Therefore, the discussion about the cartoons issue is completely different in the US. There, the freedom of speech is considered a basic right by everybody, except by some religious lunatics. Therefore, the main discussion there is about self-censorship, and this is exactly what the debate should be about, in my humble opinion. The mass media have a responsibility to avoid unnecessary provocations. And if they cross a border they should be criticized for it by opinion leaders and interest groups. This could possibly include demonstrations and or starting petitions to boycot or end subscriptions. It should be the masses that decide about the consequences, not the state.

To summarize, in Europe the Muslims unfortunately have a point when they are demanding from the governments to ban such, for them, insulting cartoons. After all, other insulting expressions are forbidden too. So, ironically, the law-embedded ‘protections’ against unnecessary insult has created a situation where some expressions that could also be interpreted as insulting by some are purposely expressed by others, with their own political agenda, under the false argument of ‘defending’ the freedom of speech. In reality, they are defending culturally defined limits of the freedom of speech. Folowing a reasoning like: The state defines the limits, so everything beyond that is not only allowed, but should actually be purposely expressed to protect this right… :-(

So in my opinion, only after ending those limitations, we can effectively start talking about self-censorship.

But the value of freedom of speech is not just an issue for the state -it’s about personal expression and vital for social progress. Copernicus sat on his heleocentric view of the universe for years and years because he thought that it would cause lots of trouble, not just for him but for society as a whole. Darwin had similar reservations about evolution. If both of these geniuses finally decided to chuck their work in the bin because they thought that it would cause too much public order problems then we would still be living in the dark ages.

Freedom of speech and expression are essential if our societies are to move forward.

But I do agree that these particular cartoons – being infantile as they are – have made no contribution to any debate about personal belief etc in themselves. I think it was a bad descision to publish them…but now they are published I have to support the right to publish them. Sometimes freedom of speech means having to defend positions that you yourself do not personally agree with (like Holocaust denial).

To have a meaningful dialogue you must tell the full truth about essential positions. This means that sometimes you will need to agree to disagree. You want dialogue, not compromise.

Although I should add that I do not regard the publication of the Danish cartoons as a human rights issue. Free speech as in human rights free speech would be the freedom to criticise the government or those in power. The freedom to depict the face of a long dead prophet, like the freedom to deny the holocaust, does not belong in that fundamental category, so it would be less problematic if it was dealt with, for instance, as a public order issue rather than a human right.