Random Output
Lars Vilks is an ass:
05/17/2010
I'm about to offer an opinion and I'm not going to make some happy. Lars Vilks is the Swedish artist who thinking it was insightful and or funny, decided to draw Muhammad as a dog. This in turn made some people rather upset.
Do you have a right to draw Muhammad, I think you do.
That said there is the concept of "fighting words". For your consideration:
In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.
It would seem to me the artist has deliberately decided to provoke the situation, one which he knew full well there could be a very negative reaction to the act.
I don't claim to know anything more about Sweden or it politics than what I learned from the Muppet Show. Having looked at the drawing perhaps there is a social context that I missed. Is drawing Muhammad's head on a dogs body bringing anything useful to the table? Is it making a point that can only be expressed this way?
Now I will defend the artist's right to make that image, but the artist shouldn't assume he has the right to metaphorically give Islam the bird and not deal with consequences from it.
Look at it this way... if I posted images of Sambo in a online forum, which clearly a racial insult, I would fully expect that I was going make a lot of people angry. Perhaps I would be banned from the board for it. If other posters were my neighbors I might hear about it to my face. One or two of them might even take a swing at me. And while I might be able to get the law to protect me, I can't really claim to be 100% faultless in this row.
It's not all that far in some ways from flag burning if you consider it as making a statement. Now you or I can legally burn the flag. However are we to be surprised if someone decides to intercede or confronts us about that act?
The thing about flag burning, why isn't useful is that it's so polarizing to some you might as well have spit in their faces. You have managed to make a statement that will quite likely drive the divide wider. And let's ask, is it a useful thing in that it promotes communication, does it promote understanding?
Or is it just spitting into people's faces? Is it a sort of equivalent to shock jock communication?
For for my Christian friends, how offended are you by photographer Andres Serrano work titled "Piss Christ"?
I can understand why someone could reasonably be angered by this. From my perspective, it's not about justifying violence as there is no justification, it's about understanding the what and why behind the anger.
Have you ever found yourself in the situation of defending a friend who said something offensive? That's how this feels to me. I do defend the rights of artists, editors, newspapers and even cartoonists, but sometimes when what is said is over the line, its a hard sell even to oneself. Mind you it's not quite as bad as defending Nazis, but it doesn't leave you feeling that good about yourself either. Lars Vilks pulled an jackass move here... and yes I defend the right of Lars Vilks to be a jackass, I just don't support Lars Vilks being a jackass.
So... what is a reasonable response, frankly this fire business or murder would be too far. I do support the right of Muslims to get into this guy's grill, but what is a reasonable response? Why not boycott Lars? If your Muslim, why not refuse to do business with him. Plaster his picture in every cab, on the side of every cash readjuster, at every desk where a muslin works and refuse to do business with this man. Boycott Lars until he makes a public apology.
Because If your going to cook sacred cows, you best be ready to face the farmer.