Why We're Having an Everybody Draw Mohammed Contest on Thursday May 20


Author's Note: This article includes three images that clearly denigrate Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. So there is absolutely no question about the provenance of these images, I would like to direct all readers to Wikipedia's authoritative writeup on the matter. These images were included in a dossier that aggrieved imams living in Denmark took with them to the Middle East specifically to stoke outrage at a dozen cartoons published in September 2005 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The images include an amateurish doodle identifying Mohammed as a pedophile, a dog humping a prostrate praying Muslim (with the caption, "This is why Muslim pray five times a day"), and a photocopy of a French comedian in a pig-squealing contest (with the phony caption, "Here is the real image of Mohammed"). It is nothing less than amazing that holy men decrying the desecration of their religion would create such foul images, but there you have it. It is as if the pope created "Piss Christ" and then passed it off as the work of critics of Catholicism. The images below may indeed give offense, not just to Muslims but to people of all faiths and even atheists. If they do, remember who created and distributed them.

The deadline for submitting work to Reason's Everybody Draw Mohammed contest has passed; winners will be shown on Thursday, May 20.

All that remains is anticipation, both of the artwork that will be displayed and the possible threats of violence that will likely follow. Or should that be "the likely threats of possible violence"?

Before the calendar page turns to Thursday, it's worth meditating on the whys and wherefores of the contest, which was inspired by a jihadist death threat  against the creators of South Park and was originally suggested by Seattle artist Molly Norris. Soon after asking everyone to draw the Prophet in solidarity with the arguably millions of people repressed by threats of theologically justified violence, Norris herself went into ideological hiding, suggesting instead that everyone draw another target of South Park satire: former Vice President Al Gore.

While Gore, who likes to credit himself with understanding the architectonics of cyberspace (if not creating them) and who way back when convened Congressional hearings to discuss the dread menace of satanic heavy metal lyrics (vaya con diablo, Ronnie James Dio!), is certainly worthy of the sort of ongoing abuse that only a fully distributed Internets can deliver, the obvious reason that Norris changed her target is real and potential violence.

Who can blame her? People have been killed for representing Mohammed in ways that displeased Islamic terrorists. People have been punched and kicked and forced into hiding. No wonder, then, that Norris, like Galileo in front of a Catholic tribunal, apologized to "everyone of the Muslim faith who has or will be offended" by her drawing (visible at the right). This conditionally unconditional language is the language of the forced penitent, of the prisoner in a totalitarian world, of the sad sack on the Catherine Wheel who will say anything, will confess anything to get off the rack. We all understand exactly why such language is being used: The threat of violence.

Attacking iconoclasts (meant here in its literal meaning) has been a constant throughout human history. It's one of the great dividing lines, like laughter and face-to-face copulation, that separates man from beast. Indeed, I'm betting it was a fundamental element of even pre-human history. Can we doubt seriously that some gang of Neanderthals didn't crush the skulls of others who decorated cave walls in "offensive" ways? In the 20th and 21st centuries alone, all sorts of human expression have led to brutality and murder. The ground of Europe and Asia and all the continents with the (possible) exception of Antarctica is fertilized with the blood and bones of martyrs who have done nothing more than make tangible their thoughts in words, music, and pictures. Yet even in a country like ours that threatens consenting adults for making dirty movies with effective life sentences, or in European countries where speech codes imprison malefactors for "hate speech," there is a massive gulf between "mere" censorship and death threats, between the answering of "bad" speech not with more speech but with the blade, the bullet, or the bomb.


This amateurish image was created by Islamic imams and depicts Mohammed as a pedophile. They have defiled their own tradition. There comes a point in any society's existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other. We don't need to be perfectly consistent philosophically or historically or theologically to assert what is special and unique not just about the United States, with its bizarre and wonderful articulation of the First Amendment, but the greater classical liberal project comprising not just the "West" (whatever that is) but human beings in whatever town, country, or planet they inhabit. And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.

This is not about U.S. foreign policy, or trade policy, or aid to Israel or Egypt, or the creation of a Palestinian homeland. This is about the right to have the conversations that might inform all that and more. We live in a time of paradox: Never before have so many been so empowered to speak their own minds, to produce and consume whatever form of expression when they want, where they want. The impact on those seeking to regulate and control thought is as predictable as it is depressing and, ultimately, ineffective: Whether they are governments or corporations or religious or ideological groups, they want to stamp out the ability of people to say and think for themselves.

Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It's a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights. It's a rebuttal to the notion that we should go limp in the clinches precisely because bullies and bastards can punch or blow us up. It's a rebuttal to the mentality evinced in the recent interview between liberal intellectual Paul Berman and Joel Whitney in the May 2010 issue of Guernica, where the sound you hear in the background is the sound of the interviewer pissing his pants:

Guernica: In the short term, don't we want to avoid triggering something like that [the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist terrorist] with incendiary language? Isn't it mere prudence?

Paul Berman: [Scriptwriter and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali] didn't trigger it. They triggered it. What she did and what she continues to do is to go to those people and people who might sympathize with them, and rebuke them. The whole meaning of her career is to say, "There's a serious problem. I'm gonna deal with it by speaking to it directly. And I'm not gonna mince my words, I'm gonna make an argument." I think this is great. Some of the arguments that she makes are not my arguments, some of them I would disagree with; my impression is that if I were Dutch I'd be in the Labor Party. I wouldn't have moved to the other party. And so it's not that I'm following everything that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. But I follow the main thing. I follow that totally. The main thing is [that] she is saying to people, "I, Hirsi Ali, am thinking for myself and I want you to think for yourself." And the way to think for yourself is not to revere authority, the way is not necessarily to guard your tongue. The way is to speak your mind.

Guernica: So to put scriptures on a naked woman's body in her film was not incendiary or reckless, in your reading, it was merely direct.

Paul Berman: That film is not even one millimeter a violent film. And the purpose of the film is to make the viewer recognize that violence against women is being committed by fanatics in the name of Islam. This should be opposed. And she's done a brilliant job of opposing that. As a politician, she brought to the Dutch Parliament the issue of honor killings. She proposed to Parliament that the police make records of honor killings, which is the first thing the police department had to do to recognize and solve the problem. She brought about a significant reform. And I'm guessing that quite a few women are alive today as a result of this reform.

Guernica: So she's not only not responsible for Van Gogh's death, but she's saved uncounted lives.


Imams stirred outrage with the caption, "This is why Muslims pray." This image did not appear in Jyllands-Posten or anywhere else, except in the imams' portfolio. Like Berman, I don't agree with everything Hirsi Ali says (read this remarkable interview she gave Reason, in which our interlocutor teases out more than a little contradiction within her own views). For starters, I reject emphatically what might be called a fundamentalist atheism, which always and everywhere fingers religion and religiosity as the motive force in all that is bad with human beings and human history. To me, that sort of comprehensive reaction is no different than Islamists or Christians or whomever sees the Jews or the Masons or whatever as the villain in every passion play. But Berman is right, not just about the film Submission, which is as incendiary as an After School Special about recycling programs, but the larger idea that we should apologize for triggering violence in serial killers. Why not blame J.D. Salinger for the shooting of John Lennon by a deranged reader of The Catcher in The Rye?

Our Draw Mohammed contest is, hopefully, an exercise in truth-telling. It's not about revelation, of course, of divinely inspired Truth with a capital "T." It's an existential thing, a participatory thing, a living thing. And it's not something that I expect those inclined to violence in the face of free expression to understand.


Imams said this was a Danish depiction of Mohammed. It is of a French comedian at a pig-squealing contest." Nor do I expect them to realize they are part of the problem they hope to bludgeon into submission. Consider this tremendous irony. For all the discussion about whether it is forbidden to figure Mohammed in visual form (an art form that has a long and glorious Islamic history), three of the most gratuitously insulting images of the Prophet ever disseminated were not created by devil-horned Jews or American women wearing pantsuits or even Danish or U.S. cartoonists. No, they are the work of imams residing in Denmark who went on an outrage tour of the Middle East after Jyllands-Posten published its dozen cartoons in the fall of 2005. Some sources suggest that it is precisely these three fake images, on display in this very blog post as a public service and testament to free speech, that ignited the furor that lit the fuse that ultimately begat Draw Mohammed Day. (See the author's note above and hold your cursor over the images for alt-text information about their provenance.)

Which is worth keeping in mind come May 20 and every day after. Because the cause of free expression, just like the misguided, pathetic, and ultimately-doomed-to-fail attempts to shut it down, is a long, hard slog that begins again every day the sun rises.

Update: Due to the high, server-crushing volume of comments and the gratuitously insulting imagery of many of them—it seems that if there's one group of folks more obsessed with gay sex than Islamic terrorists, it's critics of the same—we've decided to shut down comments to this post. For those who wrongly equate this with censorship, please note that the Web, like the world itself, is wide and there are plenty of places you can go to post your comments about just about anything. If this be censorship, then kicking drunken party guests out of your living room at 6AM is ethnic cleansing. And the murder of Theo van Gogh simply another bad film review.

Reader comments can be sent to me directly at gillespie-at-reason-dot-com.

NEXT: The Berkeley Swab

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think its great that reason is doing this, because too many others are not standing up for free speech.
    why give these violent people the power to censor us? in this country everyone should be allowed to say what they want to and express themselves as they want to. if you disagree you can choose to not listen or say how you feel. but no one should be allowed to threaten or cause violence because they don’t like what someone is saying. shocking speech/expression is valid because its a way of criticizing something and a way to get people to question things.

    1. As long as they capitalize the first letter of their sentences.

      1. capitalize sentences? only for essays or other things that are more than comments! hachacha

      2. Grammer?

        1. I still live bitches and doing God’s work!

        2. nazi?

    2. think its great that reason is doing this, because too many others are not standing up for free speech.

      This is irresponsible speech.

      1. You still call this “speech” when this is nothing more than racism and intolerance! Just another piece of evidence showing the right wing bias of the New York Times!

        1. There is nothing racist or intolerant about this. What the hell is wrong with you?

        2. Right wing New York Times? wow

      2. You’re a terrible person for thinking this is irresponsible.


  3. Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States

    Where’s that one? This one sounds lawyery.

    1. I only took part in this one to be ironic.

      1. I’m being ironically ironic.

        1. Dont’cha think?

  4. President Obama is at a plant talking about bringing the economy back from the brink and describing the GOP as the party of “no.” I am in disbelief.

    1. So how’s that Affirmativey Actiony thing workin’ out for ya?

    2. We are all in agreement that Obama should not bring the economy back from the brink.

      1. Whoever wrote this should be aware that most of us are libertarians and are not knee-jerk partisans. Many Republicans voted for the TARP bill. Any who did can go to Hell. Noone who voted for the TARP bill regardless of party will ever have my vote.

  5. “Dere iz nos Ceiling Cat but Ceiling Cat an MoHummuz is de mezzinger uf Ceiling Cat.”

    1. I can haz heretical hummus? Infidelz om nom nom.

  6. I would love to see these. I am glad that Reason is having this.

    Some commenters here apparently do not see the value in standing up for free speach but I do.

  7. I am very glad Reason Magazine is doing this. Some commenters here apparently do not see the value in standing up for free speach but I do.

  8. ” For starters, I reject emphatically what might be called a fundamentalist atheism, which always and everywhere fingers religion and religiosity as the motive force in all that is bad with human beings and human history. To me, that sort of comprehensive reaction is no different than Islamists or Christians or whomever sees the Jews or the Masons or whatever as the villain in every passion play.”

    Except atheists don’t stab you when you draw cartoons of them. Can I go anywhere without hearing about the non-existent crimes of the non-existent “fundamentalist” atheists? I thought I’d be free from it here at Reason.

    1. “I thought I’d be free from it here at Reason.”


      1. Well at a time when theocratic savages are trying to annex our culture and our nihilistic leaders and supposed protectors can only damn people as hate speakers when they point this out, we don’t need start picking on scapegoats.

        And I wish I could draw too. I’d draw a nekomimi moehamed. Or Mohamed-tan.

        1. What about Mohammad-mon? What would his powers be?

          1. Hey hey let’s go kenka suru
            Taisetsu na mono protect my balls!
            Boku ga warui so let’s fighting
            Let’s fighting love!

    2. I’m sure Stalin and Mao were kissing crosses during each execution.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m as godless as a communist whorehouse, but most of the other atheists I know are as arrogant and closed-minded as any religious zealot out there.

      1. Yeah, but do they threaten the lives of others who don’t share their views?

        1. Just to clarify, I’m talking about those in the US.

          1. By no means am I sticking up for Islam, by the way. I just take issue with the statement that there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

            1. I just take issue with the statement that there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

              To the extent that “fundamentalist” has ever meant anything, there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

              It’s not and never was a synonym for “arrogant” or “closed-minded”.

              1. To be a fundamentalist is to hold as absolute the basic precepts and assumptions of one’s system of belief. This is inherently arrogant because it assumes one KNOWS the truth with absolute certainty. This arrogance can only be the result of having a mind closed to other interpretations of reality.

                As for fundamentalist atheists, they certianly do exist, believe me. While the basic assumption we all share is that there is no God, there are many who also believe with immoveable firmness that religion is evil. This is why I consider some atheists to be fundamentalists, and it is why I call them arrogant and close-minded. As I said yesterday in another thread, certainty is ignorance.

                1. To be a fundamentalist is to hold as absolute the basic precepts and assumptions of one’s system of belief.

                  No, it’s not. That may be an implication of fundamentalism, but it is not what constitutes fundamentalism.

                  1. Wiktionary:


                    1. (religion) The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.
                    2. (finance) The belief that fundamental financial quantities are the best predictor of the price of an instrument.
                    3. The beliefs held by those in this movement.
                    4. Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

                    Check out numbers 1 and 4 in particular.

                    1. Number 1 is the standard definition, is specific to religion, and makes reference to core texts. This is my point.

                      Number 4 is essentially a metaphor invoked by religious apologists, who then try to leverage the ambiguity they’ve created. It’s an essential shift in meaning, it’s sneaky, and I don’t have to put up with it.

                      You unintentionally cherry-picked by referring to Wiktionary; dictionaries have some lingering respect for meaning and appear to be less forgiving.

                    2. What are these fundamental beliefs of atheism that are so dangerous to adhere to strictly? Answer carefully, y’all.

                    3. SugarFree,
                      I’m not arguing that atheism is dangerous. I’m arguing that there are such things as fundamental atheists. Like I noted above, aside from the one assumption that all us atheists share that there is no god, some of us have added the assumption that all religions are evil. When this assumption is held as absolute, it renders the believer a fundamentalist. Or at least annoying. Perhaps I should add an adjective to clarify the issue. Call then Hitchensian Atheists, or whatever.

                    4. Also, I suppose this sort of fundamentalism could be dangerous, and most likely will be once it becomes a majority position at some point down the line. To be so vehemently against something is an indication that shit will go down once there’s enough hands on deck. Any ideology, even if true, if adhered to with venemous certainty can eventually lead to bloodshed.

                    5. Dictionary.com:

                      fun?da?men?tal?ism? ?/?f?nd??m?ntl??z?m/ Show Spelled[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
                      1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
                      2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
                      3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

                      Emphasis on #3.

                      Wiktionary was the first I looked at, and Dictionary.com was the second. I’ll look up a third if you want.

                      “Number 1 is the standard definition, is specific to religion, and makes reference to core texts. This is my point.”

                      I think I missed what your point was. You mentioned something about implications of something not being what constitutes it, without explaining what actually constitutes it. And then you basically agreed with me about the definition of the word. It seems like you’re just arguing for the sake of it now.

                    6. Renounce your religions! Exile your athiests! Today is the beginning of fundamentalist Agnosticism, and we will save the world!

                    7. Honestly, I’m all for people continuing to do the dumb shit they’ve always done. There is no utopia, and I’m glad. But this doesn’t keep me from naming spades.

      2. I just demand that theists who draw up complex moral and cosmological systems based on their theism be prepared to defend those systems and to show a little intellectual honesty.

        When they refuse to do that, I see a lot of sulking and complaints about meanness and intolerance.

        And I hate to break this to you, but saying to someone, “The argument you just offered defending the Biblical tradition is stupid, and here are some reasons why,” is an entirely different species of “closed-mindedness” than that shown by the people who scared Molly Norris into cowering.

        1. I agree completely. But the main difference is in what their ideologies justify as recourse, not in fundamental emotions. I assure you the fundamentalist christian is just as pissed at an image of Christ giving a rimjob as would any Mohammedan of a similar depiction of the prophet. Ultimately, the majority of mankind believes what they’re told, and acts how they are told to act. While the triggers and manifestations of anger differ from one box of bullshit to the other, they are both the result of close-mindedness and sublimated cowardice.

      3. “I’m as godless as a communist whorehouse”

        Now that’s a great simile. I’ll be stealing that from time to time.

        1. By all means.

        2. I don’t know. I would think if God was to be found anywhere it would be a whorehouse. Just sayin’

          1. He also seems to be found in prisons too.

        3. How would that work? Do all the harlots get paid the same amount, no matter how johns they service?

    3. Yup, atheists in the Soviet Union and China have never hurt Christians or practitioners of other faiths.

      1. Dammit… Chris beat me to it.

        1. By a nose. But reiteration never hurt anything.

          1. Noses are just another tool of Christianist oppression.

            1. C’mon, now… We all know that noses are wielded not by the Christian but by the Jew.

              1. See: people don’t take “South Park” seriously, but they already covered these sort of subjects quite well. Wait, never mind, apparently violent theocrats do take “South Park” and other cartoons seriously. But then they miss the point.

      2. Religion was still practiced in the Soviet Union and China, just not openly/freely. But even if it were a government of all atheists, that does not necessarily mean they were motivated to attack religion by their lack of a belief in god. They were motivated by their lust for total power and control.

        1. Don’t bother, Hacha. They’ve got a script to stick to.

        2. Agreed. But do you really think Islam is actually motivated by the words of the Koran? In this, as in all cases, words are only excuses. Lust for power and control is at the root (but does not comprise the whole root) of all fundamentalisms. It’s just unfortunate that the Koran pretty much gives them direct permission to be a bunch of jerks.

        3. Even a government of the religious is not necessarily motivated to murder people by their professed religion. It can also be motivated by its lust for total power and control.

          Good for the goose. Good for the gander.

          1. Agreed. Its when governments base their laws and actions on religious laws that they are motivated by religion.

      3. Is it right to consider pathological adherence to highly contentious theories that regard the value of the state as being greater than that of humanity to be a form of atheism?

        1. Exactly, in their philosophy god was replaced by the state, the state was god, in a way you could call them theists I suppose.

          1. How convenient. Murderous atheists aren’t really atheists.

            1. That wasn’t my point, they believed, in a way, that the state was god (or at least took gods place). Even though communism is an atheistic philosophy, their atheism is rooted in the belief that the state must replace religion, its rooted in their philosophy which is not based on reason. If you really think atheism is what made the Soviet Union evil then you really don’t understand their philosophy. Their lack of a belief in god is not the reason they did the things they did.

        2. Hagel thought the State was God, but aside from this viewpoint, there is only room for one master in the mind. If someone is convinced that the state is the supreme good, it is almost inevitable that they do not believe in God in any real sense. So it’s not a form of atheism, but a consequence of being an atheist and still needing a god in order to feel whole. Basically, human beings are cowards. You turn out the lights, and they light a candle. You blow the candle out and they put a pillow over their heads.

          1. Crawling for the light* has nothing to do with being a coward. It’s pretty much an imperative as an organism.

            *the light representing a dismissal of nihilism. No, I’m not talking about religion or any philosophy in particular.

            1. I’d call it fight or flight, only several levels up the cognition.

            2. Good point. I suppose the approach I prefer is accepting our finite abilities to experience and undertand the world, and subsequently giving up rigid beliefs in exchange for temporary approximations. You don’t need light to be warm.

          2. Chuck Hagel never said any such thing.

    4. True, but I don’t think Nick was implying that atheists do anything equivalent to chopping off people’s heads, but more so…that “preaching” atheism and spending one’s time insulting religion for the sake of it is as annoying as getting preached to by a religious fundamentalist of any religion. I think he’s saying we’re not doing this, because we hate religion. We’re doing this out of principles of free speech.

    5. Nitori — It’s amazing what one can make oneself believe when one _wants_ to believe something.

      Try learning the history of Soviet Russia… Communist atheists murdered hundreds of thousands of Russian Orthodox… Children forced to learn and believe atheism… etc.

      Or even modern China…

      Even in this country today, atheists are famous for using (or trying to use) state power to try to force others to stop observing their own brand of psychosis (e.g. taking down crosses, eliminating prayer in schools, etc.).

      Fundamentally, state power is the threat of violent punishment for non-compliance… thus, there are plenty of violent atheists with us.

      If you don’t think it is violence unless bodily injury occurs, you’re wrong — if I rob a someone at gunpoint but don’t actually shoot them, I’m still guilty of a violent crime.

      That’s what is happening when fanatical atheists use government to shit all over the rights of others — they are indirectly pointing a gun at the heads of people who disagree and daring them to resist.

      Of course, that fact is not limited to atheists, but is an attribute of statists in general. Seriously, statists — even more-so than people who are “just” religious fanatics — are the most violent people on the planet, because not only do they exercise the threat of violence over people, but they do so with so little effort, and with the arrogance of absolute righteousness — as if they were simply shooing a fly.

      But I’m getting off topic now…

      1. Yes, it’s so sad that atheists use the government to force people to do things when that used to be the purview of religions. Don’t act like you are complaining about people being beaten with a baseball bat when your problem is solely with who is currently holding it.

      2. China and the Soviet Union were run by Statists. Statism is every bit as much of a religion as Islam, Catholicism or Judaism. And their fundamentalists are as ready to kill the competition as those of any other religion.

    6. What was that, 30 responses? I really touched a nerve there. Yeah some atheists (especially in the US) might not take kindly to people who claim that they’re to blame for every crime committed by every 20th century tyrant and that might make them a little pissy; it does not make them “fundamentalists”.

      1. Blame atheists! Blame atheists! It seems that everything’s gone wrong since atheists came along. Blame atheists! Blame atheists! They don’t even have souls anyway.

        Well that video’s my contribution to the “fundamentalist atheist” movement. Maybe I should hijack some planes and murder thousands of people will screaming “Allah is not ackbar!” too? (Hey, Christopher Hitchens wrote a book claiming just that. Fundamentalist, no?)

        And I forgot to ask: are we going to have an “everybody make YouTube videos of Mohamed day” too?

        1. Dude, I agree “Blame Atheists” is lame. The problem is, people making the legitimate argument that ‘some irrational statists have identified as Atheists’ get mixed up with religious people who simply want to take shots at atheism.

  9. I apologize only to those who are not offended or, outraged by my depictions. To those who do take offense or, become outraged, in the immortal words of the honorable prophet… “go fuck yourselves”

  10. Wait, where do i send my drawing?

  11. The dropped the first post of the thread down the memory hole. Way to stick for free speech guys.

      1. Mohammad and oral jokes. And something about the Old Testament and the Koran sounding alike. Fairly tame stuff for for den of inequity, really.

  12. Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States

    Reminds me of the boilerplate language that used to be on Social Security cards: “THIS IS NOT AN IDENTIFICATION CARD.” You’re drawing pictures because you know it pisses certain people off. Smother that fact in all the righteous indignation and flowery prose you like, it doesn’t change the adolescent nature of this event.

    For a magazine/blog/cruise line that is so quick to point out when politicians and govt officials justify their means by extremely dubious ends, it’s strange to see Reason embrace the claim that recording honor killings “saves countless lives” and that drawing Mohammed will in any way prevent us having “to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.” (again with the blowjob analogy)

    1. Jesus Fucking Christ, you are a boring scold. Stop having fun, everybody. Tulpa disapproves.

      1. He’d have no problem with it if a cop told him to do it.

        1. This. Oh, this.

        2. You’re such a brave and witty guy, SugarFree. Next you’ll be accusing MNG of being a communist because he defends Democrats. Where do you come up with this subtle humor, man?

          1. I wasn’t trying to be funny. I was just making a simple observation based on months and months of written evidence on your part.

            1. ?
              Everyone loves a linky,
              you gotta get a linky!
              Linky, linky, go linky go!

              1. Don’t hold your breath, dude. He’d just SugarFree it anyway.

              2. Yes, because your reflexive siding with the police is some wild fantasy I have spun out of whole cloth.

                1. Finally we agree on something. I fear it’s a collective fantasy though.

                  1. Tulpa, you alright, man? Your larger point aside, SugarFree’s mockery of you was really funny.

                  2. Tulpa|7.27.09 @ 6:52PM|#
                    Once again I ask myself how libertarians think the police are supposed to do their jobs.

                    1. Tulpa|7.24.09 @ 12:05PM|#
                      And I’m entitled to tell you why drawing that conclusion is unwarranted. Put yourself in the cop’s shoes (a terrible place to be for some here on H&R, but give it a shot). If you’re going to have an argument with someone you don’t want to do it on their home ground. Also being loudly yelled at inside a closed space is extremely unpleasant. There are a million reasons to move outside besides setting somebody up for a DC charge.

                    2. Tulpa|3.8.10 @ 4:09PM|#

                      If the cops break into the house without a warrant, Radley’s going to (justly) skewer them for violating the 4th Amendment.

                      If they jump through the hoops necessary to get a warrant, and upon getting it, find that the laws alleged to have been broken were actually being broken, he (unjustly) skewers them for wasting police resources.

                      Seriously, just because you don’t think that marijuana should be illegal does not mean the police should be expected to act as if it isn’t. If you don’t like the drug laws, work to change them. Lay off the police who are just doing their job in this case.

                    3. Tulpa|3.12.10 @ 12:32PM|#

                      It’s funny that the issues liberals and supposed libertarians can agree on tend to involve property destruction and undermining the rule of law.

                      Indeed, I prefer traffic cameras to having a cop on every corner, and any true libertarian should. The issues with manipulation of yellow-light duration need to be dealt with, but other than that there is an easy way to make sure you don’t suffer at the hands that are not hands of traffic cameras: FOLLOW THE TRAFFIC LAWS. If you’re going to complain that that damned traffic camera caught you making a right on red without stopping first, find someone else to complain to because you’ll find zero sympathy with me.

                    4. None of these quotes come remotely close to supporting your accusation that I would do whatever cops tell me to do.

                      I don’t know where the first one comes from because you haven’t provided a link. The second one was in response to someone saying the cop who arrested Obama’s Harvard pal Dr. Gates had walked out of the house in an attempt to make Gates follow him and trigger a disorderly conduct charge, which was paranoia of the highest order. The third one was a Balko post where he questioned why police surrounded a house while they waited for a search warrant.

                    5. Tulpa reflexively sliding with the snowball cop who pulled a gun, cops killing dogs in front of children,

      2. ?
        We don’t have to draw the…Prophet!
        To have a good time … oh yeah!

      3. Warty just said “Fucking Christ.” Is that still allowable on H&R?

        1. Watch your mouth, sonny.

        2. Nobody pretends to give a shit about your religious sensibilities unless you murder people, dude.

    2. “certain people” can also choose not to be pissed off. They can most certainly choose not to act on their emotions.

    3. Reminds me of the boilerplate language that used to be on Social Security cards: “THIS IS NOT AN IDENTIFICATION CARD.” You’re drawing pictures because you know it pisses certain people off. Smother that fact in all the righteous indignation and flowery prose you like, it doesn’t change the adolescent nature of this event.

      Tulpa, you’re an idiot.

      The only reason that religious bigots can successfully intimidate people into restricting their speech is because of the small numbers of people involved.

      If the so-called “offensive” speech is made ubiquitous, the bigots will either have to kill everyone [or a large number of people] or give it the fuck up.

      So, NO, it’s not just an adolescent exercise. It’s a deliberate political act to stomp on the attempts of some bigots to intimidate others into remaining silent.

      The reason you don’t see this is because at a fundmental level you believe that religious bigots should be ALLOWED to violently intimidate people who engage in speech that offends them, and you’re just mad that Christians don’t engage in that kind of intimidation as often as Muslims do.

      1. The reason you don’t see this is because at a fundmental level you believe that religious bigots should be ALLOWED to violently intimidate people who engage in speech that offends them, and you’re just mad that Christians don’t engage in that kind of intimidation as often as Muslims do.

        If you said it was because my mother didn’t change my diaper often enough and my dad refused to play catch, that at least would have been creative. As it stands though, it fails on both the truth criterion and the entertainment one.

        1. Leaving the reason aside (I won’t pretend to know your reasoning), Fluffy’s larger point stands.

    4. People that think the way you do supported locking Lenny Bruce up for swearing. Speech/expression that is intentionally designed to offend can still be valid speech, with the intent of causing people to question their beliefs.

      1. And if people are offended they are free to not click on the thread or just not visit/read Reason. No one is being forced to look at the mohammed drawings. These drawings are making a point, the point being we will not allow religious nuts to stifle free speech and expression.

    5. I’m finding many of the insults against you here Tulpa to be unwarrented and unnecessary, in other words Gratuitous. Maybe you could reveal yourself as the prophet and then all of those comments will be deleted.

      1. I am a prophet only of despair, which doesn’t seem to be doing so well in the follower recruitment department these days.

    6. (1) No — _I’m_ doing it simply because I can, and because someone doesn’t want me to. Whether they get pissed off or not is their problem. That may be somewhat childish… so what?

      (2) They _should_ get pissed off, if that’s how they choose to deal with it. Call it karmic justice.

      There are those who will be offended who are not in fact participating in the violent suppression and would like to express their displeasure. To them I say, tough shit. Talk to me when people are no longer being threatened and killed for simply speaking.

      (3) “Dubious ends” is a purposefully ambiguous way of describing “violating people’s rights.” The difference here is that no one is violating anyone’s rights. Rather, we’re expressly resisting the attempts of others to do so. It’s a distinction which, by my examination of many of your other posts, you are not likely to admit into your worldview.

      (4) Your fundamental point, (paraphrasing) that doing this won’t have any useful affect in reducing the violent acts which we are resisting, is not supported by history.

      Mass resistance to oppression by the oppressed often does result in the oppressor altering his tactics… when he realizes it isn’t working (or even having the opposite affect of what he wanted)…

      … which is sort of the point — to make sure the violent tactic doesn’t achieve the intended goal. Otherwise, it’s sure to be used again…

      So instead of castigating us you can thank us for having the balls to protect you from fundamentalist Islam, even though you won’t defend yourself.

  13. I might be too late, but nevertheless here goes my submission:


    1. Nice. It’s like if Super Mario and Ernie had a hairy lovechild.

      1. Fond memories of Jr. the Chimera?

    2. That’s pretty good, drawing Mohammed as a jew. I like that.

      1. The Diddler on the Roof

      2. I didn’t know I was drawing him as a Jew. I just drew him as a goofball. You know the young, simpleton-Muhammed 1.0, not the later brutally conquering Muhammed 2.0.

        1. It’s common for muslims to depict jews with pig snouts which your character appears to have. It was kind of a joke.

      3. How would you like it if someone drew Jesus as a Jew?

        1. Besides the obviously (hopefully) ironic “Jesus as a Jew”-statement; I have no problems with other religions being mocked. Whether I have sympathy for the religion (the teaching of The Buddha) or not (everything else) is irrelevant. All authority must be questioned, and that includes a broad spectrum of critique ranging from academic analysis to simple “poking fun”.

          The main reason I am picking on Muhammed this time around is that the people who pick on Muhammed needs the solidarity and “safety in numbers” that comes with this gesture.

    3. I like it. He looks kind of happy, too.

    4. I hear he hates green hats.

    5. He almost has a Chief Wiggins nose.

      1. I wish I’d thought of it sooner & done it myself, but I hope somebody drew Mohammed as a foot. Better yet, outlined their own foot & filled it in with facial features & called it mo.

  14. And for the record;

    The main reason I am doing this is to spread the risk so thin, that there is no real risk involved in drawing Muhammed.

    If everybody posts their signed Muhammed-drawings (like I’ve done above), then everybody would be a target. And if everybody is a target, then the risks involved in being a target would be virtually non-existent.

    1. So might makes right?

      1. I think his point is that it makes it safe — it was “right” to begin with.

        1. Ah, thanks. Will ponder this. [/no irony here; some of us are genuinely slow to parse and would rather risk overthinking than regret overlooking]

        2. I didn’t even make an argument stating, that is was right as I thought that went without saying. My point was “there is safety in numbers”, and my point didn’t venture beyond that narrow scope.

          But since you bring it up: Of course the playful mocking of authorities is both a) right and b) a right.

        1. I’m not in Rome. I am in Denmark, and Danes have a long and proud history of mocking religion.

          1. Damn you, Hamlet.

          2. That may change now that the EU considers it a hate crime.

    2. The risks involved in being a target are already virtually non-existent. Which is what makes the whole exercise a flippant affair.

      1. If it’s flippant, why are you still whining?

      2. Tell Theo van Gogh. Tell Salman Rushdie.

        Better yet, tell me that drawing Muhammed is the only restriction that fundies would place on free expression.

        You just don’t get it, do you?

        1. Far more than 2 people have pissed off Muslims. That’s like saying driving over a bridge on an interstate is dangerous because of the Minneapolis bridge collapse a few years ago.

          1. “Far more than 2 people have pissed off Muslims.”

            And far more than two people have been killed for it. Just ask the Baha’is. Just ask gay people living in fundamentalist Muslim countries. Ask little girls who flew kites during the Taliban regime in Iran. I can give more examples if you like.

            1. make that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. sorry.

              1. The Taliban aren’t Muslims. They’re opium merchants.

      3. That’s what I’m wondering. It becomes safe, hence, and in your view therefore, trivial, when many, many people do it. But the film Witness depicted “A large number of Amish appear on the Lapp farm [to show] that although they are unarmed, they are not going to allow [the aggressor’s] violence. [The aggressor], realizing he cannot murder everyone, knows he has lost and collapses.” How is that not analogously trivializing the threat? How would it be Godwinizing to ask what would have happened if a large number of libertarian Germans had taken to wearing yellow stars in solidarity with the threatened Jews? Or how does it differ from the diffusion of risk in Gandhi’s salt march?

        1. I never claimed that more people doing it made the threat trivial; I claimed the threat was trivial to begin with. ie, not comparable to a crooked cop out to kill a snitch or the Nazi policy toward Jews.

          1. Exactly which threat was, or is, trivial?

            1. I would guess he’s referring to the current threat to any random asshole who draws mohammed.

              1. I’d agree, if in the viral age we could reliably distinguish between someone who remains random and someone who begins random and becomes a celebrity targeted for execution. Isn’t that the case in point?

                1. If that’s the concern, then there’s no guarantee that, out of the hundreds of submissions Reason gets, only one of them “goes viral”.

                  So much for safety in numbers.

                  1. Well, yes, and so much for the triviality of the practice.

                    1. So you agree that having “everybody” do this isn’t going to lessen whatever risk there was to begin with? Great. You and I both disagree with Jansen’s original comment then.

                    2. It seems to me that the more people do it, the safer it will become; the safety never reaches 100% (what does?), but approaches it.

                      Do you disagree?

          2. I claimed the threat was trivial to begin with.

            Which explains perfectly why the originator of the contest withdrew and apologized publicly. No threat whatsoever. Unless you count stabbing, arson, etc. as ‘threats’.

            When I challenged your opinion that Vilks’ work didn’t have enough artistic merit, you plead a lack of authority “just a guy commenting on the net” and refused to consider that the ‘merit’ of Vilks’ work might just be his refusal to be victimized by self-censoring religious fanatics.

            Now you wish to pretend that the radical islamic threat doesn’t compare to ‘crooked cops’ or nazi policies.

            Why do I continue to get the feeling that you are scared shitless?

            1. No, I argued with you guys for about 5 hours on and off about whether that work had merit, repeated that I was not supporting the violent reaction to the flick about 30 times because you guys kept forgetting that fact, and then you were badgering me about how I don’t have 100% certainty that the film was offensive for the sake of offending. That’s when I said that I’m not a juror, so I don’t have to be that certain. I said I found the other possible purposes of the film that you proposed to be extremely dubious.

              And who do you feel I am scared shitless of? I can’t prove it to you via this medium, but I’ve still got plenty of shit.

              1. 5 hours…30 times…100%…
                You’re not an accountant, or statistician, are you?

                I’ve still got plenty of shit.
                coupled with a drawing, that might have been the winner.

                Sorry, but it seems odd that you find ‘dubious’ my suggestion that Vilks supported the work as a response to threats against his freedom of expression, as that seems to be exactly what Vilks is saying. A video answering physical threats of censorship and self-imposed retaliation for ‘offensive’ comments cannot, effectively, be milquetoast and inoffensive.

                My criticism stems from your seeming refusal to ‘get’ exactly why the materials protesting the actions of violent religious fanatics necessarily have to be obscene.

                They’re a response to threats of violence for causing ‘offense’. If they weren’t offensive, what would be the point?

        2. How would it be Godwinizing to ask what would have happened if a large number of libertarian Germans had taken to wearing yellow stars in solidarity with the threatened Jews?

          They would have been executed or thrown into concentration camps, and not that many libertarian Germans in Germany in the 30s and 40s.

          But other than that, good point.

  15. Also, I definitely appreciate this gem of self-serving mind-reading by Mr Gillespie (go back to Italy!):

    the obvious reason that Norris changed her target is real and potential violence.

    Quite the handy means of dismissing those who disagree with your position there; they must OBVIOUSLY be afraid of jihadi violence.

    1. Of course it’s not really mind reading (see Gillespie’s link to the WaPo in the article) when she wrote this in another cartoon:
      “Norris has also posted a new cartoon titled “Diet of Fear,” that reads: “All you have to do is tick off a few million Muslims and you’ll be too afraid to eat!””

      My what we learn when we choose to follow links.

      1. See, that scenario seems dubious to me. She put up the image originally due to Comedy Central pulling the South Park episode due to concerns about violence. She had to have known of the potential for threats of violence at that time. Why would she suddenly change her mind and renounce the image?

        1. Has your life ever been threatened by someone that seriously means it? It might change your behavior as well.

          1. Yes, it has.

            But it was that person’s behavior that wound up getting changed, not mine.

            1. You got lucky.

        2. Her own words belie your characterization of the scenario as dubious. She was concerned with actual threats from Muslims (tick off a few million, become too afraid to eat) after pulling her original idea.

          1. If she was concerned with threats, you think she wouldn’t have put the image up in the first place — considering her reason for originally putting it up.

            Unless of course she’s an idiot, which there is some independent evidence for.

            1. Actually, what happened is that she made what she thought would be an obscure blog post that a few people would see and immediately forget, but which then went viral and made her visible in a way that she didn’t anticipate.

              It’s as if someone one of my bad-day posts about “taking direct action” went viral, and all of a sudden millions of people nationwide knew me as “that revolutionary guy”. I think I would be a litttttttle bit tempted to backtrack.

              1. Don’t worry, Fluffy. We’re saving those posts of yours. Yes we are.

              2. I don’t understand why the scenario Fluffy presents wasn’t obviously apparent to Tulpa. Oh yeah, that’s right. It’s Tulpa…

              3. You’d brazen it out, Fluffster. In fact, knowing you, you’d probably ratchet it up a notch if called on it.

                1. Fluffy, in my opinion, would up it a notch.

            2. or maybe she once thought as you did & after she put up her “art” she got some muslim nut saying “look fucking bitch shit, I know where live & your insults of my beloved Mo’ (peanut butter under him) are punishable by death!”

              and now she’s changed her mind about the true consequences.

  16. We readers stand with Reason and all those who stand up for freedom of expression.

    1. Not so fast there, Bert…

  17. After the attack on the cartoonist at Danish university a German news show on one of the major networks showed the cartoons he draw of Mohammed when reporting on the attack. No protests, no burning flags, nothing at all.

    The outrage against these things seems to be highly selective.

    1. It has to be selective when you are outraged at as much as they are. There are only 24 hours in the day. Take out time for praying, making videos, blogging, and you just have to pick and choose who you want to kill.

      1. It’s the younger generation. Their too lazy to issue Fatwas and decapitate 24/7. Back in the good old days, they were much more diligent about these matters.

        1. The real problem is that they waste so much time sawing off people’s heads. What’s wrong with a quick and easy bullet to the base of the skull?

          1. It generates a much smaller erection.

    2. Did you hear the chick screaming in that video? “Allah! Allah!” for like 3 minutes straight. It was beyond creepy. So somebody goes and headbutts a cartoonist and this is the work of Allah? The vast majority of religions make no sense.

      1. So somebody goes and headbutts a cartoonist and this is the work of Allah?

        Haha. For some reason I’m reminded of Homer Simpson’s “Leader Beans”. I can’t even begin to sympathize with a mentality that would lead the woman to react that way.

    3. Evidently I’m the real Affenkopf because every time you post I have to look up what “Affen” means again. You’d think I’d remember by now…

  18. My drawing of Mohammad as seen from the planet Mars:


    Come and get me, bitches!

    Steve Stephens
    West Jefferson, OH

    1. Oh bullshit. Do you know how many Steve Steves there are in Ohio? You just know they will never be able to sort through them all to find you.

      1. Whoa, did not mean to write “Steve Steves”, but I’ll keep it.

      2. “Steve Stephens?”

    2. Oh great, I’m 5 miles from you. They nuke you and they get me to. Thanks a lot Steve:)

      1. They can just bomb Battelle’s reactor and we’re all toast, anyhoo.
        Oh,oh. I hope that wasn’t classified!

        1. knock knock

        2. My pops used to work at Battelle in Comeblowus OH.

          I hated Ohio.

          REALLY HATED!

          And not just the new rome PD either.

          1. Once upon a time I did some work involving the New Rome PD. The results were…gratifying.
            (You know the town government was dismantled, right?)

          2. Fuck, dude, you lived in New Rome? No wonder you hated Ohio. What was your dad thinking?

    3. You were supposed to sign it “Eric Dondero”.

      1. That’s actually funny. Fuck.

  19. I’m not going to lie to anyone. I participated not out of any principled stance. I just need that prize money.

    1. Hey, we’re capitalist. Creating something for the money is a principled stance.

  20. Have have very little talent as a drawer, but I sent in my submission yesterday.

    1. “Submission.” Now there’s the ticket.

  21. Too late for the competition but here is my submission:


  22. Tulpa,
    Frankly you have every right to voice your displeasure with the contest. As Reason has every right to sponsor/support it. You can be outraged, annoyed, or whatever, while others can enjoy drawing and submitting some stupid cartoon. Does a cartoon cause physical harm? Nope.

    Will some people be offended? Definitely.

    Is the offense worthy of violence or death threats? Absolutely not.

    1. Is defending the right to free expression by exercising it in the face of those who would restrict it worth offending some theists?


      1. Yes, it is worth it.

      2. How is drawing Mohammed “defending” free expression? What harm will the right to free expression suffer if we do not draw Mohammed?

        1. None whatsoever. Not drawing Mohammed will not affect the defense of free speech rights at all.

          Painting a target on yourself by posting a picture with your real name and address, to show you will not be intimidated, OTOH, does do something.

    2. I agree with everything in your post.

      I have stated roughly the same thing 20 times in every thread on this subject. People cannot seem to compute that I can both disapprove of this activity AND disapprove of violence/govt coercion in response to it. You’d think libertarians could get that distinction, but alas.

      1. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

      2. Fair enough. Speaking personally though, I don’t see any valid objection to the contest. It’s an effort to mock people who take themselves way. too. fucking. seriously. It’s not even about religion, it’s about a refusal to let intolerant dickheads intimidate.

        Parody is a great weapon.

      3. Tulpa, alas, I get the distinction.

  23. Friday is “Draw Tulpa Day.”

    1. There are so many directions to go here. Do we draw him as a limp noodle? A weeping vagina? A screw-faced old woman? An enema bag? I don’t know where to start.

      1. He’ll demand a link for it. So I’ll take care of it.

      2. I picture Tulpa starting each sentence with ‘Harcourt Fenton Mudd’.

        1. Doubt it. Mudd had a bunch of women.

    2. Great, now Tulpa’s god is going to demand he kill all of us. There go the libertarian’s chances of winning the White House in ’12…

  24. “Like Berman, I don’t agree with everything Hirsi Ali says (read this remarkable interview”

    Can we get some clarification on which parts you disagree with, Nick? For instance, when this hero of free speech called for abolishing private Muslim schools in the US, did you agree with that? When she said the Bill of Rights ought to be amended, did you agree with that?

    1. Yeah, Nick. Do you really believe in all that first amendment crap that you have consistently defended no matter how objectionable the person you’re defending is?

      Or is that just some sort of free speech, free press, free religion and free association consistency designed to throw us off the trail?

      People who’ve only read this website for half an hour need to know.

      1. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero of free expression in Nick’s book, then who the fuck knows what he’s thinking?

      2. Maybe his comment above about deleting threads will help clarify.

      3. Or is that just some sort of free speech, free press, free religion and free association consistency designed to throw us off the trail?

        Haha, +1. He had me fooled. Fooled, I tells ya!

    Who gives a fuck if people get offended. Since when does free speech/expression not count, or not worth expressing, if it offends someone? Should women start covering up themselves because it might offend muslim men? Everything offends someone, there is no such thing as the right to not be offended. Get over it!

    1. Are you opposed to modesty laws?

      1. I’m opposed to any law that violates a persons right to do whatever they want, so long as that person does not violate anothers rights.

        1. Please apply your principle to the question of modesty laws: To wit, wearing clothes that offend some viewers vs. wearing no clothes.

          1. Now how do you think it applies???
            I am against dress codes.

            1. I’m trying to imagine a society in which exposing one’s private parts in any public place, or any place visible to the public, or any place visible to other private places, is not prohibited.

              1. imagine NYC, women don’t need to wear shirts, removing underwear restrictions is just a small step further. I’m having a hard time imagining that most people would choose to go out in public like that.

                1. It’s not most people, it’s any people. (If it were “most people,” then that would be the community standard rather than its violation.)

                  NYC surely has a few folks who would walk naked, except for footwear, on the streets and through the subway, or strategically exposed, the hour that the law let them.

                  1. Yeah, I agree there would be people who would, but I was just saying it wouldn’t become standard, its not comfortable in many types of weather and a lot of people would be too insecure. Its not something I’d do, but since it would harm no one I am not against it.

                    1. So there should be no laws against indecent exposure in public?

                    2. Not in my opinion, the human body is not indecent. Now that doesn’t mean a locality or state doesn’t have the right to enforce covering the genitals. But if their nakedness is for the purpose of exercising free speech/expression then the state shouldn’t have the right to ban that type of nakedness. I am personally a believer in that when the constitution says “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech/expression” it means NO LAW that ABRIDGES that freedom.

                    3. You want judges to decide case-by-case whether exhibitionists exposing themselves in parks and on the subway are protected by the First Amendment?

                    4. yes.

                    5. Okay (as to your consistency), but a) it seems to me there might be a better use of judicial resources, and b) I wonder why it’s never occurred to any other society, or virtually all other societies, to do it your way.

                    6. Probably because other societies are hung up on imposing their beliefs on others through force. If we ended the war on drugs the courts would have plenty of time to sort such cases out.

                    7. oops, I meant to say something else first and forgot to edit the sentence. That should read “other societies are hung up hellbent on…

                    8. Okay. Peace out.

                      Oh – sorry, one more thing – or thong: Joe’s right to exercise his First Amendment right to expose his private parts wherever he wishes – parks, playgrounds, schoolyards – always trumps Sally’s right to withold that view from her children?

                      Hate to go all IFTC on ya, but just wondering.

                    9. Playgrounds should probably be privatized, or there could be a dress code to enter it, but out on the street I don’t see how they could abridge that freedom. If Sally is such a prude she can keep her children isolated from the world in a bunker. The state of being naked does not violate someones rights. They are free to not look or go somewhere else. I just can’t accept the argument, “won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!” as a good reason to violate the 1st amendment.

                    10. That gives me a clearer picture of your view, thank you.

                    11. Argh. I just don’t think fast enough.

                      Why should playgrounds me treated differently?

                    12. me s/b be.

                      I just don’t type slow enough.

                    13. If they are privatized why couldn’t there be a dress code? You have no right to come into my house and take your close off without permission. In fact I’ve kicked someone out for that before.
                      (in the last post, I meant and not or)

                    14. Joe’s house faces Sally’s house, which is adjacent to the schoolyard. Does the First Amendment protect his right to stand in his doorway nekkit whenever he wants?

              2. You could ask these folks.

  26. Best post on Reason.com this year.

    1. Second


  27. Hey, Nick, the Salinger analogy isn’t particularly strong. A more apt analogy would be blaming James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner for instigating the Klan to lynch them for encouraging black voter registration in Mississippi.

    1. That’s a fair analogy.

  28. I’m a little pissed that the deadline was at noon today. I just thought it was like “send it in anytime before the twentieth”. I had a halfway decent submission.

    Oh well, I guess I’ll have to offend Moslems all by my lonesome.

  29. Can’t we be smart about this?

    Let’s have “Everybody Draw Mohammed In Detroit Day.” If any bombings come of it, they’ll only be constructive instead of destructive.

  30. Only one issue:

    Indeed, I’m betting it was a fundamental element of even pre-human history. Can we doubt seriously that some gang of Neanderthals didn’t crush the skulls of others who decorated cave walls in “offensive” ways?

    Neanderthals aren’t our ancestors (although one new study suggests that non-african humans interbred with them or a close relative).

    1. They were our contemporaries, so not really “pre-human”

      1. Also, they didn’t paint cave walls.

  31. Are drawings done with the left hand more offensive?

  32. Atheism is a fundamentalist religion, the same way not collecting stamps is an obsessive hobby.

    1. I do not need that stamp. I do not need that stamp. I do not need that stamp. I do not need that stamp.

      1. What if its a Muhammed dedication?

  33. Mohammed sucks.
    Mohummad sucks.
    Mohammid sucks.
    Muhammad sucks.
    Muhammed sucks.
    Muhammid sucks.

    He ain’t ever seen no virgin pussy.

  34. For those of you keeping score at home, remember: The picture of a dog fucking a prostrate praying Muslim is free speech. Writing that Muhammad is hard to understand because he has a mouth full of dicks is gratuitously offensive.

    Funny that.

    1. Yes, but the picture of a dog fucking a prostrate praying muslim (along with the other examples) was compiled by a muslim imam and then attributed to non-muslims for the purpose of inciting violence.

      Nick’s point is that if it’s the imagery that’s actually offensive, one might expect the imams responsible for such imagery to have been killed. That’s not the case, however.

    2. prostate

    3. Yes but what will be interesting to see is whether discussing whether or not muhhamud has a mouth full of dicks is gratuitously offensive is in itself gratuitously offensive.

  35. Not much good at drawing, but here goes my non-submitting submission:

    The Prophet Mohammed (detail of larger work):


    Jim Henshaw
    Kailua, HI

    1. winner!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.