I agree with what Sir Trevor Phillips says. (I feel less able to comment on the article on Peter Costello). Obviously, free speech presupposes a fairly high level of self-control.

If groups claim the right to throw an amazing temper tantrum and turn violent wherever they read or hear things they don't like, then free speech becomes tricky.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the cartoons were not the cause of the protests and additional violence following their publication.

They were surely a mere excuse for extremists to once again rise against "the West".

It's the same thing, surely, as wars being started in the name of a religion - they aren't in the name of a religion ... "in the name" being the operative word, as they rarely represent that religion or the many hundreds/thousands that peacefully follow the religion being fought in the name of (if that makes sense).

This has happened "in the name" of all religions, Catholicism and the basic theory of Christianity having been fought "in the name of" through history.

It's one thing to write letters to the editor or peacefully protest the decisions of a newspaper. It's quite another to go rioting and bombing.

I think the publishing of the cartoons was appropriate. I'm only disappointed that the major US papers didn't have the guts to publish the cartoons. For a great example of hypocrisy, compare the reaction of the elitists to the cartoons fiasco to the prior response to Serrano's [censored] Christ. *

BTW, did anyone happen to see the South Park two-parter on the cartoons? Simply brilliant.

* Apparently that word is censored out by the board filter, but a quick Google-search will tell you what it is.