Garland Texas

Inoffensive expression doesn't require protection

Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.~Thurgood Marshall

Chances are no matter who you are, what you do, or what you like, someone somewhere will find it offensive.  The event in Garland Texas was certainly offensive to Muslims, just as I'm sure they found Madonna's "Satanic" performance at the Grammy Awards and Katy Perry's "Witchcraft" performance the previous year offensive.  Christians find "Piss Christ" offensive.  I'm sure there are Protestants out there that find the papist trappings of the Catholic Church offensive.

So?

The parody and satire of the "silly" beliefs of Muslims is no more or no less offensive than the parody and satire of the "silly" beliefs of Christians, or the parody and satire of the religious by the non-religious. There are those who believe and who had called for the event in Garland to be banned just as there are those who believe and who called for the Satanic Mass at Harvard to be banned, and those that believe and have called for Islam to be banned... all are wrong.

Do you think I'm wrong? Are my words offensive? Do they upset you?

Tough, suck it up.

Post Script:

The bottom image is "Muhammad prohibiting Nasīʾ", a 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century Ilkhanate manuscript.  450,000 people signed a petition to remove it from the Wikipedia article on Muhammed as offensive to Muslims.