding hands or seeming gay if they're near a mosque or in a muslim part of town? 

[bedstuy]

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way. 

Think of it this way, they sell shirts at Fenway Park that say "Yankees Suck."  I'm a Yankees fan,  but I realize that not everyone else likes my team.  Red Sox fans denigrating Derek Jeter or Micky Mantle might piss me off, but it's only annoying because I like the Yankees.  It's annoying, assuming you like the Yankees.  Just like Mohammed cartoons annoy people, assuming they're Muslim.   

[bedstuy]

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way.

 
I try to let my actions be dictated by my convictions, not by community standards. In this case, my conviction is to avoid unnecessarily offending people, and to urge others to do the same.

Also, your post inadvertently justifies the criminalization of Muhammad depictions in majority-Muslim countries.

Sure, you don't want to unnecessarily offend someone.  But, the purpose of defending free expression is a just cause for offending people.  The people Muslims should criticize are the people using violence and threatening people, and the groups like CAIR that try to bully people into accepting Islam's taboos.  If Muslims didn't react to these cartoons at all, they would go away because there would be no point.

Think of it this way, they sell shirts at Fenway Park that say "Yankees Suck."  I'm a Yankees fan,  but I realize that not everyone else likes my team.  Red Sox fans denigrating Derek Jeter or Micky Mantle might piss me off, but it's only annoying because I like the Yankees.  It's annoying, assuming you like the Yankees.  Just like Mohammed cartoons annoy people, assuming they're Muslim.

So, just as you would avoid denigrating the Red Sox because you dislike it when people do the same to your favored sports team, you should avoid denigrating Islam... except that the impetus in this case is even stronger, as the attachment that people have to religion is (presumably) far higher than the attachment that people have to sports.

   

I don't think that's how public discourse should work.  It easier for everyone to just realize that not everyone has the same favorite team, favorite God or the same customs and taboos.  If people don't observe your taboos, it's not a slap in the face to you, they're just different.  Part of living in a civil society is tolerating free expression, even when you don't like it.  Part of living in a civil society is having a thick skin and tolerating different beliefs and opinions. 

I'm not going to force Muslim women to dress in a western style, even though I find certain things like burquas are demeaning towards women.  I'm not going to be offended if a muslim refuses to try my home-brewed beer or my peach cobbler during Ramadan.  And, they should understand that if a non-Muslim draws Mohammed, it's not an attack on them personally.  It's that they just have different assumptions about religion and they should leave it at that.

[bedstuy]

So you think that a Pamela Geller hosted "Draw Mohammed" event was not an attack on Muslims? That's the hill you're dying on here?

Pamela Geller seems like an idiot, a fear monger, a racist and a general crank.  The same goes for many or even most of the people at that event.  I don't need to defend their specific point of view.

But, think of it this way.  I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Or, look at posts like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKaCS3CtsY

I found that really offensive and dumb.  Like, you don't understand there are thousands of people in those buildings and they have families.  I find that so sick and heartless and cold.  It's horrible.   But, it's like the Voltaire quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  I don't believe in lecturing people about how they need to respect my sensibilities.  If you want people to respect your sensibilities, you have to engage with them, educate them and ultimately respect their freedom of speech.  I don't want people to stop saying mean, dumb things because I forced them with violence or unreasonable demands, I want them to genuinely feel empathy and understand that I have a sensible point.

[bedstuy]

I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Being Jewish and hearing someone call Israel an apartheid state isn't really an appropriate comparison.

Suppose it's the year 1950 (it would be fair to say the situation of Muslims in America today is comparable to that of Jews in America in 1950 -- not openly and brazenly attacked and discriminated against, but certainly subject to quiet, subtle, pervasive bigotry). Imagine a group of WASPs who think the establishment of the State of Israel was a harbinger of Jewish world domination and that they have put on a convention featuring, among other things: posters and signage depicting Jews as grotesque caricatures (huge hooked noses, gnarled teeth, bags of gold coins on their belts), and that they are raising money to send a delegation to Jerusalem to throw slices of ham and whole lobsters all over the Wailing Wall. I don't think there would be a shooting, but I seriously doubt Jews who heard about it or witnessed it would just shrug and say, "Well it is free speech."

Then, the problem is racism, xenophobia and hatred of people.  I think that stuff is offensive and should be offensive to everyone. 

Depicting Mohammed, by itself, is not offensive.  Could it be offensive?  Yes, you could draw a racist, xenophobic or mean-spirited, hateful cartoon of Mohammed.  But, just the fact that you did something taboo for one religion is not offensive by itself.  It needs to be outside the bounds of general polite conversation for everyone.

[bedstuy]

I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Being Jewish and hearing someone call Israel an apartheid state isn't really an appropriate comparison.

Suppose it's the year 1950 (it would be fair to say the situation of Muslims in America today is comparable to that of Jews in America in 1950 -- not openly and brazenly attacked and discriminated against, but certainly subject to quiet, subtle, pervasive bigotry). Imagine a group of WASPs who think the establishment of the State of Israel was a harbinger of Jewish world domination and that they have put on a convention featuring, among other things: posters and signage depicting Jews as grotesque caricatures (huge hooked noses, gnarled teeth, bags of gold coins on their belts), and that they are raising money to send a delegation to Jerusalem to throw slices of ham and whole lobsters all over the Wailing Wall. I don't think there would be a shooting, but I seriously doubt Jews who heard about it or witnessed it would just shrug and say, "Well it is free speech."

Then, the problem is racism, xenophobia and hatred of people.  I think that stuff is offensive and should be offensive to everyone. 

Depicting Mohammed, by itself, is not offensive.  Could it be offensive?  Yes, you could draw a racist, xenophobic or mean-spirited, hateful cartoon of Mohammed.  But, just the fact that you did something taboo for one religion is not offensive by itself.  It needs to be outside the bounds of general polite conversation for everyone.

But if you're doing something that is taboo for a given religion for no other reason than that it is taboo for that religion, are you telling me that's not needlessly hateful and provocative?

This isn't, "I'm going to make a mural of major religious figures and Muhammad is going to be in it too because he's also a major religious figure." This was, "Hehehehe, them Muzzlims sure do hate it when people draw their prophet. I know what I'll do. I'll draw their Prophet! That'll really piss the @#$%ers off!"

If Pamela Geller is so concerned about Islamic radicalism, why is she engaging in behavior that does nothing but alienate and antagonize Muslims who live here? If there is some Somali teenager sitting in his room contemplating joining ISIS or something and he hears about this, what is the message that he's getting? "You don't belong here. We don't like you. Our values and your values are different."

She is doing nothing more than fomenting a holy war and trying to provoke a clash of civilizations. She has made it quite clear through her behavior that she is a bigot with a visceral hatred of Muslims, as has everyone else who attended that event.

If the intent was purely to make them feel unwelcome or persecuted, that's horrible.

If the intent was to show solidarity with the people who have been killed, attacked and threatened by Muslims for no reason besides using their right to free speech, that's something else.  This idea that Muslims are the ultimate victims here is just preposterous.  We can't create special blasphemy rules for one religion, I'm sorry.  This is a cosmopolitan diverse society, everyone needs to deal with that.

[bedstuy]

If the intent was purely to make them feel unwelcome or persecuted, that's horrible.

If the intent was to show solidarity with the people who have been killed, attacked and threatened by Muslims for no reason besides using their right to free speech, that's something else.  This idea that Muslims are the ultimate victims here is just preposterous.  We can't create special blasphemy rules for one religion, I'm sorry.  This is a cosmopolitan diverse society, everyone needs to deal with that.

There are a lot of ways you can do that without also making them feel unwelcome or persecuted, which this particular event had a very high likelihood of doing.

How would you react if a bunch of Iraqis in the mid-2000s who were frustrated by their country being occupied by Western Christian countries attacked a bunch of statues of Jesus with hammers? And then they got all indignant and insisted that they don't hate Christians. You wouldn't find that a bit illogical?

I'm sure these people missed the mark in terms of respectfully criticizing Islam and I never defend this event per se.  I just said that it's not offensive merely because people depicted Mohammed.

And, I draw a distinction between depicting someone and burning someone in effigy, or vandalizing, or destroying, or setting on fire, or pissing on.  It's very different.  I also draw the distinction between a Mohammed cartoon meant to be xenophobic or racist, and a Mohammed cartoon meant to show solidarity in the battle over free speech.

[bedstuy]

Sure, you don't want to unnecessarily offend someone.  But, the purpose of defending free expression is a just cause for offending people.

Caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad is unnecessarily offensive. There are ways to express solidarity with the murdered Charlie Hebdo artists that don't involve offending people.

This is part of a bas-relief sculpture at the US Supreme Court.  The person who created it probably had no idea about the taboo among muslims and it's in the context of other historical figures. 

Is this offensive because it depicts Mohammed?  No.

What is the purpose of that taboo anyway?  Is it to protect the feelings of Muslims?  No.  It's to prevent people worshiping Mohammed as a God figure or an idol.  That is the purpose behind the taboo, it's a religious purpose, within the Muslim religion.  So, this taboo should only be observed by Muslims and everyone else is free to depict Mohammed as they want. 

Non-Muslims don't need to follow Muslim customs, Non-Jews don't need to follow Jewish customs and non-Christians don't need to follow Christian customs.   

If people stopped caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad just to be offensive, these attacks would go away, too.

This is exactly the attitude I can't get on board with.  What does it say that using violence gets people to be sensitive to your concerns and gets people to censor themselves?

It's rewarding violence, rewarding censorship and chilling free speech. 

What if Muslims just nicely said, "we want everyone to obey our customs about depicting certain religious figures.  Please remove the sculpture of Mohammed from the Supreme Court and don't show pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling on TV."  People would ignore them.  But, start setting fire to embassies and assassinating people and people start paying attention. 

That's why people should keep doing these cartoons.  You don't reward violence or attacks on our basic freedoms with obedience.  When someone attacks your freedom of speech or uses violence, that's the last person you should meekly acquiesce to.  Is depicting Mohammed important by itself?  Of course not.  But, freedom to say whatever you want about religion is incredibly important.  Religious bullying of free speech is never acceptable.   

This establishes a precedent, we complain and use violence, you comply.  Today it's depictions of Mohammed, tomorrow it's criticizing the religion of Islam or their religious figures.  And, some people might say, "oh, who cares?  Just don't say anything negative about Islam, is it that hard to be nice to them and observe their customs?"  That's the free speech case for these cartoons.

[bedstuy]

Do you really not know who Pam Geller is and what her history is with regards to Islam? You're talking like you don't.

Honestly, I already responded to this several times.  I don't know much about that lady.  She seems crazy and I've seen her ads on the subway which seem pretty bonkers.  Why do I need to endorse her to have the position that I do?

[bedstuy]

I'm sure these people missed the mark in terms of respectfully criticizing Islam.

If the intent was purely to make them feel unwelcome or persecuted, that's horrible.

If the intent was to show solidarity with the people who have been killed, attacked and threatened by Muslims for no reason besides using their right to free speech, that's something else.  This idea that Muslims are the ultimate victims here is just preposterous.  We can't create special blasphemy rules for one religion, I'm sorry.  This is a cosmopolitan diverse society, everyone needs to deal with that.

Your posts about her have left open the idea that maybe she was trying to respectfully criticize Islam and simply missed the mark. Or that maybe she was just trying to show solidarity with free speech advocates. But she has given ample evidence that her motivation is nothing of the sort.

That does not mean that you have to change your position. It just makes it seem like you're deflecting unnecessarily.

I was never talking about her.  I was talking about the deeper issue embedded in this controversy.  

Just pointing at one crazy person who happens to be on my side with respect to a single point is not an argument against anything I said.  ISIS and Al Qaeda are on your side on this issue,  if we want to get into guilt by association.

It's such the sign of a losing argument to get into ad hominem, guilty by association and pearl clutching about how racist or impolite I must be.  

[bedstuy]

Nobody is talking about guilt by association. I'm talking about your seeming to be intentionally coy and obfuscatory about the fact that this event was designed explicitly and solely to offend Muslims. That is not an argument that such speech shouldn't be protected. It's an argument that the organizers were being dicks to people, not being brave defenders of the First Amendment (especially since they would likely ban practice of Islam if they could), or showing solidarity with people. They were provocateurs.

Acknowledging that is not to tar you with association with them. You're not associated with them. But getting the facts out on the table helps facilitate conversation. Denying them doesn't.

In my opinion, you could have a respectful cartoon of Mohammed with a good intent. 

You could have a racist, xenophobic, dumb cartoon of Mohammed with a bad intent. 

I'm not really concerned with this cartoon contest itself, maybe it the latter, I don't really care.  I was talking about the underlying free speech issue. 

[bedstuy]

There's two questions going on here.

1) Should such speech be banned?

2) Is such speech a wise, or decent, or respectful thing to do, and should we want to do unwise or indecent or disrespectful things for the sake of doing them?

I haven't really seen anybody advocating that the answer to question 1 should be yes. The action is all on question 2.

To be clear, my position is generally that we should try not to go out of our way to be dicks to each other. Not that we should be legally disallowed from being dicks to each other, but that it's not really conducive to a peaceful, pluralistic society for us to go around being assholes and needling people on things we know bother them just because we can.

My own position on that has been consistent, and has not been strengthened or weakened by this most recent incident. The norms we ought to practice are different from the norms that laws should obligate us to practice.

Sometimes, in a pluralistic society, we are going to come up against uncomfortable areas where the basic practice of life makes another group uncomfortable, or an argument against a legitimate area of disagreement strikes the other side as disrespectful. These are perfectly defensible. This recent incident was not that.

You're conveniently ignoring the violence and threats against people who publish depictions of Mohammed.  The point of publishing the cartoons is to defy those people who want to impose their religious beliefs on other people and silence other people by using violence.  The point is not to be mean to Muslim people.  Big difference. 

The underlying question is, where is the line between offensive and not offensive.

Suppose you own a bookstore and Muslims complain about the following books and ask you to remove them from your shelves.

1.  A book with reprints of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons
2.  A book with a picture of the Supreme Court bas-relief
3.  The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
4.  All the books in your Gay & Lesbian section
5.  A theology book criticizing Islam
6.  A novel by a neo-Nazi that uses extreme violence and racial stereotypes about Muslims, like the Turner Diaries but about Muslims.

Which would you remove?   

[bedstuy]

I'm not ignoring anything just because it didn't bear on the point I was making in my post. You seem to be claiming that every act of depicting Mohammed is by definition an act of brave defiance. I don't believe that to be the case. I simultaneously don't believe that depicting Mohammed should be banned.

I literally just said that I didn't think this was true.

And, OK, so you're going to ignore my actual points and call me racist or whatever.

[bedstuy]

I don't really know what you think you're reading. When did I call you a racist?

In reading your post again, I see that you're talking about other instances of Mohammed cartoons, not the exhibition that was at issue in the thread. My mistake. But I was neither ignoring nor making excuses for threats and action against people who published those cartoons. That's wrong and inexcusable, and it doesn't mean that such speech should be banned.

But again, has anybody in the thread been advocating for certain types of speech to be banned? I haven't seen it, and I've read through the whole thing.

Not banned.  But, the argument I was having was with people saying that depicting Mohammed is always offensive.