What are the real reasons that freedom of speech is such an important right? While to have such a thing means that even pointless, mean-spirited and inane expressions of opinion should be tolerated, surely the real value of this right is for occasions when people have more important things to say.

I've seen the cartoons, and almost without exception, they have no real insight and nothing positive to offer. They were apparently drawn specifically to mock and offend. While such mockery might be entirely within the rights of anyone in our free societies, what exactly is the point? We've always been free to express our opinion about things that matter, such as our disapproval of backwards cultural practices like honor killings, female genital mutilation, etc., or even when some might disapprove of the wearing of the hijab or the burqa. But these cartoons are exactly paralleled by muslims burning American or British flags in street protests. Is it about freedom of speech, or a competition in which both society's partisans try to out-do each other's stupidity?

Of course there are some on the muslim side who have crossed not only the line of civility, but of criminality, in issuing death threats and in acts of individual or mass homicide. These are law enforcement issues that have been responded to appropriately. As unfortunate as it is that anyone should have to call on the law to protect their individual rights, that is the appropriate means for dealing with real, serious violations.

And so, the cartoons themselves don't seem to be helping to protect our rights in any way. We have always had, and continue to have, these rights. While one may still call the reluctance of some media outlets to publish these cartoons "self censorship," maybe it's nothing more than good judgment, as in, deciding not to publish something that is neither funny, nor insightful, that is intended only to offend. Anyone who feels that their most basic rights require seeing these cartoons can easily find them, just as they could easily find the unhinged screeds of Ann Coulter or listen to the droning hate-mongering of Michael Savage. Especially now in the era of the internet, freedom of speech is flourishing like never before. Let's try to keep things in perspective.

I'd agree with you that the original publication of the cartoons was pretty silly but that's hardly the issue any longer. The publication resulted in significant loss of life, property damage, and social disturbance. You have to stand up to that. If you don't, you're simply allowing the Muslim equivalent of the Brown Shirts to dictate their terms to you. It didn't work so well in the 1930's and it's unlikely to work any better now.

I'd argue that to "stand up to" any criminal violations of peoples' civil rights or threats to their safety is a law enforcement matter to be handled through the proper channels. Petulantly spoiling for a street fight is neither protecting our rights nor helping to keep anyone safe. This is not gang warfare.

And whom would you appoint as the arbiter of what is necessary to print and what is morally correct and what is safe. No thanks. Perhaps the purpose of inflaming the ignorant is to draw them out so that they expose the truth about themselves. Appeasement only gives them confidence and lets them grow unchecked. If violence is necessary to ensure a society that is not controlled by Islamic ignorance then let us fight. I do not intend to surrender my rights so easily. I would not wnat to explain to my children that I thought it would be safer to have brain police than to have free speech.

Who's infringing on your rights? You can publish the cartoons yourself if you think it's so important. Any schmoe can set up their own blog site. I'm sure the cartoonists would give you permission to re-print their work. Go for it. I guarantee nobody can or will try to stop you. Given that you have the ability to do this any time you want, tell me then, who's infringing on your rights? Also, if you desperately need to see those lame cartoons at this very moment, please tell me and I'll forward the link.

But I do have to agree with you that "...the purpose of inflaming the ignorant is to draw them out so that they expose the truth about themselves." That's at least one reason this whole silly flap is worth it: to expose the baseless, melodramatic breast-beating of culture-war pants-wetters for the nonsense that it is. Your rights are completely intact, as they always have been. The scary muslims are less a threat to your rights than Verizon or AT&T, who seem to be able to spy on you without any legal oversight at all (and none of you culture warriors seem to care).

"surely the real value of this right is for occasions when people have more important things to say. I've seen the cartoons, and almost without exception, they have no real insight and nothing positive to offer. They were apparently drawn specifically to mock and offend. While such mockery might be entirely within the rights of anyone in our free societies, what exactly is the point?"

Any society is built on common beliefs and when those break down, it is necessary to question them. In a society that clings to its belief as the highest good, not fact or action, or the beneficial result for the most people, no speech is allowed that questions the belief of the ruling authority.

Mockery is in the eye of the beholder, simply a judgment made out of an emotional response by someone who believes something strongly. The degree of insult or mockery is only a measure of the degree to which the dogma is held. Thus, the king had a ludicrous jester, the only one permitted to challenge the status quo.

Without the right to insult, we would all be whimpering apologists and there would be no true free speech.

Again, anybody who has wanted to publish these cartoons is free to do so (assuming that they observe the proper copyright restrictions), and nobody has the right to stop them. You can try to characterize the decision not to publish them as "self-censorship," but there are several perfectly valid editorial reasons not to do so: they've already been published, they're not particularly good or insightful, and they're not even funny. Having a right to free speech does not require us to exercise it when the material in question has literally no other raison-d-etre than pissing people off. Otherwise you should also be encouraging the Chicago Tribune to print cartoons that gratuitously defame Christianity. Let's find the most offensive imagery that will offend Christians, and make a huge fuss about publishing it, just to make the bastards angry. That ought to teach them.

The one place where your arguments might be valid is within muslim societies themselves. Of course, they have no such rights as we do, and unfortunately they're not likely to any time soon. But that's one place where challenging these religious restrictions might be appropriate. And even then, you couldn't necessarily say that doing so would be a good idea, since it would probably do more harm than good.

fingerpuppet:

And so, the cartoons themselves don't seem to be helping to protect our rights in any way. We have always had, and continue to have, these rights. While one may still call the reluctance of some media outlets to publish these cartoons "self censorship," maybe it's nothing more than good judgment, as in, deciding not to publish something that is neither funny, nor insightful, that is intended only to offend. Anyone who feels that their most basic rights require seeing these cartoons can easily find them, just as they could easily find the unhinged screeds of Ann Coulter or listen to the droning hate-mongering of Michael Savage. Especially now in the era of the internet, freedom of speech is flourishing like never before. Let's try to keep things in perspective.

The cartoons don't protect our rights in any way. Our rights are protected by being vigilant in enforcement of the principle involved. I don't care if publications choose to self-censor. I don't care to see the cartoons. You are correct in your assessment that they are of little value. Protecting the right to print them anyway is of the utmost value.

That's right, and that's why it's a whole different matter when someone actively and improperly tries to prevent someone else from exercising their rights, such as serious threats of violence to someone like Salman Rushdie (after he published The Satanic Verses) or actual violence to someone like Theo van Gogh (the murdered Dutch film maker). But aside from those rare and extreme cases--that both happened in other countries, by the way--I can't think of any example of someone being prevented from expressing any opinion about Islam in this country.