> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they

> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. Nope. Fuck their customs and norms. Out here in the non-psychotic world, we also have "customs and norms". Those include not cutting facts out of our accounts of history, and not telling other people what they can say in general. By the way, those exact same "customs and norms" also say that, although they can keep me from drawing some guy because it's offensive to them, I can't criticize a book that's full of literal, direct exhortations to kill a shit-ton of people, including me personally-- exhortations that have been and still are being acted upon throughout the book's history-- because questioning that book is also offensive to them. In addition to glorifying violence, that book also goes on for page after page denigrating other religions, by the way. When you're prepared to systematically shun (at least) all Abrahamic scriptures and everybody who spreads them, along with all the other "false and illegitimate claims", and along with anything else that conflicts with anybody's "customs and norms", then you'll be in a self-consistent position. You'll still be wrong, but you'll at least be consistent. Ready to go there? By the way, trying frame your position as something that every reasonable person obviously must already accept is a really pitiful rhetorical tactic.