I'm having problems finding anywhere in the letter where there is a demand for worldwide censorship.

writing a letter does not constitute censorship, like the letter says they didn't want the cartoon to go unanswered. Well, it has now been answered, unless you are assuming there is more to come.

I didn't see the letter as a demand for worldwide censorship; quite the contrary, I meant to contrast it. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

I see nothing wrong with the way that anyone is handling this. The call for censure is also speech.

Someone can be as offensive as they want, but that doesn't mean that other people cannot be as offensive as they want in return. That is the balance of free speech. You don't get off consequence free.

If Muslims find it offensive and believe it inappropriate, I find it perfectly reasonable to boycott Denmark. That is the sane response. Calls for blowing up their cities (or harming Danes) would be inappropriate, but peaceful calls for boycott or censure are terrific ways to handle it.

Ditto the Joint Chiefs.

The way to regulate offensive speech is not to get the government involved, but to get people involved. If they find a cartoon offensive they can write the editor and cancel their subscriptions. To suggest that is inappropriate denies THEM free speech.

I agree with you GS, but the problem is the protesters are demanding government laws prohibiting such cartoons (which is a call for censorship).

Additionally, there's the usual call for the death penalty against everyone who "insults" Muhammad:

http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/articles/new/cartoon.htm

While free speech allows someone to demand that the government censor me, it doesn't allow that result. The right to say I should be killed is a bit more complicated, I suppose. Should the right to free speech include the right to issue a fatwa to anyone who kills me, accompanied by an offer of a reward if they succeed?

I understand and sympathize with both sides on this, perhaps because I'm old.

We've come a long way in the realm of "speech" and in my view have gone too far.

Now I'm not agreeing with the idea that the government should get involved. I seldom do, for most reasons, but it is in these examples where we find the government is often tasked to solve the problem that good manners should have resolved. Nor am I suggesting that death threats are a reasonable response.

Why do we have smoking bans in restaurants? Because smokers were rude.

Why did California pass ordinances to ban boom boxes in cars? Because the drivers who had them were rude.

Here we have a situation that is just like that, despite the screams about "Free Speech."

It is such a simple matter, really. It was rude. It was in bad taste. It was intentionally hurtful and designed to spit on a culture's sacred icon.

There was a time, and I'm not so sure in this respect it wasn't better than today, that people looked upon Free Speech as something significant and important--not something to be used as a weapon to offend the sensibilities of just about everyone.

Someone may have "a right" to write and publish cartoons that insults a billion people. That doesn't mean they should do it. A gentleman would never do a thing like that. Only a cad and a scoundrel would. And I'm not so sure I like living on the same planet as scoundrels.

Doesn't validate the threats, but it certainly makes me understand the anger. This is something terribly sacred to these people and I don't think it is asking much to get people to respect that. I'm asking. I'm not going to bring out by buddy Big Brother to do it. I just want to call upon people to be a little more human, maybe--and a little less cavalier about exercising their free speech, when maybe they could be a little more liberal in exercising common sense and respect for the sacred icons of others.

But demanding worldwide censorship? That approach is so silly that it reminds me of King Canute.

Agreed, it may be silly in part, but it is still a legal, peaceful option for any citizen who disagrees with something in the media. Of course, that citizen must make his or her case in the court of public opinion, or in the voting booth, but they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Some folks in this controversy want to portray press freedom as some untouchable god. It is not. Just as the media has free speech rights, so various followers of religions, or various political parties have free speech rights and they are free to use all the public pressure, and all the peaceful legal protest they think is appropriate in the public square to get across their counter-point of view and to try and influence the media. That's democracy's bargain.

Unfortunately some commenters I have seen on other blogs seem to think merely objecting to something published in the media is "bad" because then you want to "censor" or shut down "free speech". But free speech is a two way street. You are free to publish what you want. I am free to object. Let each make their case in the public square or voting booth.

The Muhammed cartoons in question are really lightweight. To see a really interesting archive of Muhammed images form early centuries to now, see the link below:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
This pic archive has some really sick stuff. I have no problem with Muslims being offended by some of the depictions. That is normal, and they should protest, like all good followers of their religion. I don't blame them for peaceful protest. There is a lot to be offended about on that page.

Where the problem arises is when radicals want to use forcible government censorship or use said depictions as "justification" for murder. Some think that appeasing radical Muslims with land and other concessions will "solve" their hostility. In fact as the cartoon brouhaha shows, they will ALWAYS find some issue to be worked up into a rage about, and to justify yet another attack or killing. The possibilities for being offended are endless- today cartoons, tomorrow the skimpy infidel dress of Brittney Spears.

Radical Muslims also need to look at their own hypocrisy in how they depict other religions and people. See http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm. hey also need to look at the hypocrisy of endorsing pics of Muhammed when he is on brochures prostelyzing Islam, but suddenly getting offended because someone does a historical depiction (I dont mean the cartoons).

Unfortunately one wonders if in time, once the controversy dies down, the cowardly elements of the West will yet again kowtow to radical Muslim threats and intimidation and quietly begin even more censorship in the name of political correctness. Many are posturing nobly about "free speech" now, but in a year, will they be filing honest reports about radical Islam, or will they be subtly censoring stories so as to avoid "controversy" and to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities? Based on past history, one suspects cowardice will prevail, underneath the posturing. The college campuses with their thought police are prime examples of that type of politically correct cowardice.

Enrique, freedom of the press in the U.S. is actually pretty close to being an untouchable god, and there's evidence the founders believed it was a right which came from God.

GS, I wish politeness weren't old fashioned. I try to practice it. For what it's worth, I didn't like Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" any more than I liked seeing uniformed Nazis marching in that Jewish retirement community. The price we pay for freedom, etc. Considering the number of people in the world, rudeness in speech is as inevitable as bad taste.

I guess we're used to taking these things for granted in the United States.

Speaking as a lawyer who studied Constitutional Law, I can assure everyone that politeness these days has nothing to do with free speech.

Unless of course we want to revive the "fighting words" doctrine. . .

Should we?

In part, here's what the Supreme Court said in the Chaplinsky case:

Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations 'damn racketeer' and 'damn Fascist' are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=315&page=572

GS: good points all! I think I should add that the most offensive cartoons (and I agree that a lot of them were tasteless and unfunny) were only printed in low-rent right-field rags before the jihadi-wannabees started making direct threats of violence. Most of us on both sides of the Pond -- including newspaper editors -- have enough taste to shun overt racism and other unfunny insults, and do so every day, without having to endure death-threats.

I should also point out that all these protests are coming MONTHS after the offending cartoons were first printed. This is more about Mideast politics than the cartoons themselves, and none of it is the Western media's fault. Some governments need to divert attention from their own abysmal failures, and...oh, look what we found while digging through Internet archives!

Grand Stand:
"Doesn't validate the threats, but it certainly makes me understand the anger. This is something terribly sacred to these people and I don't think it is asking much to get people to respect that. I'm asking. I'm not going to bring out by buddy Big Brother to do it. I just want to call upon people to be a little more human, maybe--and a little less cavalier about exercising their free speech, when maybe they could be a little more liberal in exercising common sense and respect for the sacred icons of others."

Ooh! I get to disagree with Grand Stand on something. This never happens.

What do I wear to such an occasion?

I think we can all agree that there's too little civilized behavior. At the same time, I think most people who already believe in a civilized fashion can recognize the kind of special, roped-off space that a political cartoon is. A man with big ears such as President Bush is going to see them drawn hypertrophied. A country's government might be represented as a literal wolf in sheep's clothing if it's being manipulative in some diplomatic circumstance. Political cartoons exaggerate, caricature, and go over what would be the line in a normal debate over policy or ideas. We might bitch that certain editorial pages go after some positions more than others, but I don't think I've ever heard any reasonable person argue that this or that should be off limits to political cartoons.

Did some of those in question go so far over the line that they're indefensible anyway? Maybe. I don't think it's a sure thing, though. In Western societies, religious beliefs are as fair game for no-holds-barred debate as political positions. A cartoon that pictures Muhammad with a bomb for a turban could be empty-headed provocation, or it could be a legitimate visually-posed question about the degree to which Muslims are going to let hateful murderers publicly interpret their faith for them. A cartoonist could draw it and, it seems to me, still be the kind of lady or gentleman who has respect for arguments advanced by individual Muslims.

And in any case, the solution when someone exercises free speech in an outrageous way is to stop buying his publication, to stop inviting her to your dinner parties, to write letters to the editor, to start your own magazine that champions the opposite point of view--nearly anything but setting fire to stuff. It seems to me very important, at this stage particularly, to say, "Just a minute here--we can argue over whether the content was edifying AFTER we've established that that doesn't affect the writer's and publisher's rights to create it."

Dear All,
Before criticizing a man especially a Prophet, it is a must to learn about him from reliable sources. Goto bible first or if you wish you will info from the site. Regards. ME
www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.html