Caricaturist Molly Norris from Seattle has disappeared. She ceased to exist from one day to the next. I wonder that no one has started a thread about this here. After all, it took a couple of days until the news hit Germany. Why did she go?

She called for the creation of a "Draw Mohammed Day". That is a legitimate matter for a caricaturist in a country that gives is citizens the right of free speech. One could think.Not so. She received death threads from hate preachers and she had to go underground if she wanted to stay alive. She lost her basics of life, her friends, her social environment and she even has to pay for her new identity all by herself.

Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

Interesting to know. After all, the media hype was - rightfully - large when some idiot christian fundamentalist threatened to burn the Koran. Now here we have the same story vv, even worse, a human beeing is threatened for her life - and nothing happens. No media outcry, no support., no President defending the constitution.

Well, the media at least did report, but I would love to see Mrs. Norris' Governor to address the issue - I don't think he/she has.
Futil you say? Yes, but some words aren't just a disturbance of silence.

Besides, states involved should definitely cover the expenses for getting her a new identity for crying out loud.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

     

WHOA.

Did the state have anything to do with her disappearance? Or did she go underground for her own security, due to to death threats from radicals?

Yes we have a constitutional right to free speech. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea to say something just because you can. American cartoonists are already free to draw whatever they wish; if a cartoonist here has an idea for a cartoon involving Mohammed; that's when to draw him. That being so, Norris's aim doesn't seem to have been artistic expression. I think she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 2): she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.

If we start calling death threats "the natural consequence" of execising your right to free speech, no matter how controversial, we - or you Americans - can drop the 1st amendment alltogether. It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3): It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.

No, the state has no duty to protect its citizens. The state has a duty to protect the citizen's free speech rights. Freedom of speech allows people to do or say or write or draw or whatever just about anything they want, so long as they don't infringe on someone else's right. But that freedom does not protect you from the consequences of your action.

I believe she has every right to do what she did and I believe, if she wanted to do it, she should do it. But, the threats should have been expected. The death threats are illegal and should be investigated and punished. If she chooses to go underground, that is up to her. I don't think the state should be required to pay for it.

It's not like she turned state's evidence against someone at the state's request. Her actions were her own.

Free speech doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. There is simply no excuse for death threats etc., but that said, they were 100% predictable, and her whole "idea" was to provoke them just to provoke them--and to prove what point exactly, that she could offend a lot of people who hadn't done anything to her, and that some of them were unreasonable enough to threaten her? Brilliant point! So novel   .

It's a little like someone saying "Hey y'all, watch this!!" and then poking a pit pull in the face with a cattle iron repeatedly. Wow, "look ma, no (more) hands!!!"

Sorry if she wanted to take herself out of the gene pool that bad, but really...

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Caricaturist Molly Norris from Seattle has disappeared.

Who?

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this.

See above.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

Yes. Does Germany have similar clauses?   

Quoting Airstud (Reply 2): Yes we have a constitutional right to free speech. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea to say something just because you can. American cartoonists are already free to draw whatever they wish; if a cartoonist here has an idea for a cartoon involving Mohammed; that's when to draw him. That being so, Norris's aim doesn't seem to have been artistic expression. I think she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.

I had a conversation about this subject the other day with a friend of mine in regards to the minister in Florida who wanted to burn copies of the Qu'ran. Every country has a different set of laws and/or judicial interpretation of what "free speech" is. Obviously there are some nations that really don't provide much in the way of free speech but many do.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

The US is kind of unique in that pretty much anything goes, even hateful speech as long as it doesn't incite violence. In fact we will defend someone's right to say things that are just downright horrible, hurtful, offensive and incendiary as our laws and our beliefs call for ALL freedom of expression. I actually saw an article on the BBC's news website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419 explaining how freedom of expression protections work in the US; it was really obvious that the extent to what is allowed is quite baffling to people in most of the rest of the world. In many countries there are exceptions. Germany and many European nations prohibit display of the swastika and denial of the Holocaust. Even though the US fought the Nazis and it is safe to say that most Americans would never support such an ideology it is in our laws to protect anyone who does, no matter how vile that sounds to people. The idea of freedom of expression is so sacred in US culture that we defend it with force, no matter how bad it is. It is one of those "slippery slope" ideas - if you restrict one thing what is next to follow? I'm sure there are nations that provide for many freedoms of expression but prohibit something like defamation of holy books like the Qu'ran.

In the US we send a really weird mixed message to the rest of the world. We send a message that we support pretty much all expression and support everyone's rights to worship in whatever religion they want to. But at the same time we say that it is someone's right to denigrate or defame something as holy or revered as the Qu'ran is to Muslims. While many, both within the US and abroad, called on President Obama to stop this minister from burning copies of the Qu'ran, it was not within the laws for him to do so. In fact it would have been ILLEGAL for him to do so. Even the President doesn't get to trump our guarantees of freedom of expression!

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3): If we start calling death threats "the natural consequence" of execising your right to free speech, no matter how controversial, we - or you Americans - can drop the 1st amendment alltogether. It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.

  

absolutely

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): No, the state has no duty to protect its citizens

If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city? From my understanding, the states have the monopoly of power which is exercised by police and the judiciary system. That gives the states automatically the duty to protect ist citizens.

.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 6): Yes. Does Germany have similar clauses?

No.

Reallly interesting replies from our friends of the USA. We should offer Ms. Norris asylum in Germany on the basis that the US consitution does not protect its citizens basic rights when certain groups are "offended".

.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8): Reallly interesting replies from our friends of the USA. We should offer Ms. Norris asylum in Germany on the basis that the US consitution does not protect its citizens basic rights when certain groups are "offended".

Please do, since none of us know who she is anyway. You know us with all our anti-muslim clauses in the constitution and all. We might harm her. Certainly she'd be better off in Germany.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8): If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city?

Please see this link:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

or if you like:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

The police have no duty to protect the citizen. More properly said, the police are not infringing on your rights by not protecting you.

There are exceptions. One exception is the special relationship formed between you and the police when they arrest you. The police now have a duty to protect you because they have you in custody.

Imagine you can sue a police department because they failed to protect you from a mugger.

The police exist to investigate crime, make arrests, keep the public peace and occasionally interfere in a crime as it's committed or before it's committed..

Recently in the UK, several people have been arrested for putting out a video showing them burning copies of the Koran on 9/11/10, these arrest took place in a land that while it has significant rights as to free speech, it is much narrower than the USA.

In the USA there is a personal responsibilty as to what you say with few statutory limits like against distributing pictures of nude persons under age 18. If a white person yells the n-word into a crowd of young Black men, they will not be violating the law, but could get a beat down, a violation of law as to the young Black men. If you are in objection to legal abortions in the USA, you can protest, but there are limits in some places as such protests can limit the constitutionally protected rights of privacy as to medical services and from harassment if you choose to go to such a facilty. If you do something that offends in a religious way, that is sacreligious, you may be protected by law in saying that, but it cannot protect you from a 'beat down' from those offended, like those of the Islamic faith offended by any pictorial depection of The Prophet.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9): Please do [grant Mrs. Norris asylum], since none of us know who she is anyway

In other words it would be different if Mrs. Norris was a celeb?

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9): You know us with all our anti-muslim clauses in the constitution and all. We might harm her.

I think you have it backwards. Mrs. Norris is not a Muslima so your "anti-muslim clauses in the constitution" can not harm her. She receives death treaths from extremist Muslims.

Here's a story describing that the FBI advised her to go into hiding.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...drawmohammedday1stldwritethru.html

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8): If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city? From my understanding, the states have the monopoly of power which is exercised by police and the judiciary system. That gives the states automatically the duty to protect ist citizens.

The state can't protect you. Theo van Gogh had no time to pick up a phone and call the cops, much less time to wait for their arrival. Kurt Westergaard had a close call in his own home, despite being under police protection.

The police is there as law enforcement. They come in after the law has been broken. You are lucky if they get there as it's happening.

Those comparisons hold little water. For once, Theo van Gogh thought he was safe. But first and foremost it would render the right to free speech theoretical if state refuses to protect you and cover the expenses for your protection after exercising said right. The fact that no protection can be 100% notwithstanding.

If your President and his family needs to be protected, it is only logical he and his family gets the protection without having to pay for it. Mrs. Norris, after exercising her 1st amendment rights, needs protection too, albeit on a smaller level, but apparently has to pay for it.

The reasons some people here provided as explanation were:

- Molly who? No one knows her anyway.
- She was stupid to announce the "draw Mohammad Day" in the first place
- She can say what she wants but has to deal with it if she gets "beaten down" (or shot down more like it)

The first two indicate that you need to be famous and/or smart to be able to exercise your right freely - and not only in theory.
The third ignores what I mentioned before, that it is the government's duty to protect its citizens and their rights.
Otherwise you would see no police in NYC protecting the people's right to protest against the muslim center near ground zero.

Otherwise many Italian reporters who uncovered Mafia structures in their articles and books were long shot dead, and with them their right to free speech.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15): that it is the government's duty to protect its citizens

The US Supreme Court is clear on the subject; unless a special relationship exists between the police and the citizen, there is no duty to protect the citizen...none.

By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia and begin to loudly disparage the Red Sox, and then should immediately be offered police protection.

Or, I should be allowed to wade into the midst of a bunch of (insert group here) disparage their (whatever) and expect the state to be there and provide protection in the absence of a crime? No, that's un-workable.

It is up to government to protect my right to speech; no that's wrong. It is up to us to ensure that government does not infringe on our right of free speech. It is not up to the government to protect me if I offend with my speech. Up until I am actually attacked...or The State has credible, actionable information that an attack is imminent, The State has no duty to protect me.

Again, what's to prevent every victim of a crime from suing their municipality for a breech of this imaginary duty to protect?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14): Kurt Westergaard had a close call in his own home, despite being under police protection.

Kurt Westergaard has permanent protection from the Danish police. Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16): By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia a

completely invalid comparison. In sports, clubs and their fans compete, they may have fights, but they don't kill. Here, we have to do with fanatic fundamentalists who have zero tolerance, can't even spell the word and don't allow any differenmt view on a particular matter other than their own.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16): The State has no duty to protect me.

That would be a good explanation why many Americans have more guns in their houses than the complete Army of Luxemburg. OK, fine. In our neck of the woods, the state has the monopoly of power, allows arming of the public only in rare cases but in turn has to protect its citizens. That may not always be very efficient, but in the case of Ms. Norris she would be eligeble.

And, BTW, freedom of speech is not an offense, cannot be an offense. Ms. Norris did not insult anyone, she just published some thoughts about a certain matter. She did not call M with 4letter words or anything, she just thought about drawing pictures. What's wrong about that? If radicals of that religion don't like it, OK. But that does not give them the right to kill anyone. No one, not a religion, not a group, has the right to force their beliefs on other people.

Simple as that. And if other people do things they don't like, they have to accept that and shrug it off. Simple as that.

The people in the western democracies have fought over 500 years for individual freedom. We have it now guaranteed in our constitutions and it looks like we have to be very careful and vigilant to keep it that way.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Can you hold a pro-Nazi rally? Can you draw swastikas?

How free is your free speech?

Be clear, I'm not saying those are things I'd like to do but I think a bit of your motivation here is just to dump on the US while, in fact, I'm not sure you have as much freedom as you purport.

It sounds to me as if US officials were, at least, monitoring issues related to her safety. That said, taxpayers aren't footing the bill to give her lifetime protection.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): That would be a good explanation why many Americans have more guns in their houses than the complete Army of Luxemburg. OK, fine.

That is correct. We can and do arm ourselves because it is impractible to believe that the police can be everywhere, all the time. Another option is to proactively shut down free speech whenever it may offensive.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): And, BTW, freedom of speech is not an offense, cannot be an offense.

Anyone can be offended by anything. Speech can be one of the most offensive things in this country.

I think the idea is stupid, and doesn't even try to be a little "egalitarian" by making it "draw the prophet day" or something, so it could be about Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and others.

Now, clearly this is protected by the free speech/expression laws of probably all western countries. I'm not a specialist on police protection but I know that the threats need to be very serious, it's not up to you to decide when you need it, so if she acted on her own, there is no reason for the authorities to pay for it.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11): If a white person yells the n-word into a crowd of young Black men, they will not be violating the law

In France they would be. The interior minister has recently been convicted for less than that : http://www.france24.com/en/20100604-...m-fined-750-euros-hortefeux-france

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15): But first and foremost it would render the right to free speech theoretical if state refuses to protect you and cover the expenses for your protection after exercising said right.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17): Kurt Westergaard has permanent protection from the Danish police. Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Obviously there is a distinction between protecting one's right to free speech and claiming there is a right to police protection. And it's not theoretical, it's real: Molly was not thrown in jail for what she said. That another person decided to take matters into their own hands is besides the point. If they did something criminal, and anything criminal is a violation of some right, they should be prosecuted.

Freedom of speech is something that really can only be violated in conjunction with government action. Like with Theo's murderer, you end up in jail for murder but not for violating Theo's free speech. Something the criminal never did anyways, he "only" violated Theo's right to life.

[Edited 2010-09-24 19:49:42]

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10): Imagine you can sue a police department because they failed to protect you from a mugger.

If I had credible evidence that I was a specific target for a mugging (i.e. someone told me I'd be mugged), and I told the police about it, and then got mugged without them doing anything, yes I'd be suing.

The police can't be everywhere, but if they've got warning of something, they should be taking action. That's why they investigate bomb threats instead of waiting to see if they actually go off or not.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16): By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia and begin to loudly disparage the Red Sox, and then should immediately be offered police protection.

If you did that, you would be. In the form of the police escorting you out for your own protection.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16): The State has credible, actionable information that an attack is imminent, The State has no duty to protect me.

You mean like a credible death threat?

-Mir

Quoting n229nw (Reply 5): Free speech doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. There is simply no excuse for death threats etc., but that said, they were 100% predictable, and her whole "idea" was to provoke them just to provoke them--and to prove what point exactly, that she could offend a lot of people who hadn't done anything to her, and that some of them were unreasonable enough to threaten her? Brilliant point! So novel

You do realize of course that you are saying that Muslims (radical ones anyway), are animals?

If I tease a grizzly bear, and he kills me, I asked for it. The bear acted naturally for a bear, and I should have known better.

Now if I go up to you and tease you, and you kill me, YOU are going away for murder. Human beings are supposed to be able to control their animal impulses - that is the entire meaning of civilization, and has frequently been used as the reason why humans are different than animals.

This woman does not deserve to live in fear for her life, like Salman Rushdie and hundreds of others, for having offended a religion.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter): Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

A little late to the party, but my first thought was "bold, but maybe not wise". If you tease the right dog enough, eventually it will bite. So long as the government does not prohibit her from doing so, I see no conflict with the US Constitution.

The problem in most western societies is that the laws discourage you from efficiently protecting yourself. The legal system primarely operates on deterent by catching and punishing the perp AFTER he has committed a crime, to make other possible criminals think about the consequences and then decide not to commit a crime.
There are simply not enough police officers around to protect all persons at any time, their job is primarely to find out who is guilty AFTER the crime was committed and then b ring a case to a judge for sentencing.
This obviously won´t help with a religious fanatic who doesn´t mind being martyred.
On the other hand active and preventive selfdefense is being frowned upon as taking the law in your own hands.

Jan

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 26): She's in hiding first of all. Protected by the FBI.

Is she really protected by the FBI? I didn't see anything to that effect, only that they recommended that she go into hiding but wouldn't protect her themselves.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 22): If I had credible evidence that I was a specific target for a mugging (i.e. someone told me I'd be mugged), and I told the police about it, and then got mugged without them doing anything, yes I'd be suing.

See reply 23. This person had a restraining order against her assailant and lost her suit against the police. The police can't be everywhere. They can not act on the assumption that something will happen.

Quoting Mir (Reply 22): You mean like a credible death threat?

Who made the threat? Names? How about a location? Is the information actionable? Sorry, but The State has no obligation. Yes, they can step up patrols in the area, but that's about it, unless she wants to pony up for the costs of police OT.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 28): The essence of my thread is, if a religion does not want their leaders shown in pictures,

FYI in Iran they depict, draw, paint, carve pictures of all Shia leaders, no fuss regarding the subject there, the reason for not allowing it is simply so that people do not start worshipping the imagry like in some other religions. Insulting caricatures on the other hand are worse they are degrading and provocative, as you sow so shall you reap, thats the fanatic mantra for provokers, both sides are stupid, fingering the hornets nest and expecting not to get stung.

And kindly do not PM me, as moderators have made it explicity clear what you and some others said was not acceptable here, so dont try to discusss it with me in private as you did, I shut the window just reading one line, as if you dindt get your say and cause enough offence here that you had to take your tactic to PM, I'll inform the moderators if you do so again.

[Edited 2010-09-25 14:12:21]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): Quoting n229nw (Reply 5): Free speech doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. There is simply no excuse for death threats etc., but that said, they were 100% predictable, and her whole "idea" was to provoke them just to provoke them--and to prove what point exactly, that she could offend a lot of people who hadn't done anything to her, and that some of them were unreasonable enough to threaten her? Brilliant point! So novel You do realize of course that you are saying that Muslims (radical ones anyway), are animals?

All people are animals, actually, if you want to get technical about it.

Seriously, though, I know you were trying to twist my words to make this work for your own agenda, but I'll stand by my point.

1.) You've done a nice job putting "radical ones anyway" as a throwaway in parentheses to make it seem rhetorically unimportant. But it is the entire crux of the issue, so don't try to bend this to make this apply to all Muslims. Radical Muslims are (by definition) extremists, and some of the most extreme extremists there are. No one is denying this. So, yes, I'd say that indeed they are acting like base animals, and, yes, that it is thus to be predicted (as with the bear in your example) that these people WILL respond with threats, and possibly a few of them will try to follow through. We all know this, so what is the point of proving it? Meanwhile, in order to prove this already known fact and make themselves feel superior, people at that Danish tabloid or Molly Norris are willing to deliberately deeply offend a huge number of Muslims (i.e. the enormous majority of Muslims who are not extremists and who will NOT threaten them, but who will still be offended), just for $hits and giggles. It would be different if they really didn't know or expect the reaction, but by now, they DO know what the reaction will be. (I think the Salman Rushdie case is a little different, and more complicated)

So, are such offenses "allowed" under free speech? Sure, but it doesn't draw my sympathy. It is just dumb and mean-spirited. Say a white guy goes into a Chicago housing project and starts shouting the N word at passers-by just to prove his "freedom of speech," and by the by to wink wink nudge nudge to his friends that blacks can't control themselves. Does it justify it if someone beats him up, or even worse? No. Would I feel surprised or particularly sorry for him if someone did though? No, he's an idiot. (And it reminds me of a scene in Kentucky Friend Movie.) Moreover, does this actually imply that blacks are less able to control their instincts? No. It shows that if you go into a place where you know some people are angry and violent and have nothing much to live for anyway (i.e. ANY ghetto anywhere regardless of race or place) and then DELIBERATELY offend all of them, you'll probably find one or two who will indeed respond violently.

In any group, you have people who can't control their own instincts. There is vigilante "justice" around the world, and plenty of it right here in the US. On this very board I've seen certain right-wing Americans threaten or condone violence against those who "disrespect the flag." It is like Borat in the Rodeo; he had to leave under police protection, didn't he, just for deliberately messing up the national anthem. Hey, there were plenty of people saying we should "nuke the whole middle East" after 9/11 too. (And hey, we did start wars that have killed countless innocent people there, though that is for another thread, since it shouldn't be entirely oversimplified.) Does all this mean we "Americans" as a group are uncivilized animals? etc. etc.

2.) Note again that I'm not condoning death threats or saying that those who make them shouldn't be punished, WHEN THAT IS POSSIBLE. In cases such as this one we have a little problem, though, see. That is that 99% of the people who would seriously try to kill or incite others to kill someone in the US for mocking Mohammad are not in the US, and would in the end take their anger out on other unassociated Americans abroad and not even on the person who originated the "offense." (Remember we are dealing with extremists here, so logic isn't going to play a huge role.) So basically, the only way the US government could deal with such predictable threats is to ask people not to be idiots (like the Koran Burning preacher). Because the "alternative" is to go bomb some other country on the grounds that we are getting rid of extremists. Which has two problems: a.) it is based on the same base animal instinct that it is supposedly trying to get rid of, especially since it will kill many more innocent people than actual extremists b.)it will make more extremists as more people will be angry and have nothing to live for. (and that is not even getting into the issue of sovereignty and just war theory etc.). Therefore, I go with option one: ask people not to be idiots.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 38): You push someone enough, they'll shove back.

Although this comes from a completely different context (ironically, within this thread), it basically sums up my point!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36): If the definition of civilization and humanity is control over our baser instincts, well...

I can live with that definition as a starting point.

Do some of you honestly believe that those who draw caricatures of Jesus or of the Pope do not receive death threats? Do you really think that everyone in the West just shrugs them off? I don't deny that these were probably very credible death threats that she received, but to pretend that those who caricature Christianity are never the victims of such threats is, at the very least, completely disingenuous.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 18): Can you hold a pro-Nazi rally? Can you draw swastikas? How free is your free speech?

Interesting that this question has been ignored...

Quoting OA412 (Reply 38): Interesting that this question has been ignored...

absolutely free. Crminal offense excluded. You cannot go on the Mall and ecxlaim that the president should be assassinated. That does not fall under free speech either.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 38): Do some of you honestly believe that those who draw caricatures of Jesus or of the Pope do not receive death threats?

I haven't heard of any cases and like I said, I do not sanction all of that either, but it is no comparison to what happens in the muslim world when their beliefs are affecte3d.

[Edited 2010-09-26 12:24:06 by srbmod]

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 32): absolutely free. Crminal offense excluded. You cannot go on the Mall and ecxlaim that the president should be assassinated. That does not fall under free speech either.

Nice try, but a threat against the president is a threat against a person. Holding a pro-Nazi rally is not a threat, it's a political statement. So, if you make a political statement illegal, you are restricting free speech.

Bottom-line here, in the case of the caricaturist, is that even though threats of violence against a person are illegal, per se, unless the police can identify the people that made the threat or have a reasonable expectation of when and where an attack will occur, they really can't do anything.

In fact, the more threats that are presented, the more difficult for the police to do anything.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 25): The problem in most western societies is that the laws discourage you from efficiently protecting yourself. The legal system primarely operates on deterent by catching and punishing the perp AFTER he has committed a crime, to make other possible criminals think about the consequences and then decide not to commit a crime. There are simply not enough police officers around to protect all persons at any time, their job is primarely to find out who is guilty AFTER the crime was committed and then b ring a case to a judge for sentencing. This obviously won´t help with a religious fanatic who doesn´t mind being martyred. On the other hand active and preventive selfdefense is being frowned upon as taking the law in your own hands. Jan

Well, she's in a country where you can in fact buy guns and all, it doesn't seem to help does it ?

And I'm pretty sure death threats are illegal, so if the perpetrators were known, they could be arrested.

[Edited 2010-09-29 12:51:03]

Quoting Aesma (Reply 34): And I'm pretty sure death threats are illegal, so if the perpetrators were known, they could be arrested.

For a little while, maybe. In our culture, if I am angry at you and say, "I'm gonna kill you!", a little cooling off phase should be enough to alleviate the danger. It's quite another when thousands, even millions believe that they have a mission ordained by God to kill you. 3 months in jail is not going to dissuade anyone, in this situation.