On the Cartoons
By The fact that several conservatives have resorted to the “why aren’t the moonbats talking about this” routine makes me even more reluctant to comment (I generally don’t bother to write when I think the analysis is obvious, and I assume our readers are smart enough to find news online on their own), but since Shakes asks some good stuff has been written that gets it right.
Slacktivist supplies the short version:
A quick review of the abstract principles involved.
Freedom of Speech: Good.
Bigotry/Deliberate Disrespect: Bad.
Wanton Rioting/Violence: Bad.
The first doesn’t excuse the second, and the second doesn’t excuse the third.
I think this is obviously right. I’m certainly not going along with calling the cartoonists heroes or some such. We’re not dealing with The Satanic Verses here; these were cartoons with no purpose but to be offensive, and each newspaper who printed them was compounding extremely bad judgment. But of course freedom of speech protects the hack as well as the artist, the bigoted no-talent as well as Salman Rushdie, and the violent reaction is of course appalling and indefensible.
Julia and Jill present the longer, more nuanced version. I can’t add more. Rox presents her own summary.