After reading the first line of your post, I was prepared to up-vote you since you were already negative, just on the principle of guaranteeing your free speech.
However, the rest of your post was just poorly thought out, and deserves the downvotes you got, regardless of what side of the issue you're on.
If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court.
You'll get a lot of sympathy. The courts (in America, anyway) do observe a doctrine of "fighting words", which incite irrational emotions in a person such that they lose control. This is analogous to what would happen were the defendent were unable to control himself due to some mental defect.
The question at hand has nothing to do with fighting words. Since the threats are greatly separated in space and time, no excuse about a temporary loss of rationality can be used. The treats against the artist were fully premeditated.
Legalities aside, defending the artist is the morally correct choice. The only way that we can grow as people and as a society -- and this pertains to both technology and to philosophy -- is by questioning our beliefs and our assumptions. Even when we are correct, we need and we deserve to prove it to ourselves. When we are offended, we can examine the injured belief, and the result should be either that we learn that we are wrong, or we verify to ourselves that our belief is true. Either way, we're better off. Do those offended by these cartoons have such weak faith that their faith will be damaged by them?
Your criticism misses the mark, as I don't actually defend the violent reaction to the cartoons and have said as much.
Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention. You may or may not be aware that the newspaper solicited the cartoons, challenging the artists to make them as inflammatory as possible. It was a political and commercial stunt under the guise of a moral battle, making the whole thing even more despicable.
Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention.
You seem to be under the impression that it's possible to discern someone's intent, e.g., "prodding them for a cheap thrill", "it was a political and commercial stunt". Do you really contend that you have the vision into people's hearts, that you can discern their actual motivations?
No, in reality you do not have, and cannot have, any inkling of the real reasons for any of a person's actions.
But in any case, the freedom of expression, to challenge beliefs and assumptions, is in no way predicated on intent. Freedom is not reserved to those who are pure of heart. If it were only granted on the basis of someone approving its motivations, then an oppressor would only need to be dishonest, or mistaken, in judging those motivations.
Freedom of expression is for everyone, and for all purposes.
However, the rest of your post was just poorly thought out, and deserves the downvotes you got, regardless of what side of the issue you're on.
If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court.
You'll get a lot of sympathy. The courts (in America, anyway) do observe a doctrine of "fighting words", which incite irrational emotions in a person such that they lose control. This is analogous to what would happen were the defendent were unable to control himself due to some mental defect.
The question at hand has nothing to do with fighting words. Since the threats are greatly separated in space and time, no excuse about a temporary loss of rationality can be used. The treats against the artist were fully premeditated.
Legalities aside, defending the artist is the morally correct choice. The only way that we can grow as people and as a society -- and this pertains to both technology and to philosophy -- is by questioning our beliefs and our assumptions. Even when we are correct, we need and we deserve to prove it to ourselves. When we are offended, we can examine the injured belief, and the result should be either that we learn that we are wrong, or we verify to ourselves that our belief is true. Either way, we're better off. Do those offended by these cartoons have such weak faith that their faith will be damaged by them?