Update: A few more thoughts. Obviously, the comparison is to Everyone Draw Mohammed Day (EDMD). As you know, EDMD arose from the failure of the institutions that normally were supposed to stand up for freedom of speech. First, our governments were supposed to intervene. As our Declaration of Independence tells us, we have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it says something else that is crucial but often overlooked: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." In other words government exists not for its own benefit, but for the purpose of securing our sacred rights, not the least of which is freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.
And when our government failed to deal appropriately with the use of terrorist threats to silence others--saying they would murder anyone who dared to draw Mohammed--this was a failure of our government to perform one of its most basic functions. And I thought, "well, at least the press will probably stand up against this. After all, freedom of expression is what they are all about." But instead the press did not. They refused to show the cartoons in the Danish cartoon controversy, even though basic reporting almost demanded it. Can you think of any other controversy over any other work of art (defined loosely), where they didn't start by showing you the item that is creating all the fuss? Whether you are talking about the infamous Piss Christ or the painting of the Holy Virgin Mary made with elephant dung, they always showed you the artwork in question. Here is one example and here is another. But suddenly in this case, no one was willing to show the cartoons even in a news story. I even saw a shameful article on Cnn, where they showed one of the Mohammed cartoons but blurred out Mohammed himself, which meant that they showed a blurry piece of paper on television. I mean, why bother? So the institutional press failed us.
So We the People had to step up. But I always felt it was a second-best solution. The best would be for the Federal Government to have done its duty, but it didn't. And the reason why it was a "second best" solution, is that EDMD necessarily offended the vast majority of Muslims who 1) hate terrorism, 2) love freedom of speech and religion, but also 3) don't enjoy seeing their prophet insulted. I said to them that the offense to their reasonable sensibilities was collateral damage that sadly we could not avoid as we secured our God-given (or perhaps Allah-given) right to choose what we say and believe freely. It was a dilemma that led people of good conscience who probably normally would have supported EDMD to refuse to do so, such as James Taranto and Ann Althouse. And if someone had another solution that didn't offend those good Muslims and still protected our sacred freedoms, I would have happily done that.
(I mean I suppose vigilantism would have worked, but I am opposed to that.)
And that is the beautiful part of this current protest. The only person who is offended, is the person actually attempting to suppress free speech.
And by the way, if you don't currently have a blog, I will point out that Blogger, the interface I am using, is free, and easy enough to use that even a lawyer can use it! I'm not going to ask you to do this, but I will point out that therefore anyone could create a simple blog that day, and write a simple thing. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of regular people could debut their blog this Friday. And maybe you will enjoy speaking your mind as much as I do.