The Danish cartoon controversy was well publicized at the time. And the point was made, loud and clear: there are powerful forces of censorship at work in the Muslim world. Violence has been threatened and we all certainly hope that the Danish authorities will take the proper steps to protect the cartoonists from harm, including arresting anyone who threatens them with physical attack.

But would it serve any further point to deliberately escalate the issue by repeating the gesture, when we know that this would lead to further violence and someone, somewhere, either on the streets of Karachi or in Amsterdam or London or Jakarta would be hurt in some further outbreak of violence? No, it's not right that people should react that way; no reasonable person condones the use of violence to impose a chill on press expression. But then, don't we also know to a certitude that the individuals who would get hurt would be innocent bystanders - most probably not the Danish cartoonists or Hitchens or any Western editor, or you or me indeed, but someone who just got "caught up" in the situation out there in the Muslim world, some passerby or marginally related person in Karachi or the banlieus of Paris?

Is that worth it? Just to reiterate a point that's already been made by these really rather banal images? The stupidity and nastiness of certain elements in the Muslim fundamentalist community is an established fact. So someone, somewhere will get hurt by the need to make that fact even more obvious, even more palpable, but it won't be you or I. What then, is our moral responsibility to those people?

Mark--you say that "the point was made . . . : there are powerful forces of censorship . . . in the Muslim world." The MUSLIM world? The point Mr. Hitchens is making is about actions in the U.S., Britain, and Canada. They are not part of the MUSLIM world. The point needs to be made, and he is attempting to make it, that we are allowing ourselves to be held hostage by extremists. Our moral responsibility is to stand up for those principles we hold sacred, one of which is freedom of speech. When fundamentalists of any stripe claim the right or power to force THEIR beliefs to govern OUR actions, we have lost our freedom. And we have lost it just as surely if we voluntarily bow to their demands because of forbearance to prevent someone innocent from being hurt by their actions. It's the classic argument of the abuser: you made me hurt you--so it's all your fault.

Well, I would argue that the boundaries of the Muslim world extend to those areas of the Western world which have become little Islamic ghettoes.

In any case, so you're saying that we have no moral responsibility to those innocent bystanders who will get hurt in the process of pushing ahead further with the argument already broached by the Danish cartoonists?

FIRST they came for the homosexuals.............

MarkEHaag:

.....no reasonable person condones the use of violence to impose a chill on press expression. But then, don't we also know to a certitude that the individuals who would get hurt would be innocent bystanders - most probably not the Danish cartoonists or Hitchens or any Western editor, or you or me indeed, but someone who just got "caught up" in the situation out there in the Muslim world, some passerby or marginally related person in Karachi or the banlieus of Paris?

Is that worth it? Just to reiterate a point that's already been made by these really rather banal images? The stupidity and nastiness of certain elements in the Muslim fundamentalist community is an established fact. So someone, somewhere will get hurt by the need to make that fact even more obvious, even more palpable, but it won't be you or I. What then, is our moral responsibility to those people?

To refrain from publishing for fear of future violence does worse than to condone the use of threats to intimidate the publishers, it rewards those making the threats and proves unequivocably that such threats are effective, thereby encouraging repeated and expanded use of such threats in the future, and emboldens other extremists to consider similar tactics to advance their own agendas.

Shouldn't we then do something for the victims; if we know a reaction to our actions is coming, shouldn't we make the preparation for the reaction a part of our action in the first instance? If you deliberately engage in back and forth provocations and violent responses, at some point, instead of intensifying your moral point about the sanctity of freedom, you will merely increase cynicism about the benefits of freedom on the part of those in the most vulnerable position, ie, precisely those people who need to be reassured about the benefits of freedom.

Intimidation of this type is odious and deserves to be confronted directly, openly and repeatedly, as long as it persists. This is the high moral ground where religious extremism is most vulnerable. This is the proper place to confront it; In the open, in public,and in the clear light of day.

These threats are assaults on all free people and stand in opposition to everything that those who champion the rights of humanity claim to hold dear. Indeed, the notion, that "I will kill you in the name of god if you do not show proper respect for my belief system", ought to be exposed for what it is: The default position that evey tyrany takes when its will is questioned or threatened. Threats of violence by known murderers are credible and represent a form of violence in themselves.