My support of the Muhammed cartoons published in Denmark might seem contradictory to some, since I've often advocated artistic self-censorship in the past. My argument then was that if you don't have something worthwhile to say, that you're simply provoking for the hell of it, then at best you're being a shitty artist...at worst a shitty human being.

So what's the difference here? Andrew Sullivan takes a look at this statement from the Boston Globe's editorial board:

This was a case of seeking a reason to exercise a freedom that had not been challenged.

To which Sullivan replies:

The body of Pim Fortuyn was not challenge enough? The fatwa on Rushdie? The murder of Theo van Gogh? Maybe if the Boston Globe had covered these events with a greater sense of their importance, they would understand why Danish artists were and are living in a climate of fear.

The Rushdie example is a bit dated, but Theo van Gogh is not. I didn't cover his murder here, but followed the story extensively in other blogs. If you don't know who he is or how this relates to the cartoon story, Google his name and learn.

Sullivan's right. This wasn't a senseless provocation...this was a response to the climate of fear and censorship in Denmark.

The drawings were meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw them and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

I have to admit being ashamed of our goverment's official response to this series of events, and much of the editorialism by our own media.