More Althouse UPDATED

I guess it is a dialogue now...

She said:

Harkennodog: I have said many times that I don't think we ought to give in to threats of violence. My point has always been, here, and in other posts, about behaving decently with respect to people in a general way, across the board. That was the basis of my hypos, in response to your assertion that we need to go to the limit of free speech. Clearly we don't and we shouldn't.

And I said:

Ann,

"in response to your assertion that we need to go to the limit of free speech. Clearly we don't and we shouldn't."
I guess that's where we disagree. I think free expression is under attack, and (I guess) you don't.

Comedy Central says they won't show a cartoon of Mohammed because they are afraid Muslim will kill people. Borders admits they won't carry a magazine for the same reason. The NYTimes did not admit that was why they didn't show the cartoons, but that was the obvious reason considering they showed Piss-Christ. The cartoons were published in the first place because Danes were self-censoring out of fear.

Given all that, given that so many are already not showing the cartoons specifically because they fear they'll be killed, I don't understand your position. Do you really think there is no danger to free expression right now?

Besides, since when is showing a cartoon of Mohammed "indecent behavior?" Are you really prepeared to allow certain Muslisms to define decent behavior THAT narrowly? Do you understand the implications of that choice? I mean certain Muslims find you showing your face indecent.

I then posted:

I guess what bothers me most is the "clearly" part of "clearly we don't and we shouldn't." Is it really so obvious that there's no threat? Is it so obvious that this is just a matter of manners? I just think that's crazy. Maybe I'm misreading.

Somebody throw me a friggin' bone here.

Oh, scroll down two posts for the 1st few parts of this dialogue.

Okay, so I was completely wrong, see the SELF PWN3D at Althouse post above... But before I figured THAT out I responded to her new comment:

Harkennodog: I agree that free speech is under attack, but I don't agree that the response to that attack is to be openly offensive to large groups of people who are not themselves doing the threatening. It's crude, rude, and ineffective.


With this:

Ann,

You say this Muslim group is not threatening, but they are. In the end, they are promoting coercion to curtail free speech. That's what-

"While Islam promotes free speech, it is important to recognize that anything that is discriminatory does not qualify under this heading."

actually means. They aren't saying they are going to be terrorists, they are saying the government should change, and actively seek to take away, rather than guarantee our right to free expression. They aren't saying they'll blow you up for showing a picture of Mohammed, they're saying the government should lock you up. Their goal is the same as the terrorists- coercion in order to silence.

Contrast this with a group that complains that Piss-Christ is rude, and wrong, but DOES NOT SAY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD END FREE SPEECH to make sure Piss-Christ is not shown. There is no threat of coercion, either through legal or illegal means.

Which I think is true. But I didn't post it to her comments section because I finally fuggin' figured out that my entire string of comments was based on a false premise. Wow... I still disagree with her about the best way to confront Islamists, and I still got some good out of the "dialogue," but how fucking embarrassing!

AHAHAHAHA... such self pwn3ge is rare... Where the hell were you WILL? HORNY G???

You guys are my 2 regular readers. Why didn't you save me from myself???