Reader Tim Coyne disagrees with my stance on the cartoon intifada:

I realize that we labor under the extant luxury of being ignorant of the sensitivities of the Muslim culture and approach. Reposting a cartoon that has been declared offensive under the guise of clarity is offensive. That ettiquette should be easily handled. The cartoon has been more fully explained than our Iraqi policy. The simple point is that the image of the prophet is not used by his adherents.

It’s been used by infidels. Nobody needs to publish it.

How many times do you explain a joke that disgusts your grandmother and friends? ‘Til they get it? ‘Til they submit to you and your filthy liberties rather than their own sensitivities? If they demonstrate a similar offense (the Virgin in elephant dung, the Infant of Prague masturbating, Christ on the cross as a flasher) are we all now just having a good time? Chuckle.

As for upbraiding a publisher for using sense, if not sensitivity, in deciding not to add fuel and redirect fire, perhaps if you posted your address (preferrably in a community well-represented by insulted Muslims), employed a largely open-door policy, built and posted a large sign and invited and encouraged a large staff to come and go at all hours under your assurance that all would be safe, you’d go through a few extra considerations before gratuitously piling on.

That boldness might be better spent and more honestly portayed in, say, interviewing young devout Muslim children on their views of what exactly is the coarseness of that (probably misguided cartoon)approach. Look for understanding rather than charges. Then, maybe you can extend some higher value rather than extol the baser performances.

I have a feeling this is one subject where we’re not going to end up agreeing.

If the cartoons had depicted Muhammad in a beaker of urine, I could understand people being offended. But the fact that the cartoons were so mild is a huge part of the story. None of them were any worse than your average political cartoon. Some of them were just depictions of Muhammad. And yet, they’ve led to dozens and dozens of murders around the world and untold destruction. Kind of makes you wonder what’ll happen when something makes them really mad!

Don’t get me wrong, Muslims have every right to be offended by the cartoons, however tame. We do not get to dictate what brings others offense. But the minute one person’s preferences are allowed to override another person’s freedom, you have just crossed the line into tyranny.

In free societies, the offended are able to vent steam by speaking out. Mobs don’t roam around the streets, randomly killing, setting buildings on fire, etc. Now, it is apparent that this does occur when people are offended in the Muslim world. These people obviously have different sensibilities.

But, we need to remember that Denmark is a sovereign country. Should the sensibilities of rampaging mobs in Libya get to dictate the bounds of speech in Denmark, or in any other western country where the cartoons were reprinted?

Because if we’re ready to cede our free speech rights when it comes to publishing political cartoons about Islam, what’s next? If it’s just easier to cave in and appease the mobs, what shall we do if the mobs decide that they don’t like an editorial that condemns the use of terrorism by radical Islamists? What then? Do we once again decide that we’d rather avoid all that unpleasantness and just keep our mouths shut?

Fascism has had many forms throughout history, but one pattern always repeats: weakness never leads to being left alone.