Ignoring the violence for a moment, if you exercise a right in a way that predictably (even if not intentionally) will hurt others, there will be negative consequences. Even if they are nonviolent, there willbe negative, and they will come from the breach of civility.
Now, violent reactions will ultimately hurt the violent party more in the end, because they constitute an even greater breach of civility.
At any time has a choice of whether or not one wants to accommodate others for the sake of convivality. To bring the point home, we have had spats of "ET is anti-British" or "ET is anti-Russian" where it became an issue whether ETers are willing to watch the way ther way certain things for the sake of not alienating subcommunities who were offended. Many people also made the point that the offended parties were being over-sensitive, but as some point a conscious decision has to be made whether or not the majority wants to accommodate the sensitive minority or not. The difference between a virtual community and a real one is that it is much easier to just walk away from the virtual community. In the real world, sometimes you are forced to live side by side and so forced to accommodate.
Now, it is true that radical muslim immigrants sometimes find it hard to accommodate the values and practices of their host communities, but that is no excuse for the initial breach of civility on the part of the larger community.
Ethical behaviour is not about keeping a tally of what others do and being marginally better than them. It's about following one's ethical principles. And gratuitous offence is not ethical, even in the face of gratuitous violence. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
watch the way ther way
In order to achieve positive dialogue, we all moderate our freedom more or less. And a good thing we do.
Since when it al boils down to ethics, or civilness, there is practically no way that people can come to a consensus on this one. Since I think gratuitous offence is perfectly ethical - but to a certain limit, and context aside. I'm in the camp that finds the original cartoons not offensive, albeit some lame, and 2 or 3 borderline. (The one where suicide bombers were blocked from paradise I though actually witty, and is a theme that has been frequently used in Dutch cartoons.) I say camps, since I think there's no other way: there are only two sides, either you find the JP cartoons offensive, or you don't. Black and white.
But the limit what's acceptable is different from person to person, something I discussed with kcurie: the grey area in this issue forms the splitting factor. Migeru thinks they cross the line; I think they don't and even had a purpose. Nothing to be done about it.
That's also why a number of threads ended up in confusion when the legitimate aspect came into the spotlight, ET being a global community: there is a multitude of different approaches how to regulate offensive material. In the western quarter of the global village, different streets have different views. On a national level, the tolerance bar is higher or lower for every nation, and it reflects the majority consensus per country. Superfluously, it's pretty high in the Netherlands, although I may have a lower bar myself.
In an aside, I find the Spanish solution very interesting in this as it is post-active, if I can put it that way: it regulates after the offensive material was published. I like that a lot better than a pro-active variant with guidelines what's intolerable and then ensuing wrangling before publication whether material is or not.
That shouldn't halt debate, as it is the only way to digest new viewpoints and come to terms with other people's belief what is civil and what not. And there, sadly, something went wrong in the Arabic world where kicking and screaming entered the debate.
Anyway. I'll stop being reflective and will leave it at that. I feel we can not grow closer to a consensus than where we are now.
I say camps, since I think there's no other way: there are only two sides, either you find the JP cartoons offensive, or you don't. Black and white.
Not sure about that. I am personally not offended, though I find several of them distasteful. But I have no problem seeing them through muslim eyes, by which they are either offensive, deeply offensive, or outrageously offensive, depending on depth of devotion and prior exposure to similar things.
For me, the essential divide is between those want legal restrictions on the freedom to ridicule religion and those who do not. The world's northernmost desert wind.
I think the one difference in our approach is that you're one step ahead of me: I put the divisionary line in the problem, you put it in the solutions. For the rest, I get the impression we're sharing the same train of thought.
