Talking with my buddy last week, while watching the news, we wondered about the solution. Lots of talking heads said that Muslims need to step up and fix this. But how do they fix this? What do they need to do? Can they do anything that will really stop those that have a perverted sense of what Islam is about?
As you watch the talking heads I suggest you always keep this question in mind.........How?
The question that I have been asking for years - where is the Islamic equivalent of the Pope or Billy Graham? Who is the world leader of Islam? What is the official edict, policy or message on this type of radical behavior?
One way I've always looked at it is taking into account the ages of the major religions. Judaism is at least 3,000 years old. Christianity is obviously about 2015 years old. Muhammed died in 632, so comparatively, in radical Islam it's the year 1380. The Middle Ages. Christianity in the Middle Ages was obsessed with heresy, blasphemy and witchcraft, all punishable by death. So, as a historical means of comparison...
Obviously there's the matter of interpretation of Islamic scripture. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly ban images of the Prophet. It's been interpreted that way.
Talking with my buddy last week, while watching the news, we wondered about the solution. Lots of talking heads said that Muslims need to step up and fix this. But how do they fix this? What do they need to do? Can they do anything that will really stop those that have a perverted sense of what Islam is about?
As you watch the talking heads I suggest you always keep this question in mind.........How?
The question that I have been asking for years - where is the Islamic equivalent of the Pope or Billy Graham? Who is the world leader of Islam? What is the official edict, policy or message on this type of radical behavior?
One way I've always looked at it is taking into account the ages of the major religions. Judaism is at least 3,000 years old. Christianity is obviously about 2015 years old. Muhammed died in 632, so comparatively, in radical Islam it's the year 1380. The Middle Ages. Christianity in the Middle Ages was obsessed with heresy, blasphemy and witchcraft, all punishable by death. So, as a historical means of comparison...
Obviously there's the matter of interpretation of Islamic scripture. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly ban images of the Prophet. It's been interpreted that way.
There are people around here that take up serpents and drink poison due to their interpretation of the Bible. Some of them die from snake bites.
A fleeing Taliban terrorist, desperate for water, was plodding through the Afghan desert when he saw something far off in the distance.
Hoping to find water, he hurried toward the mirage, only to find a very frail little old Jewish man standing at a small makeshift display rack - selling ties.
The Taliban terrorist asked, "Do you have water?"
The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie? They are only $5."
The Taliban shouted hysterically, "Idiot Infidel! I do not need such an over-priced western adornment. I spit on your ties. I need water!"
"Sorry, I have none, just ties - pure silk, and only $5."
"Pahh! A curse on your ties! I should wrap one around your scrawny little neck and choke the life out of you, but I must conserve my energy and find water!"
"Okay," said the little old Jewish man. "It does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie from me, or that you hate me, threaten my life, and call me infidel. I will show you that I am bigger than any of that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a restaurant. It has the finest food and all the ice-cold water you need. Go In Peace."
Cursing him again, the desperate Taliban staggered away, over the hill.
Several hours later, he crawled back, almost dead, and gasped, "They won't let me in without a tie..." ”
http://prairiehome.org/jokes/?joke_cat=Ethnic
Mohammed, shedding a tear, holding a sign that says "We Are Charlie," above his head reads "All Is Forgiven," published by people who just had their friends and co-workers slaughtered.
Perfect. Just so perfect on so, so many levels.
Isn't it just a picture of any Muslim person? How do we know it's supposed to be the prophet Mohamed on this latest cover?
I certainly don't condone violence in any way, shape, or form. The people responsible for this, and groups like Al-Queda and ISIL should be eradicated by any means necessary since they are out to kill innocent people. However, why taunt them with images like this? Why poke the lion? If we ignored them altogether and refrained from printing pictures of Mohamed and/or mock the religion, would we really have less freedom of speech? We all know they will react with mass violence, so isn't it best to ignore and refrain from the taunts? My brother once told me that he hated when I called him a certain nickname......so I stopped calling him that name.
Isn't it just a picture of any Muslim person? How do we know it's supposed to be the prophet Mohamed on this latest cover?
Probably because the guy that drew it said so...
"With this cover, we wanted to show that at any given moment, we have the right to do anything, to redo anything, and to use our characters the way we want to. Mohammed has become a character, in spite of himself, a character in the news, because there are people who speak on his behalf. This is a cover aimed at intelligent people, who are much more numerous than you think, whether they’re atheists, Catholics, Muslims ...
"I had this idea that I was stuck on: to draw my caricature of Mohammed, the one that had started all the chatter. And to do him holding a “Je Suis Charlie” sign. It made me laugh. It was my last-ditch effort. So I drew my little drawing, and I looked at his face, and it made me laugh. I saw this character who had been used in spite of himself by nut jobs who set sh!t on fire, by terrorists. Humorless assholes: That’s what these terrorists are. Of course everything is forgiven, my man Mohammed. We can overcome, because I managed to draw you. I showed my drawing to Richard Malka, then to Gérard Biard, and then we cried. Because we had it, a cover that looked like us, and that didn’t look like everyone else or like the symbols that have been imposed on us over the last few days. Not a cover with bullet holes, but just a cover that makes us laugh.
However, why taunt them with images like this? Why poke the lion? If we ignored them altogether and refrained from printing pictures of Mohamed and/or mock the religion, would we really have less freedom of speech? We all know they will react with mass violence, so isn't it best to ignore and refrain from the taunts?
Satire has a necessary place in society, IMO. All establishments are fair game, from religions to governments to any comglomerate that requires large amounts of people to function.
Take a look at this...
DUBAI (Reuters) - A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.
Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."
Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.
"God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he wrote in his ruling.
That provoked swift responses from Twitter users writing in Arabic and identifying themselves with Arab names.
"They are afraid for their faith of everything ... sick minds," one Twitter user wrote.
Another posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a "snow bride" wearing a bra and lipstick. "The reason for the ban is fear of sedition," he wrote.
A third said the country was plagued by two types of people:
"A people looking for a fatwa (religious ruling) for everything in their lives, and a cleric who wants to interfere in everything in the lives of others through a fatwa," the user wrote.
Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. "It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," one wrote.
"May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognize matters that even Satan does not think about."
Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia's border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East.
That ain't from The Onion. That's living, self-defined satire. Say I'm a cartoonist and I want to draw a cartoon of the ridculousness of this and people wish to be offended? Too bad.
I have my doubts about Gina's knowledge of satire as it relates to the Muslim world.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/world/meast/iran-satire-cartoonists/
Iran's cartoonists find new lines of expression
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, for CNN
Updated 12:11 AM ET, Tue April 16, 2013
(CNN)—In 2003, former newspaper editor Ali Reza Eshraghi made a mistake that cost him his freedom: he published a cartoon.
The sketch in question, a drawing from 1937 depicting U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court, seemed an innocuous choice for the Iranian newspaper, Hayat No.
But Iran's Special Court for the Clergy disagreed. According to Reporters Without Borders it ruled that that the cartoon's depiction of Roosevelt looked suspiciously like the Islamic Republic's founder Ayatollah Khomeini and was insulting to his memory.
The court shut down Hayat No, and Eshraghi spent nearly two months in prison.
A decade later, Eshraghi's friend and former colleague, journalist Omid Memarian, decided to honor the pressures placed on satirists in a book entitled, "Sketches of Iran: A Glimpse from the Front Lines of Human Rights."
The book, published in January by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, was informed by Memarian's conviction that political cartoons played a unique role in his country's struggle for democracy.
"Over the past ten years I've been working as a journalist both in Iran and out of Iran, and I've seen political cartoons have a very strong impact on political discussions and social discussions," he explained.
"Cartoons communicate with a much wider audience, with different layers of society, with people from different social economic class, with different levels of education."
Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning lawyer, notes in her forward to the book that decades of censorship have also meant that the subtle, tongue-in-cheek wit of cartoonists takes on special power, writing that "a society stricken by years of authoritarian rule cannot express itself and its pains in a straightforward manner."
Satire has long been used as a powerful medium for veiled political commentary and political cartoons became a favorite medium for poking fun at authorities. The satirical magazine "Molla Nasreddin," an Azeri language periodical published between 1906 and 1930 enjoyed a wide readership across the Middle East.
Its main character, a bumbling and backwards cleric often depicted in compromising scenarios, resonated with countries grappling with the thorny issue of modernization -- particularly Iran, where Molla Nasreddin's first year of publication coincided with the Constitutional Revolution, an attempt to reform Iran's monarchy.
The country's first experiment with liberal democracy was ended in 1907, but Molla Nasreddin's jokes lived on inspiring future generations of artists who have used political cartoons to offer subtle social commentary for decades.
"The reasons cartoons... have a very strong presence in Iranian culture is that in some of these cycles of oppression journalists or authors could not write. But cartoonists might find ways to express an idea or in a very delicate way," said Memarian.
Memarian believes cartoons have a unique ability to capture complex political problems in a succinct and visually powerful way, making them universally appealing.
Now, the dynamics of the Arab Spring have bred a new cartoon culture that has moved away from understated critique to direct assaults on authoritarnism.
"The scope for public expression has become much wider" said Lina Khatib, director of the Arab Reform and Democracy Program at Stanford University. "People feel much more empowered in being able to express how they feel about autocracy without the fear which used to force them to opt for subtlety."
Tarek Shahin, author of the graphic novel "Rise: the Story of the Egyptian Revolution as Told Shortly Before It Began," agrees.
"As recently as three years ago just the fact that I wrote about politics and other social taboos had many of my friends and family worried about my safety and theirs by association," said Shahin. "Today you can't keep up with all the political jokes, be they cartoons, internet memes or street graffiti."
Self-expression is finding new forms, too. Dean Obeidallah, founder of the New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and a stand-up comedian who conducts workshops in the Middle East, said he has witnessed an explosion in the number of local comics in the region.
But in Iran, according to Omid Memarian, many humorists have been forced to leave the country.
"Over the past seven to eight years, particularly over the past four years, many cartoonists -- like journalists -- have fled the country and live abroad," he said.
"They are under constant pressure to make sure their cartoons do not become a reason to harm the newspaper...There have been newspaper that have been shut down just for having a controversial cartoon."
Nonetheless, cartoonists in Iran are drawing on their creativity to evade censorship, which Memarian insists makes their work even more powerful.
"We're seeing actions become more ambiguous, more general, more interpretative," he said.
"(But) the process of decoding a message is more attractive. It's more appealing, more beautiful."
Mohammed, shedding a tear, holding a sign that says "We Are Charlie," above his head reads "All Is Forgiven," published by people who just had their friends and co-workers slaughtered.
Perfect. Just so perfect on so, so many levels.
Isn't it just a picture of any Muslim person? How do we know it's supposed to be the prophet Mohamed on this latest cover?
I certainly don't condone violence in any way, shape, or form. The people responsible for this, and groups like Al-Queda and ISIL should be eradicated by any means necessary since they are out to kill innocent people. However, why taunt them with images like this? Why poke the lion? If we ignored them altogether and refrained from printing pictures of Mohamed and/or mock the religion, would we really have less freedom of speech? We all know they will react with mass violence, so isn't it best to ignore and refrain from the taunts? My brother once told me that he hated when I called him a certain nickname......so I stopped calling him that name.
You do get that they consider ANY criticism whatsoever as blasphemy not just what you or I would consider mocking. Do you see that this is a slippery slope. And by the way that magazine is juvenile, mostly gross and worst of all not at all funny. But our society allows such things to be printed, indeed demands that such things be permitted to be printed. They are encroaching on OUR society. If we are really at a point where self-censorship is necessary to avoid poking the lions then the lions need to be gotten rid of. They don't belong among us. No?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, why taunt them with images like this? Why poke the lion? If we ignored them altogether and refrained from printing pictures of Mohamed and/or mock the religion, would we really have less freedom of speech? We all know they will react with mass violence, so isn't it best to ignore and refrain from the taunts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Satire has a necessary place in society, IMO. All establishments are fair game, from religions to governments to any comglomerate that requires large amounts of people to function.
Satire definitely does have a place in society, including religions. But can't we mock Islam without drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, which they specifically object to? Obviously, 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and therefore Al-Queda must be eliminated in return. I realize they will attack us for no reason, and show no courtesy for human life. But I don't see any logic in conducting a specific act they have always announced as one of the highest forms of offense to their culture. In order to save some lives, lets mock Islam, but refrain from publicly printing images of Mohamed.
You do get that they consider ANY criticism whatsoever as blasphemy not just what you or I would consider mocking. Do you see that this is a slippery slope. And by the way that magazine is juvenile, mostly gross and worst of all not at all funny. But our society allows such things to be printed, indeed demands that such things be permitted to be printed. They are encroaching on OUR society. If we are really at a point where self-censorship is necessary to avoid poking the lions then the lions need to be gotten rid of. They don't belong among us. No?
Yes, I get that they consider any criticism as blasphemy, but many many talk shows blast Islam on a regular basis, and I have not heard of a terrorist attack being the result. But a cartoon image of Mohamen will almost always certainly result in an attack. And yes, if the lions are murdering innocents, then they must be eliminated for sure.
My point is, are we really censored just because we choose not to print a cartoon image of Mohamed to avoid the deaths of innocent people? Am I truly censored because I chose not to call my brother that nickname that he didn't like? Even though I don't call him that name anymore, I still feel like I have complete freedom of speech.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by BoytonBrother]
Medieval Muslim artists often created paintings and illuminated manuscripts depicting Mohammed in full. Several examples are presented here. Other artists of the era drew Mohammed but left his face blank so as to technically comply with the Islamic ban on depicting the Prophet; these images are shown in the second section.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_muslimbrotherhood10a.htm
or try looking thru these examples from google of Iranian cartoons
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by LeglizHemp]
There is almost a guarantee that hardline anti-immigrant parties are going to take power in France and other European countries and if this is not brought under control Muslims, most of whom will be innocent, are going to be slaughtered.
I never come on to Whipping Post but clicked on the wrong button today!
There is so much that is wrong with the above. I assume you are a US citizen and are used to the US two-party electoral system. Most European countries are not like this: take France, since that is the country in question. Ironically, this IS similar to the US model with a lower and upper chamber and a president with the possibility that different parties may hold sway in each. Power has traditionally been passed between the Republican Party (Right, conservative) and the Socialist Party (Left, radical).
However, parties such as the Communist Party and the National Front at the extremes of the spectrum have had sizeable and influential representation. There is a rising Green (Ecology) movement in Europe generally and other small parties are represented.
In other words, there is pluralism and diversity of parties which has a restraining effect on any ruling party. Many countries - including the UK - are governed by coalitions of parties.
It seems likely that the anti-immigration National Front will increase its share of support at future elections. But enough to "take power"? Unlikely and certainly not, as explained above, enough to hold unbridled power. So the mechanisms are there to ensure that it will be "brought under control".
There is also the European Parliament, of which France is a leading member, which also has the power to impose legislation upon the (28?) member countries, on a democratic basis, of course.
Even if the National Front were to have absolute control, how the hell do you make the leap to "Muslims are going to be slaughtered"?!
France and Europe are civilised places. The idea that anyone is going to be slaughtered on a random and sectarian basis is, to me, unthinkable.
You may say that there is a fairly recent precedent in the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. France may not be a model of ethnic integration and racism is a problem, but I cannot envisage a scenario where the population is slaughtering one another on any scale.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by Shavian]
If we choose to refrain from saying or doing something that we know is highly offensive to an entire religion, it does not mean we are censored. It means we are showing respect and courtesy for Islam. This is not about showing courtesy to the terrorist groups....obviously they must be hunted and killed.
Charlie Hebdo has a tradition of lampooning, amongst others, the Catholic church.
Never has it resulted in the firebombing of their offices, let alone the slaughter of their editorial staff.
The alleged offence caused by mocking Islam is merely an excuse for bad people to do bad things.
Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol
"Rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity," he says. "The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers."
Shavian, agreed. But the terrorist groups don't represent Islam, no more than the KKK and the Nazis represent Christianity. Like you said, the terrorists are just bad people using religion as an excuse to do bad things. But it is true that the majority of Muslims are offended by images of Moahamed. Despite being offended, they will not be violent in return, but I bet it would cause animosity towards those that printed the picture, just as any of us would be offended and angry at a burning cross in our neighborhood. We don't kill KKK members, just as the majority of Muslims are not violent, but wouldn't we prefer that they respect our wishes and not burn crosses in our neighborhood?
The South Park creators got the message and stopped lampooning Islam; but the Mormon's seem to be OK with it and don't threaten to blow up the Theater for "Book Of Mormon" If there was "Book Of Islam" no doubt the theater would blow up while the cast sang "Kaboom"
Muslim man gets 11.5 years for threatening South Park writers after they depicted the Prophet Mohammad in a bear suit
By Daily Mail Reporter
Published: 16:36 EST, 22 June 2012 | Updated: 16:38 EST, 22 June 2012
View
comments
A Muslim convert from New York has been sentenced to 11-1/2 years in prison after pleading guilty to threatening the writers of the satirical South Park television show for their depiction of the Prophet Mohammad among other charges.
Jesse Curtis Morton, 33, of Brooklyn, also known as Younus Abdullah Muhammed, ran a website that encouraged Muslims to engage in violence against accused enemies of Islam.
After one South Park episode pictured Mohammad disguised in a bear suit, the home addresses of the show's creators were posted on that page and threatening messages were sent.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163412/Muslim-man-Jesse-Morton-sentenced-11-5-years-threatening-South-Park-writers.html#ixzz3Ope257i8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Satire definitely does have a place in society, including religions. But can't we mock Islam without drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, which they specifically object to?
Satire with conditions?
No.
We will have agree to disagree.
So we either eliminate all Muslims, or ignore them and stop poking the tiger. Which one is more plausible? I sure hope the next person to taunt Islam thinks first about the innocent people who might be killed. And I hope they are being honest...are they truly fighting for free speech or are they antagonizing a group of people out of disdain?
Anti-Semitism in the Arab Press: Anti-Semitic Political Cartoons
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/cartoons2001.html
Are the Nigerians being slaughtered by Boko Haram and the young girls being imprisoned and raped guilty of mocking Mohammed? Was the ten year old kid on the internet by his ISIS brothers to slaughter two Russian Spies doing so because they insulted Muslims? Does anyone truly still believe that 9/11 was purely the result of US support for Israel? It matters not how many conditions (such as literary censorship are conceded; there will be another "unmet" point or cause just as soon and the murderous militants will murder someone. These are not your friendly neighbor with different beliefs; there is a sizeable lunatic fringe out there.
Bhawk, I can respect that, but how would you feel if Muslims moved in next door and burned crosses on their lawn in plain sight because it was their way of satirizing Christianity? I know you wouldn't be violent, but i bet you'd be upset, and a lot happier if they didn't do it out of respect for what it might mean to the neighbors.
Bhawk, I can respect that, but how would you feel if Muslims moved in next door and burned crosses on their lawn in plain sight because it was their way of satirizing Christianity? I know you wouldn't be violent, but i bet you'd be upset, and a lot happier if they didn't do it out of respect for what it might mean to the neighbors.
I'm not sure that's a good analogy, I'd be more worried that a neighbor was setting things on fire on their front lawn. The act of burning a cross at face value wouldn't bother me that much.
I think you are using "Muslims" in too broad-reaching a sense. Over 1.6 billion of them on the planet and I'll bet most of them are just trying to get through the day like you and me.
I get the point about respect, and with the fact that freedom of speech and expression comes a decision to make..."Just because I can do this, does it mean I should?"
But, in this instance, I don't think the Charlie Hebdo massacre was first and foremost about religion. The cop that got killed was a Muslim.
A human being being able to express oneself at a basic level must not ever be in danger, IMO.
"I will kill you if you draw that picture!!!!"
Eff you. Gimme a pen.
Good points. The only difference we share is that I wouldn't draw the picture since I know the person is a maniac and might kill me or another innocent person. I'll draw something else instead, lol.
You said you would not draw the cartoon out of respect for Islam and now you say you would not draw the picture because a maniac would kill you. Which is it?
Here's one: if nobody ever drew a picture of Muhammad back in the day ... how would anybody know what he looks like to draw a picture of him now? How would you know that the person in the drawing is (or is supposed to be) Muhammad?
You said you would not draw the cartoon out of respect for Islam and now you say you would not draw the picture because a maniac would kill you. Which is it?
Both.
i'm not sure cross burning would work in the context you stated it either. i don't think that could win in court under free speech laws, if it could it would have been used as a defense.....in the context you stated.
i went back and reread what you said and i thought it said someone elses yard.....sorry
what if it wasn't a cross but just a firepit? now i'm stoned and forget what i was doing....... 
i thought i had posted this but i guess i didn't
Larry Flynt on Free Speech......'Free speech only important if it's offensive'
http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/01/09/larry-flynt-free-speech-orig.cnn
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by LeglizHemp]
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by LeglizHemp]
Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV...
Burning a cross is more of a direct and physical threat. Beyond that , setting fire to any object on someone else's property represents a certain presence of danger and is tantamount to arson.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, why taunt them with images like this? Why poke the lion? If we ignored them altogether and refrained from printing pictures of Mohamed and/or mock the religion, would we really have less freedom of speech? We all know they will react with mass violence, so isn't it best to ignore and refrain from the taunts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Satire has a necessary place in society, IMO. All establishments are fair game, from religions to governments to any comglomerate that requires large amounts of people to function.
Satire definitely does have a place in society, including religions. But can't we mock Islam without drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, which they specifically object to? Obviously, 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and therefore Al-Queda must be eliminated in return. I realize they will attack us for no reason, and show no courtesy for human life. But I don't see any logic in conducting a specific act they have always announced as one of the highest forms of offense to their culture. In order to save some lives, lets mock Islam, but refrain from publicly printing images of Mohamed.
You do get that they consider ANY criticism whatsoever as blasphemy not just what you or I would consider mocking. Do you see that this is a slippery slope. And by the way that magazine is juvenile, mostly gross and worst of all not at all funny. But our society allows such things to be printed, indeed demands that such things be permitted to be printed. They are encroaching on OUR society. If we are really at a point where self-censorship is necessary to avoid poking the lions then the lions need to be gotten rid of. They don't belong among us. No?
Yes, I get that they consider any criticism as blasphemy, but many many talk shows blast Islam on a regular basis, and I have not heard of a terrorist attack being the result. But a cartoon image of Mohamen will almost always certainly result in an attack. And yes, if the lions are murdering innocents, then they must be eliminated for sure.
My point is, are we really censored just because we choose not to print a cartoon image of Mohamed to avoid the deaths of innocent people? Am I truly censored because I chose not to call my brother that nickname that he didn't like? Even though I don't call him that name anymore, I still feel like I have complete freedom of speech.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by BoytonBrother]
If it's your choice to not do it because you don't want to offend them then that's fine. If you are not doing it because you fear you may be harmed then that is an absolutely intolerable form of censorship.
