Clearly this is a freedom of speech issue. While there are legal limits on speech even in West, these cartons are clearly legal in Denmark, legal in the United States, and probably legal in all of Europe. So from a legal standpoint, end of story.
But only lawyers with the winning case in court are satisfied with just a strict legal view, the rest of us are worried about what we ought to do or say, not what we can do or say. Most of us believe that there is a line you should cross in public discourse, and a different, less restrictive one you shouldn't cross in private discourse, but that is by no means universal. So just what is that line anyway - who draws it, and who decides when and if it's been crossed? At least in private discourse, it's the person(s) you are speaking to directly, but in public discourse you can be speaking to the world, even at a small paper in Denmark. Just how much do you have to take into account before expressing yourself? Different communities have different standards, even within the United States, and within a global audience, the differences can be huge.
Here we have the collison of two values - one is the reverence in Islam for the Prophet Muhammad, and the other is the reverence for free speech in the West. Which one wins, whose values should we follow? If I am not a believer in Islam, why should I have reverence? Who should respect the other one more? I in the west, or those in Islam? If Moslems want me to respect their reverence, can't I expect them to respect my freedom to speak my mind?
Is this a "clash of civilizations?" If you mean clash in the sense of war or struggle between, then the answer is no, not really. But if you mean in the sense of incompatibility, then the answer is yes. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about religion here, I'm talking about culture. There is not much of a contemporary culture of freedom in Islam, nor is their much respect for religion in the West these days.
At one time it was clearly understood that the core right of freedom of speech was the freedom to offend other people. And the more important the belief being offended, the more important the right to be offensive. It's why Lenny Bruce was such an icon of free speech, or Larry Flynt was considered a champion of freedom of speech in his legal battle with Jerry Falwell, or why the ACLU was heralded as a bastion of freedom of speech for their fight on behalf of the neo-Nazi march through predominantly Jewish Skokie Illinois.
But that isn't the case any longer.
What has happened to those people who say "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death?" A lot of them, mostly on the left of the political spectrum, no longer say that anymore. Now the motto is, I don't agree with what you say, so shut up already.
All of a sudden a lot of progressives who used to tell about the importance of freedom of speech, unfettered in your face communication, are telling me that just because you have the legal right to be offensive doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Well, thanks for coming around to my way of thinking. But don't go too far and claim that because you shouldn't say just anything we cannot allow certain people to be offended anymore. Universities, which by and large are ruled by the left these days, have simply abandoned freedom of speech in practice while they still pay it lip service in ever lesser amounts.
To be sure I'm not saying all liberals (or progressives or leftists) have abandoned true freedom of speech, nor do all conservatives embrace it. There are still plenty of liberals who really will defend to their death my right to say what they disagree with while more than one conservative is in favor of freedom of speech only as long as they agree with what's being said.
I think part of the swing is that back in the 60's (the heyday of liberalism) it was the left that needed freedom of speech to express themselves and the right that clamped down; now that the left is in many ways the establishment, freedom of speech challenges the left and is needed for those on the right to express themselves.
Now that good liberals are saying that you should excercise good judgement, does this mean they'll take back all those nasty things they said about Ari Fleischer and his "watch what you say comment"?
Now that newspapers have taken the position that not offending religious sensibilities is more important than informing the public, will they support the return of the Catholic Legion of Decency? If for instance Brokeback Mountain was banned from some Midwestern town, would there be any question of the response of all those wagging their fingers at Jyllands-Posten?
Will they tell Michael Kinsley he had it all wrong:
The right to go too far and the right to put it badly may not seem like terribly crucial rights, but they are. Opening your mouth is not an exact science, and it's harder to do well if you're looking over your shoulder at the same time. Consider an analogy from libel law. The constitution protects some false statements from libel suits, not for their own sake but to give attempts to tell the truth some necessary room for error. For similar reasons, a healthy political culture has to be able to shrug off some stupid or even offensive remarks. If your main concern is not to say anything offensive or subject to misinterpretation, a lot will go unsaid that is true or even possibly wise.
