"Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? asks the Professor rhetorically during "my appearance on CNN, in which I'm rather critical of CNN's decision not to show the cartoons."
On CNN's "Inside the Blogs" last night, the most trusted man in the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds explained to cutie-pie interviewer Abbi Tatton the way of the world, in response to her questions re the "intense scrutiny of news organizations like CNN and others and the decisions that we've been making about whether to publish these cartoons or not." We caught the show during rebroadcast in the wee hours, and Ian Schwartz of Expose the Left has the video [via Michelle Malkin]:
Well I think you guys have blown it, and in fact I think by not publishing the cartoons, what you've done is let people imagine the worst. The actual cartoons are not that [bad], and in fact one way we know they're not that [bad] is the Danish imams had to add fake cartoons when they did their little tour to try to stir up trouble because the real ones weren't bad enough, and I think when you cover things up, you let people's imaginations run wild, and the results are often worse than if you expose things. The press is there to tell us things, not to hide things from us.
Everything's offensive to somebody, and in the modern world we all have to put up with some degree of offense. If the fundamentalist Christians were rioting because of Will and Grace, would you take them off the air?
Conservative bloggers hear a lot of talk about free speech in other contexts, but it seems like people are willing to go to the mat to protect free speech when it's free speech that irritates people on the right, but when it's free speech that irritates Muslims, they're more concerned about not offending.
"How has the internet contributed to this story," asks Tatton:
Well I think it's helped people find these images they couldn't find through the mainstream press -- which as always helps people bypass the gatekeepers. My beliefs are offended when gangs of ignorant thugs burn embassies. Where's the respect for my beliefs? Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? Because that's the message CNN sends. The message they send is "We will reward violence." And you're going to get more of what you reward. That's how it works.
And that's the way it is. But despite this excellent segment on CNN, MSM types still don't get it. The anchor of the show -- a very personable and competent professional -- had already internalized the dhimmitudinous new phrase of the moment, "the prophet Mohammed" to refer to a religious figure previously known to infidels as simply "Mohammed." Listen for it. They're all doing it now, even on Fox. Are tolerant Muslims about to refer to Jesus as "Our Lord Jesus Christ"? Nor should they.
Instalanche. The great one doesn't know wherof he speaks, saying "I think I finished well, though, even if I was boring. But hey, I'm a law professor. Boring is what we do best!" No, no. You are not boring, you silly.
Update: Reader Scott points out the imprecision of our comparison between the Christian expression "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the Muslim expression "the Prophet Mohammed [PBUH]." We agree. A more apt comparison might be the spelling G-d used by some Jews as a reminder of the holiness attached to God's name or -- as blogged here, the traditional honorific capitalization of pronouns referring to Christ.