Defending Free Speech Against Fundamentalist Islam?

Eboo Patel
Posted: May 11, 2010 02:12 PM

A few days back, small groups of college students at Northwestern, Illinois and Wisconsin -- angry that Comedy Central had been intimidated into censoring a South Park episode depicting the Prophet Muhammad -- chalked their quads with stick figures and labeled these drawings "Prophet Muhammad" ...

Muslim Students Associations (MSA) on all three campuses said they believed in free speech and were opposed to fringe groups who threaten violence, too ...

It seems to me that there's another dangerous sleight of hand going on here -- a pretense that by chalking Muhammad you are bravely taking on the Dragon Threatening Civilization when in fact you are just hurting your Muslim classmates. It's a little like sticking your chest out and claiming you beat up the school bully, when all you really did was pick on the little kid on the playground. The former may make you a hero. The latter makes you a jerk. Doing the latter while claiming the former, that just makes you a joke ...

If there are heroes in this situation, it's the Muslim student leaders who are not only keeping their heads but trying to use this situation to advance understanding and cooperation on their campuses. Omar Fareedi, in his letter responding to the actions by the AAF group, didn't threaten violence and didn't demean secularists. He lifted up the higher value of pluralism, cast a light on the overlapping principles shared by secular humanists and Muslims, and suggested that they join together to do something useful for the broader society ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eboo-patel/free-speech-vs-fundamenta_b_571459.html

then they are making a weird choice. If you choose to be offended by stick figure drawings of anybody, then you are making ridiculous choices.

If those students drew stick figures and labeled those drawings "Buddha," most Buddhists would not freak out because most Buddhists have not made the choice to believe something so bizarre.

....O....
...-|-... <-- Buddha
..../\....


Just because people choose to believe incredibly stupid shit does not mean the rest us have go along with it.

Free speech must win EVERY TIME. While this author wrings his hands about how this doesn't foster an "inclusive society," he's evidently not all that concerned about how giving every religionist the right not to be offended would lead to an incredibly intolerant society. We are already seeing this conflict in many areas - from religious whackjob pharmacists refusing to prescribe medicines to fundie nuts denying housing to people whose morals they find offensive.

The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march in Skokie. The community members there didn't like it, I don't like it, but it was their right. We should never, ever get into the business of deciding which opinions are non-offensive enough to be expressed.

Anonymously attacking innocent people is a cowardly activity.

Based on this:



I'd guess it was the group Revolution Islam that made the threats. If people want to defend free speech, they should exercise their right to draw these pictures in the presence of, or at least having made public notice of their intent to incite, Revolution Islam and a public notice that their effort is not meant to offend the Islamic Community.

I guess what I'm saying is that if anyone wanted to prove their right to publicly use the "N" word, and:



I'd say that person was a bigot and a fool; but at least they had the courage of their convictions. The people who exercise this "right" in the serenity of a white suburb are cowards.

That's my take on it.

It looks like the mistake was Omar Fareedi's.

Islamic Figurative Art and Depictions of Muhammad
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/things/depictions-of-muhammad-in-islamic-art.htm

.................................................

The limitation and restriction on what Muslims could depict had the effect of eliminating icons and idols and narrowing artistic focus onto calligraphy, geometric design and architecture. A great flowering resulted in those fields…the impact of which is still being absorbed in the West.
Ever enjoyed an Escher?




Its inspiration is direct from the walls of Cordoba and Andalucia

The Bible doesn't require that women dress modestly, avoid jewelry, and generally appear Amish in public, but that didn't stop the religious kooks in my old stomping grounds from insisting that it did.

The interpretation problem revolves around the word worship. Some Muslims (many, in fact) believe that any full depiction of Mohammed REQUIRES their worship and deference. After all, he is their prophet, how could they not, at least on some level, worship an image of him?

It goes back to something Lewis Black said: "If you thought it, you said it, asshole." A slip of the mind, even for a moment, is considered impure by these hardliners, and therefore they prevent even the possibility of temptation through law and other methods. Why do you think women in Sharia governed countries are required to dress like demented beekeepers? The men are terrified that the impure thoughts that they somehow can't control on their own will damage their covenant with God.

“Some Muslims (many, in fact) believe that any full depiction of Mohammed REQUIRES their worship and deference.”

Do they now? “many, in fact” believe this?...........LOL.
I guess that explains the prevalence of depictions of Mohammed in Mosques and Muslim homes? ;-)

“After all, he is their prophet, how could they not, at least on some level, worship an image of him?”

Um……….by >not having< “an image of him” in their Mosques or homes.

“….and therefore they prevent even the possibility of temptation through law and other methods. Why do you think women in Sharia governed countries are required to dress like demented beekeepers?”

Must be that they are all forced to do so through the “law and other methods” because you wont see Muslim women choosing to wear the burka or the veil in other Muslim countries or in liberal Western democracies…will you?

I know from direct repeated personal experience how difficult it is for you to come to terms with issues of diversity and complexity…but the problem with your shallow and simplistic “The men are terrified” by “impure thoughts” is that very large portions of the Muslim world have long had the opportunity to watch the West via satellite tv.
They, Muslim men and women, have seen the objectification and sexualisation of women and children in the West…and the seemingly unstoppable cultural wave of sexualised media and entertainment “terrifies” many of them.

Google-
sexualised goods aimed at children
About 57,400,000 results

children sexualised in advertising
About 58,300 results

selling with sex
About 49,000,000 results

Scan the links and see how long it takes to find one that relates to a Muslim country.

From the OP-
“Omar Fareedi, in his letter responding to the actions by the AAF group, didn't threaten violence and didn't demean secularists. He lifted up the higher value of pluralism, cast a light on the overlapping principles shared by secular humanists and Muslims, and suggested that they join together to do something useful for the broader society ...”

Doing so, attempting to “join together to do something useful for the broader society ...” requires dialogue and mutual understanding that goes beyond shallow narrow stereotypes “like demented beekeepers”

Which just goes to prove my point: The Qu'ran, along with all other holy books, is open to some pretty wide interpretation, and that interpretation can lead to some pretty far-fetched ideas. I know from previous experience with you that you are desperate to find any way you can to defend people of any faith, but no matter how many Muslims you trot out that have no problem with images of Muhammed, it won't change the following FACTS:

1. Many Muslims, due to their interpretation of the Qu'ran, believe that images of the prophet are an obsence gesture and an insult to their religion.
2. Muslims like these have made many a threat to western cartoonists and others in regard to images of the prophet.
3. This is no different from the desire expressed by many Muslims, and realized through Sharia Law, to shield their eyes from anything that they might disagree with or that might cause them mental distress.

(I'm well aware, BTW, that Muslim women in Western societies dress pretty much however they damn well please, but that's a diversion from what I was actually talking about, as usual. Stop trying to make people who disagree with you chase red herrings.)

That you ignore >all< key points, issues and questions and continue an ever morphing one man monologue?

“And both of our interpretations are espoused by different groups of Muslims.”

Ah huh…and those who espouse the interpretation I put forward represent the vast majority by a factor of well over ten to one…they do not have portraits of Mohammed in Mosque or home, they do not “worship” Mohammed and they are indifferent to western cartoonists.
The fringe Muslims who reflect your ‘interpretation’ are as numericaly significant to Islam as KKK or Malitia groups are to Christianity.

“. I know from previous experience with you that you are desperate to find any way you can to defend people of any faith”

Perhaps you are referring to my recognition that religious schools and welfare agencies are in the front line of reporting and protecting against child abuse? A proposition you desperately declared a “lie” and dismissed with “ NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse”

And now you demonstrate as much interest/understanding in Muslim parents seeking to protect their families from the excesses of western media/culture…..that is- zero interest, zero understanding.

“1. Many Muslims, due to their interpretation of the Qu'ran, believe that images of the prophet are an obsence gesture and an insult to their religion.”

Yea, Many Americans (pick a nation) , due to their interpretation of national identity, believe that the flag is sacred and that burning a piece of cloth is an obscene gesture and an insult to their nation.
Some will proclaim preparedness to die to defend the flag and a lunatic fringe will harm or kill to do so.

>ALL< you have identified is that within >any< group/population- political, religious, national there are a small minority who hold symbols to be sacred.

So what?

“2. Muslims like these have made many a threat to western cartoonists and others in regard to images of the prophet.”

Yup…There are minority nutters and fringe extremists on the edge of groups/populations- political, religious, national.
So what?
Are the “threats to western cartoonists” to be our sole and exclusive concern? Or are we also concerned with sexualisation and objectification of women and children in western media beamed into Islamic countries? Are we concerned with organised paedophile/tourist rings targeting Muslim nations (Indonesia).
Many Muslims perceive many threats from the west…cartoons are not their highest nor exclusive concern and ought not be ours either.

you trot out every red herring you can find?

I'm well aware that hardliners do not make up the majority of Muslims we see in the west. I'm not remotely ready to believe your 10 to 1 statistic, however, without some very compelling proof. Not that it matters, because the hardliners were actually the topic of discussion in this thread. Go look at the OP. It's about what hardliners have done with their faith and the backlash against it.

Your response to my #2 above is worthless. It's exactly the same thing as the 5 year old who shouts "he started it" or "you did it, too!" Unacceptable behavior has no excuse, and that is why you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as ad hom tu quoque. (Nothing new there...)

Oh, and you need to stop continuing arguments from threads long gone by in different and unrelated threads. It's a violation of the rules.

Like your argument ;-)

“I'm well aware that hardliners do not make up the majority of Muslims we see in the west.”

Well….your repeated referance to “many Muslims” holding these hardline and fringe views (along with your stereotyping “demented beekeeper” reference) seems to clearly belie you enlightened outlook

“Not that it matters, because the hardliners were actually the topic of discussion in this thread. Go look at the OP. It's about what hardliners have done with their faith and the backlash against it.”

LOL. That’s what I love about you actually sticking your head out of the trench to take the odd misdirected shot….it reveals and exposes your position and your mindset/cosmology.

You see the OP/issue as being about the miniscule minority behaviour =“about what hardliners have done with their faith”.
Because it is reflective of Islam (Scriptural or vast majority)? No…because it serves as an opportunity to slag religion.

Could the OP/issue be about behaviour reflecting the majority?-
“Omar Fareedi, in his letter responding to the actions by the AAF group, didn't threaten violence and didn't demean secularists. He lifted up the higher value of pluralism, cast a light on the overlapping principles shared by secular humanists and Muslims, and suggested that they join together to do something useful for the broader society ...”

No, you have/will cut and ignore what the OP is really about and go exclusively with the divisive misrepresentative minority mindset.

“Your response to my #2 above is worthless.”

Here is the core of my response to your #2-
“Are the “threats to western cartoonists” to be our sole and exclusive concern? Or are we also concerned with sexualisation and objectification of women and children in western media beamed into Islamic countries? Are we concerned with organised paedophile/tourist rings targeting Muslim nations (Indonesia).”

Having cut, ignored and dismissed the point as “worthless” your answer to the “Or are we also concerned” question is clearly >no<…you are not interested in or concerned about these issues.
You will even attempt dismiss the argument that “organised paedophile/tourist rings targeting Muslim nations” is a far bigger and more serious issue than “threats to western cartoonists”…and downplay and straw man to- "he started it" or "you did it, too!".
“He started it” is reflective of your mindset and yours alone.
My pov was that the Islamic world has far bigger and far more important threats to confront than cartoonists or chalk stick figures…and you will give zero interest, recognition or concern to those real threats.

“Oh, and you need to stop continuing arguments from threads long gone by in different and unrelated threads. It's a violation of the rules.”

You invited the response-
“. I know from previous experience with you that you are desperate to find any way you can to defend people of any faith”

You invoke vague "previous experience" I provide specific example -
“Perhaps you are referring to my recognition that religious schools and welfare agencies are in the front line of reporting and protecting against child abuse? A proposition you desperately declared a “lie” and dismissed with “ NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse”

If you don't like the provision of substantiating examples then don't argue relying on vague innuendo and oblique insult ;-)

The red herring is stinking up this thread.

My "previous experience" joke was a riff on your original usage of the phrase above.

You still violate the rules when you continue past unrelated arguments in new threads.

You're still engaging in a logical fallacy of ad hom tu quoque. That you refuse to see it does nothing to diminish that fact.

Your only line of defense in claiming that your detractors can't substantiate has been old hat for at least a week, especially in light of the fact that the evidence you so desperately ask for is staring you straight in the face right here in this thread. This doesn't even get into the fact that when people point out your absurdities to you, you ignore them completely and play the shoot the messenger.

Have you noticed that I'm the only one here in the dungeon who bothers responding to your shite anymore? You can make your own guesses why, but I'm beginning to think that the rest of the denizens have gotten wind of what you're shoveling...

27#
“Not that it matters, because the hardliners were actually the topic of discussion in this thread. Go look at the OP. It's about what hardliners have done with their faith and the backlash against it.”

LOL. That’s what I love about you actually sticking your head out of the trench to take the odd misdirected shot….it reveals and exposes your position and your mindset/cosmology.

You see the OP/issue as being about the miniscule minority behaviour =“about what hardliners have done with their faith”.
Because it is reflective of Islam (Scriptural or vast majority)?
No…because it serves as an opportunity to slag religion.

Could the OP/issue be about behaviour reflecting the majority?-
“Omar Fareedi, in his letter responding to the actions by the AAF group, didn't threaten violence and didn't demean secularists. He lifted up the higher value of pluralism, cast a light on the overlapping principles shared by secular humanists and Muslims, and suggested that they join together to do something useful for the broader society ...”

No, you have/will cut and ignore what the OP is really about and go exclusively with the divisive misrepresentative minority mindset.

“Your response to my #2 above is worthless.”

Here is the core of my response to your #2-
“Are the “threats to western cartoonists” to be our sole and exclusive concern? Or are we also concerned with sexualisation and objectification of women and children in western media beamed into Islamic countries? Are we concerned with organised paedophile/tourist rings targeting Muslim nations (Indonesia).”

Having cut, ignored and dismissed the point as “worthless” your answer to the “Or are we also concerned” question is clearly >no<…you are not interested in or concerned about these issues.
You will even attempt dismiss the argument that “organised paedophile/tourist rings targeting Muslim nations” is a far bigger and more serious issue than “threats to western cartoonists”…and downplay and straw man to- "he started it" or "you did it, too!".
“He started it” is reflective of your mindset and yours alone.
My pov was that the Islamic world has far bigger and far more important threats to confront than cartoonists or chalk stick figures…and you will give zero interest, recognition or concern to those real threats.

“Oh, and you need to stop continuing arguments from threads long gone by in different and unrelated threads. It's a violation of the rules.”

You invited the response-
“. I know from previous experience with you that you are desperate to find any way you can to defend people of any faith”

You invoke vague "previous experience" I provide specific example -
“Perhaps you are referring to my recognition that religious schools and welfare agencies are in the front line of reporting and protecting against child abuse? A proposition you desperately declared a “lie” and dismissed with “ NOBODY gets kudos from me for preventing child abuse”

If you don't like the provision of substantiating examples then don't argue relying on vague innuendo and oblique insult ;-)

I wonder how long the boat keeps going after one jumps the shark...

Now go ahead and prove to the world how you are so awesome by injecting another last word.

What drivel! Muslim extremists are actively trying to stifle others' free speech. They do it in the form of threats, violence, and murder. Using those tactics to force others to comply with your view is terrorism.

This is absolutely reprehensible and has no place in the modern world.

This is the prophet Muhammad. I am under no rule, law, or tradition that forbids my depicting him. The notion that I should be prevented from doing so because a small group of vocal fanatics want to impose their religion on the entire world is patently absurd.

The author of this piece wants us to just shut up and let a bunch of terrorists (they use terror as a means, that makes them terrorists) dictate laws to the rest of the world. He can go fuck himself. The idea that Muslims who act sensibly and don't resort to violence should be lauded is bullshit. The vast number of Muslims who don't resort to violence are simply doing what's expected of them as members of society. People shouldn't be congratulated for behaving like responsible adults just because other people can't. We don't give out gold stars to drivers who stay on the correct side of the road, we don't reward people for not committing rape, why the hell should we reward people for not trying to intimidate people and governments into bowing to a narrow-minded ideology?

The idea that by standing up to the bully, we're really hurting the little guy is also absurd. Unless he can actually show that standing up to extremists is harmful to non-extremists, he doesn't even have an argument. Part of being a member of a free society is understanding that you may have to deal with things that you may personally find offensive and when that happens, you can choose to speak out against it in a responsible way.

Free society is a contract--you get to live as you wish, and in exchange, you can't tell someone else how to live. If a person can't handle that, then they're welcome to leave.

And then my next comment will be that I do not agree with your remarks

BTW: You, sir, are NO Voltaire.

:P

If you'd like to elaborate in the hateful part, I hope we can have a productive discussion.

They have actively pressured the UN to enact resolutions condemning blasphemy, and anything else that might be said, written or drawn and that might offend Muslims.

Part of what's disturbing about the Draw Muhammad campaign is its implicit attempt to draw a direct line between mainstream Muslims and violent fringe groups. It's the "We have to stand up against you people" message.

You people? That line ought to make us a little uncomfortable.

That line should make him uncomfortable. He pulled a Glenn Beck in front of thousands of eyeballs.

seems to exist solely in Patel's head. Just because the two groups hold one very, very silly idea in common doesn't mean that anyone thinks they are equivalent. I don't see any reason to believe that the drawings were targeted at the MSA students in any of the three cases, nor that anyone made an attempt to depict them as sympathetic to terrorism.

Moderate believers will almost ALWAYS "circle the wagons" to defend their wacko fundie brethren from any perceived attacks on the religion by non-believers.

It's almost scary how universal and knee-jerk the reaction is.

I can understand that they would also be offended by the drawings, which again is very, very silly. But their reaction is not just about the drawings. They and to a large extent Patel respond to attacks that were never made.

and the absurd or obscene povs they put forward?

"It's almost scary how universal and knee-jerk the reaction is."

Sure is.

;-)

If you're going to constantly bitch at people that they need to substantiate their broad brushes, then it's time for you put your money where your mouth is.

But you are the only person I have “constantly” requested ‘substantiation’ from for your assertions and allegations and such requests have been to zero avail.

Would you like me to put up numerous substantiating links or would you consider such provision of evidence a violation of the ROC?

:boring:

It seems that you rarely comment on the articles you submit here.

Do you agree with Patel? Why did you think this article was worth a read? Anything else you'd like to say about the issue raised here?

quietly on what it says

don't say I never tried. In exchange, I'll refrain from asking you for thoughtful comments in the future.

I read the article and thought about it a bit. In response to your question, I suggested you try that, too

It was not my intention to just crap on you about it. I was expecting a "Yes, (comment)" or a "No, I just thought it was worth a read."

I can hardly think of something less offensive they could have done. This is fucking ridiculous. There is no way any sane person can equate drawing a stick figure with hurting somebody. That's beyond absurdity. This guy is so over the top with his persecution complex that he cannot be taken seriously. The AAF did nothing to the Muslim group on campus. They simply drew stick figures. All this sound and fury attempting to equate things we all agree are offensive, like the veiled threat of a swastika on the sidewalk, with something so innocuous as drawing stick figures is frankly offensive.

The truly disturbing part is where Patel invents a quote for the AAF and then condemns it. He is the one who has set up the "us vs. them." He can't condemn others for say something that he himself said. And I really like Fareedi's surreptitious little smear against secular humanists - "intolerance by people both of religious and secular humanist backgrounds." There's that old chestnut that "fundamentalist atheists are just as bad a fundamentalist believers." It's a disingenuous attempt to equate drawing stick figures to cutting off people's heads and mutilating women's genitals.

There is no way any sane person can equate burning or pissing on a bit of cloth with hurting somebody.That's beyond absurdity.

Glad we agree.

Knowing that the flag is held to be a sacred symbol by many it would be the height of reckless provocative stupidity to go burning or pissing on the flag unless you are looking for a fight.
?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While it's possible that violence might ensue, it's far from certain. While I agree that a reasonable person must take into account all the potential consequences of his actions, I wouldn't go so far as to characterize a putative flag-burning as "the height of reckless provocative stupidity." This I would reserve for something on the level of Kruschev's decision to move nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962, despite the potential for global nuclear annihilation as a result. And while a responsible actor must be aware of the potential for violence to result, I would not say that a flag-burner's motivation is start a fight. His or her motivation could easily be the same as the secular student group's: to make a point. The culpability for any ensuing violence hinges on how likely the flag-burner thought violence to be. Now in the case of the secular student group, violence may be seen as slightly more likely: it's not often that somebody is harmed over disrespecting the flag, but there have been high-profile international incidents involving depictions of Muhammad that resulted in hundreds of deaths. However, I believe it was their judgment that such violent outbursts are unlikely in this country. So far they have been right.

It should be noted that the expected reaction of violent fundamentalist reactionaries is different from the expected reaction of Eboo Patel, who is apparently a well-known journalist and author in the United States. I would expect two different reactions from two groups of people: over-the-top histrionics and threats of violence over something so inane and innocuous as drawing a stick figure on the sidewalk from people who regard all depiction of Muhammad, both respectful and disrespectful, as the gravest sin and personal attack imaginable, and something more reserved and reasoned from everyone else. I'll agree with you that we should be aware of the threat of violence from people who already take an unreasonable position on depictions of Muhammad. But drawing stick figures with chalk on the sidewalk is something that toddlers do. I think it ranks as one of the most innocuous and least offensive forms of protest imaginable. It's not something that a reasonable person should take offense at, even though many, many people do. Patel's contention that the depiction of Muhammad has in some way materially harmed the Muslim students on campus is more than a little bit silly. If we're concerned with the reaction the protest might have elicited, I think we lucked out. If the Muslims on campus had stormed the dorms and started beheading people, then that would have been materially harmful to their group. In addition to discrediting them, it has the potential for violent backlash against Muslims not just on their campus but across the nation. But the reaction of the Muslim group showed restraint, civility, and consummate maturity. They even went so far as to highlight commonalities between the two groups and extend a hand of friendship. This has evolved into an opportunity for greater understanding and cooperation between the two groups, and I hope the secular group takes them up on their offer. This has turned out to be serendipitous for the secular group.

“While it's possible that violence might ensue, it's far from certain.”

I’m thinking context/timing would be everything…Burning the flag during anti war protest amidst thousands of supporters= pretty safe…A parallel series of South Park episodes in which Kenny repeatedly burns and pisses on the flag= my bet is on at least a couple of death threats and/or calls to invade Canada….
Anyone wanna try pissing on the flag and burning it as ‘satire’ in public or national TV on Veterans Day….and live to tell the tale?

“This I would reserve for something on the level of Kruschev's decision to move nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962…”

Yup…that was reckless provocative stupidity….but Nicky would/did argue that the Soviet was ringed with US nukes in Europe and, fairs fair, why can’t they plonk a few in Cuba?
(As an aside. Kruschev claimed that when Mao visited Moscow he casualy offered Nicky- “You supply the arms and technology and I’ll supply enough Divisions to take over the Western world”. Kruschev asserts he thought about it for a couple of minutes then politely declined ;-) Who knows?

“And while a responsible actor must be aware of the potential for violence to result, I would not say that a flag-burner's motivation is start a fight. His or her motivation could easily be the same as the secular student group's: to make a point.”

Again…depends on context/circumstances/environment/timing and intent. I have no problem with the students point/protest (nor, it seems, did the Muslim Students Association).

Even if there is no “motivation is start a fight” or intent to do so…wisdom/common sense aught indicate that South Park ‘satire’ such as repeatedly depicting/pisstaking Mohamed will be seen by some as just as offensive/unfunny as pissing on the flag.

I’m old enough to remember Lenny Bruce and his routines…and it’s a fine, delicate and dangerous line between ground breaking funny and potentially waking up dead.

Agreed with all said down to-

“Patel's contention that the depiction of Muhammad has in some way materially harmed the Muslim students on campus is more than a little bit silly”

Didn’t see any reference to “in some way materially harmed the Muslim students” in the OP…perhaps it’s in the link and I missed it.
Got distracted reading up on the controversy surrounding the South Park episodes that sparked the chalking.
Apparently there is now an Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

And I’m still wondering how far this goes, what is “more than a little bit silly”, and what is provocative divisive and dangerous behaviour.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day has no more appeal to me than Everybody Piss on the Flag and Burn IT Day.

Free speech/freedom of expression?...I dunno…I thought it came with responsibilities
…like- No shouting “Fire”, when there isn’t one, in a crowded theatre…even if you think its funny.

“…the reaction of the Muslim group showed restraint, civility, and consummate maturity. They even went so far as to highlight commonalities between the two groups and extend a hand of friendship. This has evolved into an opportunity for greater understanding and cooperation between the two groups, and I hope the secular group takes them up on their offer. This has turned out to be serendipitous for the secular group.”

You have my complete and heartfelt agreement and I thank you for your generous and thoughtful reply.

The fact remains that mere offense and hurt feelings are never a justification for restricting free expression.

“The fact remains that mere offense and hurt feelings are never a justification for restricting free expression.”

Agreed.

The OP provides no detail on- “Comedy Central had been intimidated into censoring a South Park episode”
But full details are available here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park)#Muhammad_storyline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park)

And there is no mention of any “restricting free expression” of the chalking college students.

And the-
“Muslim Students Associations (MSA) on all three campuses said they believed in free speech and were opposed to fringe groups who threaten violence, too ...”

From the Wiki links-“
“In the week between the broadcasts of "200" and "201", the website for the New York-based radical Muslim organization Revolution Muslim posted an entry that included a warning to creators Parker and Stone that they risked violent retribution for their depictions of Muhammad. The entry stated that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show."
“As a result, Comedy Central modified Parker and Stone's version of the episode, obscuring all images and references to Muhammad.”
“The posting provided the addresses to Comedy Central in New York and the production company in Los Angeles. The author of the post, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, said it was meant to serve as a warning to Parker and Stone, not a threat, and that providing the addresses was meant to give people the opportunity to protest.”

Into your analogy didn't make it any less transparently silly.

I wish I could be so special that I'm above reproach or criticism or mockery.

Maybe

I should start a religion like L Ron Hubbard did. I'd be in the money and in the girls!

They used to meet in the gymnasium where they played basketball. They had a service once a week, and then the guy wrote down anything they spent on basketball as an expense for the church and got a tax write-off. The guy got nailed eventually.