Newser reports on the latest death threat against those who dare to depict a historical figure:

Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born jihadist linked to the Fort Hood shootings and the Times Square bomb plot, has drawn a target on Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, for her “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon. Awlaki added her to the execution list, saying her “proper abode is hellfire.” The FBI considers the threat “very serious” and has notified Norris. The cartoonist drew worldwide attention in April when, prompted by a network decision not to run a South Park episode that showed the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit, she published on her web site a cartoon declaring May 20 Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

Norris is one of eight Western cartoonists, authors and journalists al-Awlaki singles out for execution in a recent issue of Inspire, a youth-oriented English-language al-Qaeda publication that a US counterterrorism expert described as “like al-Qaeda’s Tiger Beat.”

An elaboration of how al-Awlaki is attempting to violate the individual right to freedom of speech is unnecessary. But it should be understood that his direct threats are no different, in principle, from government censorship of speech. Both are using force to suppress unpopular views. This is why every infringement of free speech should be met with a violent outcry of indignation. As Alexis de Tocqueville explains, our enemies and friends often have much in common:

By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks are turned to the earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans of liberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but more especially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerely desire to extend its sway, and to impart its blessings to mankind. It is natural that they should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen religion in the ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of them attack it openly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it.

Americans who advocate morality through force (which is the essence of censorship) should take a moment to reflect on the nature of their ideological brethren – and whether or not that is the example they wish to emulate.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the city’s plans to ban the sale of pets (except fish).

The idea originated about two years ago, when the commission began looking into a ban on dog and cat sales as a way to discourage puppy and kitten mills. But the city’s animal control staff said that excess puppies and kittens are not the problem at the city shelter, thanks to the plethora of rescue groups. In any case, only one or two pet stores in San Francisco sell dogs and cats. The rest stick to small animals.

The real problem, staff said, is hamsters.

People buy the high-strung, nocturnal rodents because they’re under the temporary impression that hamsters are cute and cuddly. But the new owners quickly learn that hamsters are, in fact, prone to biting, gnawing through expensive wiring and maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m.

So the animals end up at the shelter. Just about every species has its own rescue group in San Francisco, but no one seems to want hamsters. Hamsters are the No. 1 animal euthanized at the city’s shelter, said San Francisco Animal Care and Control director Rebecca Katz.

Though I’m certainly no proponent of regulation or increased taxation, this is exactly the type of negative externality that requires government to step in and use its power. If the hamster trade is leading to an increased burden on taxpayers, because of the funding required by animal control agencies to deal with overpopulation, then perhaps a “pet tax” is necessary. A prohibition would almost certainly lead to San Franciscans simply travelling to another jurisdiction to buy pets, or the sale of pets on the black market – scenarios that are either ineffective or harmful. A tax (provided it is not excessive) might be effective in causing demand to drop, while not leading to a black market for pets.

Though it pains me to actually advocate a tax, if irresponsible pet owners are imposing a financial burden on their fellow citizens, that, in and of itself, is an injustice.

HT: Jack Stuef