If one needed proof that the anti-Muhammed exhibition was intentional provocation....

[NutmegYankee]

71. The difference is victim blaming.

One can express disapproval of a person's hateful speech and yet still defend their right to say it without fear of violent attack. Ostracizing or shaming such people is fine, but I will never accept that speech ever justifies a violent response. Many hateful people follow up speech with actions, like denial of rights or service, or persecution. And actions sometimes demand responses. But speech never does.

The problem here is that people are blaming those who want to draw cartoons for causing the attack. Bullshit. An authoritarian ideology that doesn't accept criticism or disrespect caused those men to attack the cartoonists. They really do hate the freedom to say things that they find offensive and expect us to walk on eggshells to not offend their unreasonable viewpoint. I know some here can joke about freedom, such as calling it "Freedum", but I find they are usually also smitten with the same authoritarian taint as the terrorists.

As for the use of "thug" - DU has set many community standards since we control our membership as a private group. We expect people to not be offensive (in most aspects) and try to educate people on why not to use certain hurtful phrases. But this doesn't apply outside of DU. Outside of here, I am called many offensive names by the right wingers. And even though I find their orthodoxy disgusting and often think of them as knuckle dragging cavemen, I never think of hurting them for saying ignorant shit. Such is the cultural value of Freedom of Speech.

For the record, I'm an ACLU member.