Extra, Extra

If that's really the thrust of the presentation, then I officially no longer give a shit. That's not the impression I got from the Villager blurb at all.

"Of course, the event is NOT intended to "to discuss how bad and dangerous these drawings are" - surely it's the opposite"

The forum as I understand it was to discuss how civilized society should respond to offensive garbage, and why publishing this particular offensive garbage had such deadly and devastating repercussions. At any rate, the forum certainly wasn't being held to celebrate or support the garbage itself.

Sort of like when they show "Triumph of the Will" and "Birth of a Nation" in classrooms to highlight the danger and effectiveness of racist propaganda.

Now that right there is a cop-out. By that reasoning, there's no reason to show anything "bad" on the nightly news or to publish photographs of any kind in the newspaper. Words should be sufficient to describe the abuses at Abu Grahib, the horrors of Auschwiz, lynchings in the South, etc, etc. Matter of fact, why don't we all walk around with blinders on and trust Big Brother to deliver an accurate account of what's going on around us, for our own safety? Because that's he direction we're headed, my friend. Censorship is censorship, whether it's orchestrated by this current Administration or opportunistic bullies of a different stripe.

Of course, the event is NOT intended to "to discuss how bad and dangerous these drawings are" - surely it's the opposite.

If one cannot adequately describe the cartoons (many of which are actually quite conceptual, cartoons about drawing cartoons) and make a decent argument about them WITH WORDS, then what do you hope to accomplish?

Actually, one of the people listed for fatwah DID publish the images, bklynd. That's the whole point. And the irony is they didn't do it out of malice, they did it to provide CONTEXT for the entire debate. I think it's a little disingenuous and idiotic to hold a forum -- in an institution of (supposedly) higher learning and greater maturity, no less -- and essentially say, "this forum is to discuss how bad and dangerous these drawings are but we can't actually SHOW you how bad they are, you'll just have to take our word for it." (It actually sounds like the makings of a hilarious Monty Python skit, quite frankly.)

And no disrespect but I think it's a little naive to think "fundamentalist wackos" (of any religion) would feel comfortable in any situation that didn't meet their exacting and bizarre standards. That is, after all, why they're fundamentalist wackos. :)

From what I gather, it's supposed to be a forum. Debate, discussion, discourse. Muslims who cherish free speech will be able to represent, as will anybody.

If it were my event, I'd want to design it so that the fundamentalist wackos felt at least somewhat welcome. Otherwise, what's the point? The real challenge toward achieving a free society is in figuring out how to persuade those who don't want to play along.

I'd bet those ten Muslim intellectuals didn't try to make their point by republishing the images.

Sure, they should be available - they are, and I've looked at them. My event would pass out the URL so anyone could go home and look at 'em too. But, to hold back at a campus forum seems fine to me. I think it's more "feeble" to rage about free speech in the abstract - it just seals us more tightly in our New York liberal bubble.

I agree with SomeJoe. What's also being conveniently omitted from the equation are the very large number of Muslims who also support free speech and the right to allow the cartoons -- as reprehensible as they are -- to be shown. By stifling debate and discourse, and pandering to a radical fringe element, you're also doing a tremendous disservice to the majority of Muslims who cherish free speech. Should we say, "fuck THOSE Muslims, we don't care what THEY think"? Does it help the cause of any religion if we only give voice to the most ass-backwards fundamentalists? Or are we masking our own cowardice with the convenient scapegoat of "political correctness"?

I agree there's a way to approach showing the cartoons, and a way NOT to approach it. But it's funny how the same people who roll their eyes when Native Americans take offense at insulting sports logos or Black people take umbrage with movie stereotypes, suddenly become all "sensitive" when there's a potential for real violence.

There are at least ten prominent Muslim intellectuals whose lives are in immediate danger right now for daring to take issue with the fundamentalists. Let's not make a mockery of the very real risks they are taking.

bklynd - Using your feeble logic, I suppose our art museusms should be scrubbed of anything that might offend someone's religious sensibilities? When did you nuts on the Left become so illiberal?

And SD doesn't even undersand what the Brooklyn Museum controversy was about - public funding.

bklynd and SD think that kowtowing to the fanatics will make them go away. Not a chance.

I care what Muslims think, but a free society demands that they respect my thoughts as well. No religion can receive special treatment, especially not because it's adherents can't be trusted to refrain from violence.

This shouldn't be a left/right issue, but most of the defense of our freedoms has come from the right. From what I've seen, the left has either ignored the issue or written it off as "conservatives are islamophobic bigots, of course they want to show those." I wonder how many have even seen the images, almost none of my friends and coworkers had.

Even beyond that, how many people know that the riots started months after the cartoons were first published when Danish imams visited the Middle East with two bogus cartoons added to the original JP cartoons. I know I never saw that mentioned in the NYTimes.

I simply see no way to discuss this without showing the cartoons. Reponsible discussion and inquiry doesn't shy away from uncomfortable imagery. I've seen pretty much all of the Abu Ghraib photos. I've seen photos from Auschwitz. I've seen images of beheaded bodies. I watched my neighbors jump from the WTC.

Children are protected from uncomfortable images and difficult subjects. We all need to grow up.

yeah, right, Nola, exactly what I'm saying:

"if sniveling Muslims don't like it, do they have to attend the debate?"

What kind of "debate" is that? Perhaps the title of the event should be "Fuck Muslims: We Don't Care What They Think!"

S.D.'s questions are good, but it just clarifies to me that it depends on the audience. These images are a form of visual communication/rhetoric, and thus their meaning & effect depends on who they are directed at.

The NYU forum is going to be attended, in part, by people who believe that the very creation and dissemination of those images somehow does violence to them. Indeed, it seems like the whole point of the forum would be to examine that question - it could be handled verbally without actually committing the act (which would seem to preclude discussion.)

Of course, I think it's an erroneous belief, but I can't see how you can pursuade anybody otherwise by whipping out the pictures. It's kind of like trying to pursuade somebody that subway masturbators are misunderstood by showing them your own Johnson and saying, "see? it's not so bad!"

SD, your arguments are pitiful. Of course a discussion about the Danish cartoons should include the cartoons in question. Aren't they central to the issue? And if sniveling Muslims don't like it, do they have to attend the debate?

Nobody was shy about showing pictures of the hazing that took place in Abu Ghrab. Or about showing pictures of "Piss Christ". But you cowards on the Left cave as soon as someone threatens a protest. Pathetic...

This is hardly a Right/Left issue.

SomeJoe, In all respect: to talk about a subject, is it usual to put posters up about that subject?

Extreme Examples:

If that was a forum about abuses at Abu Gharib, would posting uncensored posters of US Soldiers abusing prisoner be "Freedom of Speech" or inciting people?

What about the US soldier killing the wounded Prisoner in fromt of that Video Crew? Would putting that Video up publically be a good idea?

I really think those were Isolated instances but do you think displaying them in a public forum might incite violence against US troops?

IMO, displaying those cartoons is about getting attention/publicity, nothing more.

I'm not sure its left/right as much as we think. Repression cuts across all political stripes, and it starts when one guy turns to another and says, "Let's not show these, it'll just be asking for trouble."

Art is about asking for trouble.

Just to clarify SD, the people who screamed about Dung Madonna and Piss Christ are mostly angry that their tax dollars were used to fund the creation and exhibiiton of those artworks. That's not completely unreasonable.

This is different. I'd feel completely comfortable walking down the street with Piss Christ on a t-shirt (though I'd be a jerk looking for attention), however I'd be scared for my life to walk around with bomb-head Mohammed on my chest.

Our freedoms are being capitulated to a lawless mob. Nevermind that it's completely racist to just accept that "muslims can't control themselves and might kill you or burn your offices", there are now de-facto laws in place giving Islamic symbols special status.

The left is forfeiting any moral credibility here, I honestly can't believe that freedom of creative expression is now a conservative issue.

OK, you guys are KILLING me with the inaccuracies! LOL! The NYU hit and run???? Come on now! The driver didn't leave the scene. Mike who commented above has it right.

IMO, NYU made the correct call. Freedom of Speech implies responsibility. Right or wrong, displaying those drawings would simply have incited people to protest at the least.

To me: What so amusing here is that many of the same people screaming "free speech", screams when the Virgin Mary is depicted with elephant dung, screams when a Crucifix is dipped in urine, screams when the American Flag is burned, etc.

Nuts.

What, you mean these little Mohammed cartoons?

Oh and "Jesus", yes we absolutely should and do allow the display of all sorts of racist speech. Ask the ACLU, who is happy to defend all sorts of repulsive tripe but has been curiously silent on regarding these cartoons. Free speech is universal, no matter how offensive.

what a sad day when people stop valuing free speech because it offends some people. obviously it's in bad taste to show the cartoons, but no one should be prohibited from it officially...

Yeah. FUCK NYU! If I want to see Pictures of some Mohammad guy. We should put them up. Right next to the ARYAN SUPREMACY posters and the Swastikas. FREE SPEECH Y'all! who cares if it inflames deep passions inside people who are willing to kill for their beliefs. They are just sensitive and shit. We should also put up those pictures of UNCLE TOM Blackface Coonskin Chicken guys from the 1930's. FREE SPEECH MOTHERFUCKERs! hahahahaha

NYU faculty believes in free speech, but doesn't stand up for it. Hypocrites.

It's not that YOU can't draw pictures of Muhammed. It's MUSLIMS who can't draw pictures of Muhammed. Wow.

I don't think the NYU student's death was a hit and run. If I'm not mistaken, the driver stayed. It was more like a run and hit.