No I am not saying that, I am simply saying this 'artistic work' is pathetic and sad. But as any freedom of expression, anyone should be allowed to engage in such pathetic displays, and correspondingly, call them pathetic.
Fair enough. So the guy with the beard with a bomb in his turban was not Mohammad? LOL You really think the response garnered by those pictures was 'unexpected' and 'surprisingly misunderstood'? Really? Fooled me and A LOT of other people. I didnt hear such discussion, and I would argue such a means of confronting censorship was rather poorly thought out.
1, I dont have a 'bloated ego', although I realize you wish to perceive I do in order to continue with ad hominem 2. It isnt a 'ridiculous assumption' to think you watch Fox - a source of news renowned for its propagation of ignorance. Yes, of course. So? And I'm not surprised they did. I dont see the problem? To those who felt a sense of joy, no matter how reflexive or deeply felt, it was an internal recognition of seeing the image of the US, as a symbolic ideal of an oppressive construct within the mind, based on the US history and US foreign policy (which is of a high standard of immorality), being tarnished - a sense of comeuppance, not a rejoicing in innocent death, rather of the idea America finally got what it deserved - not Americans in the twin towers, but America as a country, as an idea that represents the tyranny those rejoicing have experienced.
The offensive speech to which you refer is political in nature. As such this speech is protected in America by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
