Both of you articulate your points in such regal and eloquent style that it reminds me of Petrarch. And kudos on the historical reference, SK, that has been much overlooked and not often cited in recent years to rationalize and shed light on anything and everything political. Kudos also to woofcat for his statistical research, which undoubtedly will use its crushing force of pure logic to overcome the unimportant and foolishly founded emotional baggage that has dictated the great majority of people's reactions and thoughts since that fateful day. Truly i am lucky to be in the company of such scholars.
But, on the topic at hand, I have some interesting/laugh inducing news articles about the actual event and subsequent aftermath.
The glorious and prestigious NY Post reports: Ratings up after "Toon-atics" for Adult Swim's maligned show
"Marketing becomes terrorism by other means"
and, for not a laugh but actual news Turner agrees to pay some of the $1million cost of "scare"
I think it's a smart move by Turner to step up and offer to pay some of the bill, but part of me is equally outraged by them giving in to these outrageous demands. If nothing they did was illegal (zoning for advertisements laws, not "was it meant to scare people?" tomfoolery dressed up in some kind of law), then they should buckle down and declare their right to free speech. Of course, nobody wants to walk the hard-line and oppose anything that any government official says which might be seen as "emboldening" the enemy, but, as woofie so eloquentley alluded to, that is one of the most distressing things about the War on Terror so far: if you restrict everyday life with all these laws and (largely irrational) fears, then Osama is probably smiling from his cave somewhere and saying, "good, good".
Defending something is fine. But if you have to lock it up so nobody can have it anymore or alter/"reinforce" it until it no longer resembles its original form or cut of its nose to save its face, you're not doing a very good job of defending, now are you?