Trent Telenko thinks that Iran may already have nukes. It would fit the current pattern of their behavior, unfortunately.

This is a pretty funny cartoon, and as Professor Volokh points out, it shows how the whole “can’t show pictures of Mohammed” thing has descended into self parody.

So now, the perennially offended muslims are offended by a cartoon of which there’s no way to tell from the image itself whether it’s Mohammed or not–one can only tell from the context of the joke.

It reminds me of the story a few years ago about the bar in Colorado that had to stop selling teeshirts that depicted two aliens having s3x because they were too lewd for the town elders. I (and no doubt others) pointed out that if they were aliens, there was no way to tell whether or not the activity in which they were engaged was s3xu@l (sorry–I don’t want to get top-listed on google for the search “aliens s3x”). They could, for example, simply have been feeding each other, or communicating somehow. One occasional commenter here, in fact, emailed me at the time that it reminded him of the old “Life in Hell” strip when Binky (or one of the other one-eared rabbits) is being chastised for smoking, and he says “I’m not smoking–I’m sucking p00p through a straw.”

That’s the point to which this idiocy has devolved. Eugene is right:

Well, I have to admit: The folks who are offended by this have a First Amendment right to be offended. They should feel entirely free to be offended.

The rest of us should feel entirely free, as a matter of civility as well as of law, to say: Your decision to be offended by this particular cartoon gives you no rights (again, as a matter of civility as well as of law) to tell us to stop printing it.

More on the underlying conceptual issue