I disagree, this is the only way to test the limits of our rights. Our freedoms are defined everyday by circumstances beyond what the law states.
EDMD is a reaction to the self-censorship of the mainstream media. It's a reaction to a debate, one which has terms of discourse dictated by one side via fear. When a cartoon is so controversial someone gets killed, the public needs to understand the reason, context, and history. This cannot happen without free debate. Censoring the offending image is the anti-thesis of informative journalism.
I don't think this issue has much to do with Islam proper, it's more a chastisement of the American media. Burning an American flag would be a good parallel, another sacred cow gets slaughtered. If you can't recognize the underlying symbology of course it seems pointless and provocative.
> Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to.
"Piss Christ" was an intentional provocation. Would you have told Christians to get over it?
> > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"."
> No, that's not what we're saying at all.
Actually, it is. It may not be what you intend to say, but it's what you're saying.
They threaten violence "unless" and you're doing as they demand. Your excuse for doing so doesn't matter.
I'd argue that the lack of blasphemy laws in the US has been an good thing. Arguing for defacto equivalents seems unwise.
However, if you're going to do so, it's unclear why Muslims should be a special case.
So, what are you going to do when another group starts saying "don't say things that we don't like or we'll get violent"?
> That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass.
You seem to think that they're distinct - they're not. Being a jackass is a subset.
However, even if they were, you're saying that given the choice between siding with jackasses and thugs, you'll take thugs.
No - there isn't another option, even if you need one so you can feel good about yourself.
Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to.
> "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"."
No, that's not what we're saying at all. What we're saying is "there's no need to troll and antagonize everyone of a particular belief just because a small minority of them are violent assholes". There's nothing in here that capitulates our freedoms to religious belief - drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't.
Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it, despite what some people seem to think. Your freedoms do not absolve from good taste and judgment.
Let me put this in another way. Your neighbor is deeply offended, by, say lawnmowers. You still have the right to mow your lawn - and it would be unreasonable for him to ask you to ask you to stop mowing your lawn. But instead, you ridicule him for it and invite all the neighbors over to have a big lawn-mowing party. That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass.
EDMD, IMHO, falls on the wrong side of this line.