I presume that outside of a
courtroom, lying should be considered a form of free speech. But how often does one hear somebody justify
being caught in a lie by claiming he was simply exercising his "free speech
rights?"
As trite as it may be, the use
of free speech rights to express contempt for the Prophet Muhammad in a manner
designed to incite is fueled by the same objective that motivates someone to falsely
yell FIRE in a crowded building.
What the conservative media
tells us is that when Jesus is defamed -- as they claim occurs yearly during the
annual "War on Christmas" -- Christians don't go on killing campaigns. But as anyone familiar with the Crusades can
attest, Jesus need not be defamed in order for killings to occur in the name of
Christ. Certainly in 1987 and beyond, the
Piss Christ controversy erupted in a
shitload of backlash both here and abroad, some of which would be labeled
"terroristic" by today's standards. In
addition to repeated vandalism of the print itself and angry protests, there
were continual death threats made against Serrano and against staffers at
museums and galleries showing the exhibit
There was also governmental
intervention. It was officially denounced
by a couple of apparently free-speech-hating U.S. Senators and Rudy Giuliani tried
to ban the exhibit in New York. And
perhaps to no one's surprise, there were legal steps taken by the Catholic
Church to prevent its display. In April
of last year, Christian activists completely destroyed a print on display at a
French museum.
In light of this, how does one
avoid concluding that what's being enacted today is no more than free speech
rights being snidely pimped? Of being expressed
in a way that in the end comes off as the pointless bullying of followers of a
centuries-old faith which is radically different from that of the bullies. It's a type of free speech abuse that simply
wouldn't be tolerated if imposed on followers of certain other faiths.
It's ignorant to presume that
Islamists use their abhorrence of slander against the Prophet Muhammad as an
excuse to murder non-Muslim "infidels."
Think not? Ask any Muslim living
under Taliban rule. It's a centuries-old
cultural thing that most on the other side apparently just don't
understand.
But any medievalist
consequences directed by Muslims against fellow Muslims considered to have been
disrespectful to Islam is one thing; the idea of non-Muslims wasting time and
energy concocting ways to insult a group that shares a different set of
cultural/religious norms seems more like an exercise of free speech depravity.
Try to imagine how the Pat
Robertson or that Koran-burning idiot Pastor down South and others of their ilk
would react if "Mustapha" from over in Libya decided to bootleg a video showing
the Virgin Mary being fucked by a donkey or Jesus Christ getting all "biblical"
with a sheep. Or if "Ahmed" from down in
Yemen decided that posting on Facebook, his Photoshop
of a Catholic priest pulling a "Sandusky" on 10-year-old altar boy would be
something all the Christians who've "friended" him would get a kick out of.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).