Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <20060205025258.18543.qmail &AElig web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0602042156040.782 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <20060205025258.18543.qmail &AElig web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:19:00 -0500 (EST)
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: view the infamous cartoons, support free speech, buy legos
Status: O

I liked the one about running out of virgins.  I don't think the
content should be considered terribly offensive, although i'll concede
that i'm in the dark about not wanting to depict muhammad.

It's poking fun at people with (what i would hope people understand
to be) a warped set of religious beliefs.  If I were an enlightented
christian, i doubt i'd take offense at an article poking fun at pat
robertson, perhaps with a navy seal jesus assassinating hugo chavez.  The
point being that the cartoon would be depicting pat's twisted conception
of j.c., not my own.  Of course, such a cartoon would be misunderstood
and taken to be extremely offensive by U.S. consumers of McChristianity(TM).

That being said, if people don't like what your newspaper or nation is
printing, more power to them if they want to stage a boycott.

- kevin


On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Erica O'Connor wrote:

> The pro-free speech sentiment is somewhat misplaced in
> this instance.  Considering how blasphemous it is to
> depict Mohamed, doing so in a pointless, stupid
> cartoon provides no justifiable good to anyone.
> Naturally violence isn't an acceptable solution to an
> offensive piece of media.  But general outcry,
> awareness raising, and a boycott are perfectly
> reasonable responses to this type of bad judgment on
> the part of the newspapers.  (Granted, a boycott on
> *all* Danish products is a bit unfocused and mostly
> symbolic.  But if I were a Danish person I would be in
> favor of a boycott of the particular newspaper who
> printed this material.)  The vast, vast majority of
> offended Muslims are taking these types of approaches;
> and they should have the right to take action against
> something that shows them and their beliefs so little
> respect.  It would be a serious error to consider
> radical, violent individuals as representative of all
> Muslims.  Analogously, as an animal rights/welfare
> advocate I vehemently appose being grouped together
> with the fanatics who destroy research labs that use
> animals.
> I see the comical depiction of Mohamed similarly to
> representing American Indian chief mascots as buffoons
> for the amusement of white people.  This is
> understandably offensive, and I would support efforts
> to encourage the remove this offense in a peaceful,
> lawful way.  Free speech is not synonymous with speech
> protected from all consequences.  There are also
> important restrictions on free speech which are not
> necessarily hypocritical.
> Learn to pick your battles, Daniel.  There are
> egregious (and not to mention actual) infringements on
> free speech everywhere that would be better served by
> your attention.  (http://www.aclu.org/)
> I understand why people are curious about the
> particular cartoons that began this huge controversy
> in the news, however, the links to other cartoons on
> your website are gratuitous.  Please take them down.
> Thank you.
> -Erica
>
> --- Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > And by the way, I'm completely serious about this. I
> > think this is a way
> > that improvetheworld can literally improve the
> > world.
> >
> > Also, please don't be shy about chiming in on this.
> > Once the first
> > message is sent it's really no more burden for
> > people to delete the whole
> > thread (as long as you leave the subject line
> > intact).
> >
> >
> > (PS, I can see from the web logs that lots of you
> > have viewed the pictures
> > already so don't pretend you're not listening! :)
> >
> >
> > --- \/   FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.02.04 17:03
> > (Today)   \/ ---
> >
> > > A Danish newspaper recently published cartoons
> > depicting Mohammed and muslims
> > > as terrorists.  Muslims are up in arms about it.
> > In fact, they've burnt down
> > > the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria, as a
> > start.
> > >
> > > It's all over the news but no US newspaper has the
> > backbone to print the
> > > cartoons.  I guess terrorism works. So this is an
> > opportunity to fight for
> > > free speech by helping make sure the agenda of the
> > radical religious right
> > > backfires.  And so, improvetheworld brings you:
> > >
> > >
> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/itw/mohammed
> > >    (or google improvetheworld)
> > >
> > > Oh, and since muslims are calling for boycotts of
> > Danish products in response
> > > to those cartoons, you should also buy more Danish
> > stuff.  Like Legos.
> > >
> > > <ducking>,
> > > Danny
> >
> > --
> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -
> > search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >
> >
>