I disagree. If millions of Muslims didn't get offended and expect the civilized world to cave in, there wouldn't be riots and the death threats would be just from "some individuals" rather than Muslims. When adults speak freely, some will get offended. It's actually a certain amount of respect, expecting Muslims to act like rational adults to criticism or silly drawings, rather than hiding our adult words when they are around.

Downmods here do not necessarily indicate offense. Here they're used as a signal to the poster "that's not the level of discourse we expect."

No, that's not the case at all. We just happen to value freedom of expression above anyone else's avoidance of offence.

You're really missing the point. The aim is not to insult muslims. The aim is to speak freely. Muslims being offended is a regrettable side issue, and frankly, the muslims themselves are in control of whether they are offended or not: there's no reason they should be.

No, it's not designed to insult muslims. This is a completely mistaken impression.

Given that you have that impression, I understand why you reacted the way you did, but your impression is incorrect.

It's like saying that when I use a gun to defend my house from a burglar wearing a red hat, that my aim is to kill people with red hats. Completely missing the point.

The aim of this movement is to defend free speech (my house) from extremists (burglars) not people who happen to be muslim (wear red hats).

Again, you're missing the point. It's not an attempt at communication. It's a defence of free speech.

>>It's designed to insult muslims.

I might also add that the Swedish artist discussed now (Vilks), has a history of provocation in his work. Not only for muslims. He also made a cartoon of one of these, which imho clearly overshadows the Muhammed reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

Making a point through antagonism to demonstrate that making a point through antagonism is not a good idea? How very meta of you.

I would avoid saying "HN demands" anything, since this thread shows that people's views here are all over the map.

That's rather the same point the Draw Muhammad Day people are making, no?

I think you're misinterpreting their intention. Rather than saying people don't have the right to be offended, they're saying people don't have the right to kill over the offense.

I don't think anyone (sensible) is suggesting that it's OK to go out of one's way to offend muslims.

The point is that some things are more important than avoiding offending people (particularly, I might add, over something so ridiculous as drawing a picture).

Those ones would fall outside the "sensible" category. I'm not interested in defending random nutters on Facebook, but if you can point me to an example of "suggesting that going out of one's way to offend all Muslim's is a good idea, and that they all deserve it because some Muslims are violent assholes" then I'll be happy to debate it with you.