How far is too far?

So I was reading this article earlier today and I was slightly annoyed.

It was an opinion piece written by a Muslim-American who thought the "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day event on Facebook was a bad idea, highly offensive to Muslims everywhere, and because of its highly inflammatory nature, we should forfeit our First Amendment rights on this particular issue.

To Hell with that.

Its not that I am culturally insensitive to the Prophet's place in the Muslim religion (one of these days, I'm gonna need to write about the folly of following a religious institution), I get that he is very important and is held in high regard. According to the author of this article, imagine comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr. Now hold on, MLK is just a man, and everyone is entitled to their opinions to MLK (no, I do not support Jim Crow, racial discrimination or anything of that sort) and is childish at best to downright forbid anyone from doing a satirical piece on him.

Here's a better example: Mao Zedong. HUUUUUUUUUGE cult of personality during his rule in China. Literally worshiped by the most populated country in the world (though mostly by the now elderly generation). Is it ok to do a satirical piece on this guy? Oh hell yeah, because this is someone from another continent away, and he's just a guy with a message. Wait....we seem to be coming full circle here, and now we are at the crossroad of hypocrisy.

I have no problem with free speech (though it always seem to have a volatile reaction when combined with freedom of assembly and freedom of religion) and I certainly don't have a problem with respecting another culture. But how far is too far? Can it be said that the author's request to not "add fuel to the fires of extremism on all sides" is asking for one group to restrict another group's rights?

I believe so.

The author's argument is not one against violence, bigotry, or cultural insensitivity. It is against the way the world as a whole interprets communication and the voicing of opinions. People should be more responsible about the information they acquire, but at the same time be more open to opposing viewpoints. In this particular case, I believe Muslims should be sensitive to the rights of free speech that other people have, and that not everyone shares their beliefs. At the same time, people should also understand that participating in the facebook event do so at the risk of pissing off the practitioners of Islam. But dammit, its everyone's right to partake/not to partake/piss off/to be pissed off.

We as a planet need to learn how to accept other people for who and what they are. There is no way in hell that everyone one day in the future is going to absolutely agree on every topic of possible discussion, and that honestly, is very creepy. We'd be like robots. There would be no sense of intellectual diversity. Not the point. World peace (if it is indeed possible) simply needs to be people getting along with everyone else enough long enough so we don't kill each other. No agreement is needed, we just need to accept other people as they come, not to get totally pissed off at other people, and don't kill each other.

Fuck, I'd kill for some pei daan sou yok jok right now....