Is Thunderf00t justified or over the line? It will be interesting to hear everyone's opinion on the matter.
For those that are too lazy or technologically challenged to watched the video, I will give you a quick rundown. Back in 2005 a dozen or so cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed sent the Muslim world into a frenzy of pissed-offedness (yes that is a word, I know this because I just made it up). There was angry-mob fueled violence in the streets throughout the world. As a result over the next 5 years, media organizations all over the world shied away from (more like, downright terrified of) displaying images of Mohammad. In 2010 similar "warnings" were issued. In response this guy who is only so far, known as his internet persona Thunderf00t has made it his personal mission to not only draw the prophet Mohammed, but to do so in as many demeaning and disrespectful ways as possible. After well over a million combined hits on his videos on YouTube, he decided to create "Draw Mohammed Day" so the whole world could join in on what he calls an exercise in the defense of freespeech. But how far is too far?
I believe that the main issue boils down to how you answer the following questions: Does/Should every human being have the unalienable right to live their lives as they see fit; so long as their actions don't prevent another from doing the same? (From now on I will refer to this as "The Supreme Universal Right" or SUR)
If your answer to this question was yes (mine was), then threatening death to those that show irreverence toward your religion or belief system probably seems irrational to you. Then again, you likely aren't a religious person. Which brings me to the next question: Does ones religious/personal belief trump the USR? This is a sticky issue. If we concede that the only authority needed to override the USR is a belief or interpretation of scripture, then we must also concede that that religious belief is all the justification needed to trump any right. For example this would make killing abortion clinic doctors OK; and justify anti-gay rights legislation; also this would give the thumbs up to the 9/11 attacks and so on...
Well, my response to the question would probably be no. But, in my opinion vague principles like this (or like J.S. Mill's very similar principle of least harm) are too hard to divide into black/white.
ReplyDeleteAs for this issue, it seems to fall under free speech (even though the majority of the people it's pissing off don't recognize that right). But even if Thunderf00t has the right to do it, why should he? Is he letting others live their lives by poking fun at their religion? No. He's just being a jerk, basically.
As for scripture overriding our rights, try to think of it this way: in this case, it is the fact that the act unnecessarily offends people that makes it distasteful. Not that the offense has to do with someone's scripture. I could say something that offends women, and it would be equally distasteful. Do I have the right to say it? I guess. But it still shouldn't be said.
Also, the right to free speech is different from the right not to be murdered. If my speech is slanderous, then I don't have the right to say it. But, that doesn't mean someone has the right to murder me for saying it.
In closing, I would just say this. The main reason I find Islam (and most other religions) unpalatable is their intolerance. They see their beliefs as the only right ones, and punish those who disagree. Here, Thunderf00t is doing the same thing. He's not respecting their belief that Mohammed should not be drawn. Instead, he's pushing his belief that freedom of speech is more important than tolerance. Talk of freedom is often just as dogmatic as talk of religion.
I do believe in the right to free speech, but Thunderfoot's video definitely was off-putting. Emmett, I think you made a good point: "Talk of freedom is often just as dogmatic as talk of religion." Where freedom of expression/free speech meet freedom of religion is a big gray area...
ReplyDeleteI certainly need to examine this issue more. The issue of universal rights sounds awesome on it's surface but when really put to the test does indeed seem to be too vague to really be all "universal".
ReplyDeletePerhaps no rule or law or principle, can really be applied to all people all the time. Nietzsche would say that some people are capable of experiencing life more fully than others. Any sort of universal rules would simply dim the light of those capable of shining the brightest.
Maybe Nietzsche and Emmett have a point there.
Anyway, I do agree with you Emmett it would seem that Thunderfoot has just become the very monster that he claims to be fighting against. This will always be the case when your fight is fueled by a sense of moral superiority.