This Is My Brother Mohammed, And This Is My Other Brother Mohammed

hhhmmmmm...hhhhaaammmmmmmm.

So, is Muhammad's name offensive to Muslims?

After all, if a Burger King cup can do it, if Piglet can do it, what about the word "ham"?

Slow news day. No natural disasters and Weinergate is winding down.

Norman

...disgorging..?

make that order, à la corn

Little Mosque on the Prairie???
Must have missed that one!!!

I'm trying to decipher the name of the restaurant. Anybody?

Kathy,
Looks like the first two characters are 24, probably 24/7 Breakfast

credit to the site I 'borrowed' it from

http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/

a very well done, and funny, aviation based webcomic.

So,'are Muslim kids not allowed to watch this guy?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porky_Pig

What a shame if the aren't...

Mmmmmmm.......pork is infidelicious.

24 Hr. Breakfast. The period after Hr is a little circle. I've seen a few young muslims eat pork. Once, on a "Summer Games" bus, I handed out sandwiches to about 50 athletes. When I got to a couple of Pakistani kids, I realized all that was left were ham sandwiches. The kids laughed, and asked me not to tell anyone, while they enjoyed the meal. Most of the younger ones are trying to fit in. Trying to keep muslim kids from radicalizing must be as tough as trying to keep inner-city black kids from joining gangs.

Greg

Yor probablyright at first I thougt it looked like Sty breakfest.

cartoon void in Tennessee....

but what if the image of the text of the law makes me uneasy and causes me emotional distress ???? much like the picture of Tennessee's favourite son the great goreacle's villige sized villa already causes me distress....

from: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to "transmit or display an image" online that is likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

The Tennessee legislature has been busy updating its laws for the Internet age, and not always for the better. Last week we reported on a bill that updated Tennessee's theft-of-service laws to include "subscription entertainment services" like Netflix.

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a "legitimate purpose," the sender faced jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the "emotionally distressed" individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you "should have known" that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to "images or communications" posted to a social networking site by offering "specific and articulable facts," suggesting that the information sought is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This section, too, faces constitutional problems. Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute, tells Ars that "this is a lower standard than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires" for unread communications. More importantly, because Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit, it is bound by that court's Warshak decision, which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a full search warrant in order to access e-mail communications. "That case dealt with e-mail," Sanchez said, "but there's no good reason to think a private message on a social network site is any different."

and from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml

Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee
from the outlawing-jerks? dept

Over the last few years, we've seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that's just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwords wasn't enough: now they want to put people in jail for "causing emotional distress" to others.

The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes "emotional distress" to someone and has no "legitimate purpose." While the law does state that there needs to be "malicious intent," it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person "reasonably should know" that the actions would "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress." Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:

1. If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
2. Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
3. The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you've got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels "emotional distress" seems like a huge stretch.

So Porky's outlawed in Saudi and next in Tennesse?

David
Nice quip. You caught it all