Normally, I like Donohue, but he’s wrong on this.
I can understand why some Muslims might be offended by the Charlie Hedbo cartoon. But here is the big difference:
Offend Christians or Jews or blacks or gays and they’ll demonstrate against you. They’ll picket and march and shout slogans. Perhaps a few will even riot. However, they won’t take that as an excuse to kill people.
If some Muslims wanted to protest outside the paper’s offices, I would have no problem with them. Instead, they chose to engage in acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.
And Charlie Hedbo has a right to take on whomever they please, as long as they don’t advocate violence, terrorism, treason, or a few other things.
Okay, I certainly don't want to wind up defending Donohue on this thread...when I posted this thread to critique him.
But yet it sounds like you didn't address Donohue's comments written toward the end of his latest press release:
"...the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society. Let’s forget about legalities. As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others)..."
You see, Donohue is claiming to say that both him -- and his critics -- in this case, you, too...would agree that Hedbo has a legal "right" to do what they've done.
Donohue is claiming those who critique him on this particular ground are raising a straw man, because he doesn't portend to curtail their "legal" right to do so.
(He does add, then, that he doesn't see them as having a "moral right" to do so).
So -- if, as you say...that Donohue is "wrong on this"...
...AND, if Donohue's press release openly affirmed "Charlie Hedbo...s...right to take on whomever they please"...
...thereby seemingly placing you and him on the same page, so to speak...
...tell us exactly where Donohue is "wrong"...???