nasty cartoons

[kath3]

Vilks is an educated man from a civilized nation who disreguarded the very essence of what it means to be civilized. He chose to provoke, ridicule, and insult an entire group of people to make his point about a belief system that he disappoves of. Not only was this done in an uncivilized manner it was childish.
I certainly don't know Vilks, I've read a bit about this controversy ... that his works have been banned in other countries for fear of retaliation and yet he continued to push his work/art ... for what ... the right to Free Speech ... give me a break. I see Vilks as an attention grabber, a spoiled kid determined to get his way at all costs. Well I hope the price he is paying now is worth it to himself and his family.
If Vilks truely is concerned for the right to Free Speech perhaps he should have used a more dignified way to express himself.

Aren't we all childish sometimes? Vilks suffers from the same flaws as all of us. He was entitled to say/paint what he deemed fit, even if other people deemed offensive to the point of murder.

The difference is that the caricature did not kill anyone. Whereas the extremist would really like to (and have done to other people).

Plus, what would we do without comedy? The ability to be able to ridicule anything is good because it does away with any ideas of perfection and makes us smile and laugh.

You didn't have to find it funny. Hell, you could even say you didn't like it (free speech on your part) but as soon as anyone thought of hurting him you'd be breaking the laws of being civilised.

He did it because he could and that's admirable. Whether it was rude or not does not grant license to take someone's life. As I say, we've all been rude (I'm guessing even you, who's generally really polite ).

Oh yes, I can be down right nasty when it comes to an arguement with my husband.

True we all can be childish. Vilks in my personal opinion was not only being childish, he was being rude, degrading, incensitive, provoking, and perhaps above all instigative lacking all sense of integrity, respect and civility all within one drawing.

You and I are certainly in agreement with the fact that Vilks has every right to say what he wishes without fear of harm. Where I disagree with you is that just because one has the right to say whatever he/she wants doesn't make him/her right to say whatever he/she wants.
Vilks by expressing himself in such a manner has not only provoked retalilation against himself and his family but upon innocent people.

In no way do I find his actions admirable. I see him as an instigator.

Just an analogy ... There's a bitbull in a cage (muslim extremeist) Vilks comes along with a stick (free speech) and pokes at the dog with the stick to the point that the dog is now angry and ready to fight. Along comes a mother with a child ... the child happy to see the dog approaches it only to be bitten.
Vilks has come and gone and is out of the picture and even has police protection. The innocent are left with an angry dog and no protection.

Talk about taking something to the limits. Is his right to draw really worth the anguish that it has brought about. In my personal opinion ... absolutely not. If Vilks was speaking out against injustices towards humanity in a decent manner he would have my full support.