Originally, I was going to give Molly Norris her own Pop Quiz. Like this:
Which of the following is the real Molly Norris, Seattle cartoonist?The problem with the Pop Quiz is that the answer, of course, is both. And there was just too much to say in the Hint section. Molly Norris should really be allowed to make her case in her own words, too, which I would gladly let her, if she hadn't already removed her YouTube video in which she tried to do just that. And her own website seems to change daily, with one post replacing another rather than being added to those previous messages. But maybe her own revision to the original cartoon can do the job:
A) The Molly Norris who "felt so much passion" about the veiled death threats against Matt Stone and Trey Parker that she not only came up with the idea for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," she also sent the cartoon to other bloggers and even appeared on a radio show to promote the idea:
B) The Molly Norris who got "freaked out" that her cartoon struck a nerve, wants to call off the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" campaign because it "isn't really my thing," has apologized to "everyone of the Muslim faith who has or will be offended," wants "a little support" from Matt and Trey, and hopes that America's Muslims and non-Muslims can meet "halfway."

From what I saw on her YouTube explanation, Molly Norris seems like a gentle (if a bit naive and self-absorbed) soul. And I don't fault her for feeling overwhelmed by the reaction to her cartoon. Every blogger who has ever had his or her normal daily routine turned upside down by that first Instapundit link and spent the next few days policing the Comments section for trolls and deleting hate mail from the inbox has some idea of what Molly has probably been going through. And I'm sure that she's had it much worse these last few days than most of us ever have.
I don't fault her for being afraid, either. From what I remember of her now-removed YouTube video, there have been no actual threats against her, but there is, as ColoradoPatriot puts it, "clearly a tone of fear in what she’s done." And again, that's understandable. I know that when my small press got involved with the paperback publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, we were afraid, too. One of my two partners even thought about leaving the company, he was so worried about what might happen and what this might mean. My other partner seemed like an absolute rock of bravery, at least to my eyes, but I'm pretty certain he had his own moments of shaking nerves as well. But either way, we went through with it, because we really did "feel so much passion" about the situation.
What I do fault Molly Norris for is apparently being so unaware of the real situation and issue involved here that she seems to have felt she could do something like this on a lark, and then back out with no consequences for everyone else who also takes a stand against this kind of fear and intimidation, whether now or in the future. My partners and I, back in the Rushdie days, would have had an excuse to make that decision lightly. It was pre-9/11, after all, and nearly all of the madness was happening “over there.” But it still wasn’t a decision we made lightly. And you don't even want to know how my mother reacted when I told her what we had done.
And this is where I think Molly Norris doesn't get it, even now. Because at least here in America, the First Amendment isn't an issue where America's Muslims and non-Muslims can meet each other "halfway." For one thing, I'm sure the overwhelming majority of American Muslims will resent being lumped together with Revolution Muslim and the fatwa-givers, as Molly seems to be implying here. And for another, I'm not sure what meeting "halfway" even means in this case. That Matt Stone and Trey Parker wouldn't have to worry about being killed for their own cartoon, and would instead only need to worry about getting a semi-fierce beatdown instead? Maybe Molly can post another YouTube video that explains this, but be sure to watch it right away, because her explanations, whether written or video, tend to disappear rather quickly.
And I'm sorry, Molly, but Matt Stone and Trey Parker haven't left you "hanging," as I also remember you suggesting in your now-removed video. Having a someone support you by promoting, say, "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" and then renouncing that stand and apologizing a few days later is being left hanging. Having the Consortium that got small publishers like us to go on public record as supporting The Satanic Verses paperback in spite of the death sentence we then fell under, and then having that same Consortium go so silent and unresponsive that we only knew the paperback had even been published because we stumbled across a copy of it hidden away on the bottom shelf at some bookstore is being left hanging. The South Parks guys haven't left you hanging, Molly, and even half-jokingly saying in that now-removed YouTube video that maybe they ought to fly you down to L.A. is, like I wrote above, a bit self-absorbed. After all, they're the ones who actually got the death threats, not you, remember?
But here's where I think Molly Norris really doesn't understand what she's done. Because it’s one thing to stay silent on an issue like this from the start, but it’s quite another to make a public stand on it and then run away from that stand. The former is bad enough, but in the long run, the latter does even more harm. Because whether she meant to or not, Molly Norris has just shown -- and just shown very publicly -- that even those who do stand up for freedom of expression in the face of fear and intimidation can be driven from that stand. And driven from it rather easily, in her case. And that will only encourage the next group like Revolution Muslim.
I think that next group is going to be a lot worse than Revolution Muslim, too.









13 comments:
I pretty much agree with your article, Wesley M.
(Hey, at least I use my full name!)
My video was terrible. It was long and rambling and I looked like a hostage. I couldn't leave it up.
This has been a confusing time for me, to put it lightly. This was an unprecedented thing. How can you judge me when in 24 hours a "movement" caused by a drawing I made went over the AP wire. It's too much! I haven't evolved as a homo sapien enough to be able to handle such an experience!
I change daily on my site because that's what happening in my head. I am not media savvy. I regret going on the damn Dave Ross show.
It was stupid; my ego thought it would be cool. I didn't know what I wanted to say and let myself get side-swiped. I made a mistake, okay? I HAVE been suffering the consequences -- I can't eat, have waves of anxiety every day, etc.
And the part in the video about my 'hanging out here' as a cartoonist? That was supposed to be funny! (Have you seen the new cartoon on my site, "The "Diet of Fear" -- tick off a few million Muslims and you'll be too afraid to eat!") Jesushchrist. Plus, South Park cats have $ and a company behind them. I have nothing.
Why aren't more high profile people sayiing something publicly about this situation? President Obama is totally PC. This starts at the top.
Why isn't the fact that I made a cartoon enough? Can I help it that all of my balls went into making it?
You've got to admit: it is much easier for people to put me down than do something positive to work on solutions regarding this subject.
Molly
I think 99% of us who don't like how you handled this honestly do feel for you, Molly. And I hope that whatever you decide to do from this point on, you'll be able to look back and say you made it easier for the next person who needs to stand up.
hey, i am carrying it forward without molly.
http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/
drop in, leave a drawing, a link, something. or just do your own thing and don't even tell me. but draw early, draw often and piss off a terrorist today.
I'm doing something, too.
For the first time in roughly 15 years, I'm putting pen to paper to draw a cartoon. The final result will be published on one of my blogs, Shades of Gray, on May 20th. (I've already passed a sketch onto A.W's blog. We'll see if it passes muster.)
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a great idea, even if meant in jest originally. It's an idea that deserves to be made a reality, and I'm glad I'm able to take part.
Steve Miller, Writer of Stuff,
You win the prize for "Best Name in the Comments" that I've seen in a long, long time. I'm going to enjoy crawling through your many websites.
A.W.,
Good for you. I'm putting up a post about your site. Hopefully, it'll draw some additional traffic your way!
http://muhammadgangbang.com/ is holding a contest for the best muhammad drawing.
You say that Molly Norris is self-absorbed, etc. But why is the main focus of your article about YOUR brave, selfless deed re. Salmon Rushdie. Who is narcissistic here?
I also recall that you made big bucks on Salmon Rushdie...and your "screenplay" career--well, we can only imagine your success!
I enjoyed reading your blog, and Molly's response, if only to put this whole thing into perspective.
"A story told by an idiot, with a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I enjoyed reading your blog and don't include you in the above quote (of an idiot). You raise good questions, but create confusion as well.
That quote from "MacBeth" is my definition of most of the blogs I've read, but I would add this: idiots who THINK they have something intelligent to say. And, idiots who don't even give their full name. And blogs have the added freedom of saying whatever they want and representing themselves as anybody, without the responsibility that, say, Molly Norris has had.
(one of these bloggers I know personally--easy for him to criticize Norris--he doesn't use his real name or city in his conservative blog...)
Meanwhile, Norris is for real, a real person who made the mistake of making herself vulnerable to the whole world. I call that integrity, at least, if not a bit naive.
Plus....
I think it's interesting that some people think Molly Norris is a "liberal" (ie. not part of their clan), while others accuse her of being a "conservative" (not part of their clan either. Then, there are those who think she's "PC" or "not-PC."
I think our culture is in the process of changing into a new era, one where all these tags blend together, signifying nothing.
page
Thanks for your comment, Page. You'll have to remind me when and where I "made big bucks on Salman Rushdie," though. As far as I or my checkbook knows, I've never made a single penny off the man or the events surrounding him.
Thanks for not including me in the "idiot" category, Page. I appreciate that... :)
Putting your full name on a blog is no guarantee the person has something intelligent to say, though. Or has any credibility. We could both probably rattle off more than a few names like that from either side of the spectrum. (Andrew Sullivan immediately comes to my mind, for instance.)
And I agree, some bloggers use a pseudonym so they can spout off with the kind of rhetoric they would never say if they had to put their actual names to it. Then again, others have family in careers that could be affected by the fallout from something said or some position taken on that person's blog. That's my own situation, for instance. I'm not about to drag my wife into a political fight that she didn't choose to take part in herself, at least not if I can avoid it. And if that sometimes gets me grief in the comments, well, I can live with that.
I agree with you about bloggers. My "friend" who has the patriotic, conservative blog is a hypocrite.
He aggressively pursues anybody who doesn't espouse the values of the good ole' American flag, calls himself a very conservative person; and he uses a pseudonymn not for the privacy of others, but because he doesn't want his wife to know he's doing it.
Hell, he doesn't even tell the truth about what he does for a living or where he lives. He has created a totally fictional site with for-real judgments against others, like Molly, who ARE willing to put themselves out there.
I wrote this to him at his ultra-conservative blog, but of course he never published it.
It's relevant to me because Molly Norris' PHOTO was splashed across his blog; he admonished her for being a coward, etc.
Hell, he doesn't even tell the truth about what he does for a living or where he lives. Hint: he doesn't live in Chicago and he isn't in the department store sales biz.
Fair enough if he "outs" Molly for stuff because he "perceives" her (rightly or wrongly) as a liberal, and therefore an enemy.
To be fair, Molly admitted in interviews that she's "an idiot", and I think that's true, at least in terms of her understanding of how the internet works.
Anyone online who posts their full name and does not remain anonymous should be well prepared for this sort of thing if they post something potentially controvertial. That's the risk vs. reward thing when it comes to using your real name online, and it's a shame Molly obviously wasn't internet savvy enough to know better if she wasn't prepared for backlash, even from the crazies.
I feel sorry for her because she's learning this the hard way, but on the other hand, it's started a very good cause.
Too bad Molly isn't a scientologist! Then, they would move forward for her AND she would be "cleared!"
p.s. I am moving forward FOR/WITH Molly Norris, et al., NOT WITHOUT her. It is because of her bravery that we are having this conversation at all.
Too bad she isn't a scientologist. Then, they would move forward for her and she would be "cleared."
Page
Post a Comment