I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy De Seno ·
Sep 16, 2010 at 5:16am
The creator of the boorish, rude and intellectually void "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" is going into hiding because even worse people than her, Islamo-fascists, want to kill her.
If Molly Norris was fighting a good fight I'd be behind her 100%. But she wasn't. So I'm not. She's a needless blasphemer. I loath blasphemy.
I'm not indifferent to the fatwa death promise. I abhor it completely and would have no problem killing those who issued it in defense of Molly were they to try to kill her.
But be clear that I would be defending free speech and not Molly. Molly is part of the world's problems, not the solution.
She doesn't deserve to die. She needs to learn to have a conversation with words that persuade, not insult.
- Comment (95)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
In related news, The International Pipe Appreciation League has placed a posthumous fatwa against Rene Magritte for his painting The Treachery of Images. Those who own reprints of the painting are advised to destroy them as an expression of their sensitivity to those who revere pipes, or things that aren't pipes. Whichever.
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
James:
"Tommy: There is a difference between not telling someone a racially-charged epithet to their face and drawing something in private."
That seems to me to be a matter of sincerity. The hypothetical person you refer to, is he only a racist at home?
"I am fascinated by the idea that acknowledgment of a right is predicated on the condition it not be enjoyed."
When you find the guy that made that assertion, tell him I'm as bothered by it as you are. I've not predicated on thing on another. I've spoken only of free will - to be courteous because you can - to combat those who say be nasty because they can.
If it's wrong to put it in front of her, does it become right away from her?
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy De Seno: And I noticed NO ONE took up the subject of whether they would support Molly (not her right, but her action) if she were to go to Cpl. Kahn's mother and draw her some Muhammad cartoons.
Silence is speaking loudly on that. · Sep 16 at 11:18am
You're getting silence on that because it's a straw man. Who would say that cartoonists should approach the survivors of Muslim soldiers and rub their noses in cartoons about Islam?
Suggesting that because I would not confront a grieving mother with something I know might offend her, that "something" is blasphemous and devoid of value... that is silly. It adds nothing to your argument.
Aug '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Spot on, Jason.
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Jason I think that's more about cowardice. Don't show it to her, but let her see it in the newspaper so the "artist" can spare himself from having to look her in the eye?
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Lucky (said with a hint of jealousy).
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Thread Closer here. About blasphemy. What is it exactly? Isn't blasphemy the offense of the divine or holy? Aren't those offended by the act of blasphemy supposed to be the holy or divine ones?
I'm a Christian. I decided to follow Jesus when I was 4. Okay, got that out of the way. So, when the topic of the blasphemy represented in Piss Christ came up, I actually wasn't all up in arms. It was gross and showed the author's sub par skills. Yet, Jesus is the One who has the right to be offended. It's not my job to be offended for Him. It's my job to follow His ways. I'm just glad I'm not in the poor artist's shoes when it comes to the Reckoning.
I actually find it ridiculous for Christians or even other religions to get so crazy angry about blasphemy. It would be like an ant flying off into a blind rage because some yahoo called me an idiot and made fun of the way I do my hair. We humans aren't even in the same league with the Divine.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 10:17pmMay '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
If we had no jokes, commentary, or images because some mother somewhere might be offended, then we would have nothing at all to publish.
Tommy, there is not right not to be offended, and I would not want to live in a world where we all decided to self-censor so as never to offend anyone.
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
So, to continue my line of thinking, if blasphemy is really offending the Divine and not other humans, those humans who lose their minds and seek to kill the "infidel" really have no case. Even those Christians who are upset over blasphemous acts or "art" have no cause. They may be mad or have their feelings hurt because they are considering themselves a representative of the Divine, and they're being "dissed" in the process. But they really don't have any just cause to be so angry. The offense wasn't meant for them. It wasn't meant for the humans. And if the Divine is really divine, then whatever crazy anger humans gin up is useless and pointless.
Thoughts?
Now that I've laid out my viewpoint on blasphemy, I don't see anything wrong with what Molly Norris did. Was it blasphemous? Uh, not based on what I read. However, those of a certain religious persuasion could read that it was. So, they think it's blasphemous and wrong. Now they're acting like the Divine and will mete out retribution and punishment. That ain't their job. They're humans, not Divine.
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy, as to the question of whether or not I'd show Molly's cartoon to the grieving mother? No. However my motivation for not showing it to her is not because I'm ashamed of it. I actually think it was quite clever and funny. I wouldn't show the cartoon to the mother because I am aware of and try to practice kind and appropriate behavior. It would be cruel and inappropriate to shove that in her face as she sits clinging to her son's grave stone. I also wouldn't shove the latest issue of TV Guide in front of her face at the time. While she is grieving, it is appropriate to have empathy and grieve with her.
Then I would get up, dry my tears, get back in my car and pull out Molly's opus for a nice giggle. Humans can be so interesting. We do cruel things. We get so angry. We mourn. And we're all quite funny.
Jul '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy De Seno:
I realize I'm going to run into over-sensitivities. Maybe some obscure religion is insulted by the color of my car and they want me to change it.
To combat that I can involve myself in numbers. The larger the amount of insulted people, the more likely I'm not dealing with an oversensitive fringe. Most Muslims, 800 million to 1 billion of them, find Muhammad pictures blasphemy.
If it's a numbers game, tell me:
Do you eat pork?
Do you drink alcohol?
Have you ever owned a dog?
All of these things are considered blasphemy and haram by the same 800 million-1 billion Muslims, and most of them have longer pedigrees as such than drawing Mohammed. So if you do any of them, you are as much the blasphemer as Molly Norris.
That's the thing: to the Islamists, it doesn't matter at all whether Norris' drawings were offensive in the way they looked or the things they said about Mohammed (they were pretty tame), it's the fact that the Prophert was depicted at all. Drawing a silly little picture is not even close to dunking in urine or setting afire.
Jul '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
As to Cpl. Khan's mother, I don't have the privilege of knowing her, but it wouldn't surprise me if she sympathized at least a little bit with a woman being hounded and threatened by the same animals who killed her son.
For which, by the way, God bless her and her family.
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Felicia B you supplied the fime frame of approaching Cpl. Kahn's mother at the gravestone.
What about now? Would you taunt her with them now?
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy De Seno: Felicia B you supplied the fime frame of approaching Cpl. Kahn's mother at the gravestone.
What about now? Would you taunt her with them now? · Sep 17 at 3:08am
Is your standard for behavior that if an action is wrong on one occasion then it is wrong all the time? That is what you are implying.
A right to be insulting means nothing, if it cannot be used. That is like telling me I have a right to bear arms, but I should refrain from actually owning a gun.
If your rule of life is that no one should publishing anything that is offensive so someone, then how is it you are a writer? Is it your claim you have never offended anyone with your writing?
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Bryan you are still hung up on the "right" to do it, which is a waste of time. The right isn't in dispute.
As to blasphemy, yes I'm stating it is wrong all the time. Not illigal, but certainly uncivil and useless.
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Tommy De Seno: Felicia B you supplied the fime frame of approaching Cpl. Kahn's mother at the gravestone.
What about now? Would you taunt her with them now? · Sep 17 at 3:08am
No, sir. I wouldn't taunt her. That's just not how I roll. And I wouldn't equate approval or lack of anger over Molly's cartoon as taunting. That's a bit of a leap.
It's interesting that you're defining Molly's cartoon as blasphemy. I wouldn't necessarily use that term. I'd describe it as irreverent. Now, I guess you could say there's not much of a difference between irreverence and blasphemy. In my mind irreverence is more about offending humans instead of the Divine (God can still be offended by irreverent behavior). It's humans saying something caustic or insensitive or behaving insensitively - such as the insensitivity of placing a mosque so close to Ground Zero or a convent being built so close to a former concentration camp or mocking Isaac Hayes on South Park for his Scientology beliefs. Blasphemy is a deliberate spitting in the eye of the Divine - a confrontational challenge. Continued...
May '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
I want to extend your argument out a bit further. Let's say I don't approve of gay marriage. I also don't approve of homosexual behavior. However, I am fortunate to have many friends who are homosexual. Do I walk up to my gay friends and start shouting at them that their lifestyle is wrong and declare I will do everything in my legal power to stop gay marriage? No. It's tacky and insensitive. However, by your argument using the grieving mother, I shouldn't even publicly talk about my disagreement with gay marriage or teach my children that homosexual behavior is described as a sin in Scripture because I may be harming my gay friends. And for many of my gay friends these topics are deeply personal.
Is that a correct perspective to have? No. Just because someone may take offense at my opposing viewpoint doesn't mean I should sit quietly in a corner muttering my opinions to myself. I'm sorry if someone perceives my actions to be irreverent or even blasphemous. However, I am responsible for how I say something and in what context I say it in, not how it is perceived.
Sep '10
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Actually, Tommy, the censorship of blasphemy is the question. Molly Norris and South Park were supporting the Danish cartoonists, who were originally concerned about this question enough to press the point. Their original 12 images were immediately re-published in an Egyptian newspaper in a matter-of-fact story. Guess what -- no riot, no fatwa.
The riots and fatwa’s came four months later, when Danish Islamic clerics added three new images and took them on a Middle East tour. One of those three new images, drawn by the clerics (crudely), is truly blasphemous. Suggesting that Molly Norris is now getting just deserts for “needless blasphemy” has to be viewed in light that the clerics are free of Islamic judgment because their blasphemy was needed. The follow on criminal investigation under Danish blasphemy codes 140 and 266b resulted in an opinion on the newspaper’s actions much like your comments on Norris’, and which seem to mirror the FBI’s current stance. Of course, no investigations on those calling for death (some videotaped!). Western free speech is “going ghost.”
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
FeliciaB thank you, bucause you are on the original point I made.
You can oppose gay marriage in such a way that your protest needn't be insulting. I'm betting you can fashion an arguement so that when you see your gay friends you needn't be embarrassed.
And wouldn't you treat the average homosexual differently than you would a maniac activist on a killing spree in the name of marriage rights? Wouldn't you wish to not offend the former, and not care at all about offending the latter?
In the same way, you can oppose the Islamo-fascists without hurting the Cpl. Kahn's of the world, can't you?
The problem with the Muhammad cartoons is they don't just anger Jihadists, whose feelings I don't give a damn about. They also offend good Americans like Cpl. Kahn, who I care about as much as anyone else.
So why hurt the Cpl. Kahns of the world when we can oppose Jihad without doing that? We have the choice - let's make the honorable one that respects religion, which lifts us morally above the Jihadists who attack us because of their religious intolerence.
Re: I'll Defend Speech, But Not Molly Norris
Michael Fuller please note I've never called for third party censorship of Molly Norris. I've stated several times I'd die for her right to draw Muhammad (I hate the message of her cartoon, but I'd die for her free speech right).
My post is about self-censorship for civility, in the same way that I censor myself from racial epithets for civility. I don't lose anything by doing it. I'd lose much (self respect being one thing) if I did use them.
Molly can piss off Jihadists all she likes for all I care. But why do it in a way that offends Cpl. Kahn, who died for her free speech rights?