I and the public know
what all school-children learn:
those to whom evil is done
do evil in return.

(Auden)

Has anyone but me had the passing thought that free-speech fundamentalism is also, well, umm, a fundamentalism?  This gets us into an interesting realm of questioning:  what do we think is fundamental?  What I think is fundamental is, perhaps, Buddhist in tone even though I am not a practising or believing Buddhist.  This old atheist thinks that the fundamental ethic, the touchstone, is to reduce the amount of cruelty and violence going on.  That for me is the core value.  

So... when absolutist freespeechism is used as cover for committing cruelty or provoking violence, then in my view it becomes ethically invalid.  We could have all the free speech in the world and still live in Hell, without the values of kindness, respect, and diplomacy...  Similarly I have a great regard for science and the scientific method, but scientific results obtained by torture (as in the Andaman Islands penal colony where British doctors tortured prisoners, or the Nazi death camps or the Japanese POW camps) to me can never justify the methods used to obtain them -- the cruelty taints the science.  The rule of law is a good thing, but when it is used as a shield for the privileged to taunt the powerless I lose some of my respect for the rule of law.  Javert was not a sympathetic character.

I am not sure that absolutism about free speech doesn't alarm me in something of the same way (though less acutely) as absolutism about prohibiting the Prophet's image or absolutism about Marx's theories -- if it is used to justify bad behaviour to living human beings.  Absolutism about things I agree with is much less scary than absolutism about things I disagree with -- because it's less immediately threatening to my own person.  But I think I have to say I am at odds with absolutism in general.  And I think that one of the debates that has been going on embedded in this interesting wrangle, and perhaps unacknowledged, is a debate between moral absolutists and situational ethicists.  The situational ethicists (myself among 'em) say that what is right and wrong may depend on the specifics of the situation (there are more than two sides to any argument and both can be wrong and both right);  the moral absolutists say that there is an abstract principle which transcends any specific situation and no compromise is possible (you're either with us or against us?)

At each point along the way in this sorry brouhaha [not this ET thread, the real-world affair], decisions were made to hurt people.  The cartoonists decided to direct racial stereotypes and uninformed religious slurs at a minority in their own country;  the editorial board chose to publish, knowing that feelings would be hurt (and knowing the degree of racial tension in the country, that some kind of fracas might well ensue);  the newspaper and other media chose to ignore the complaints of resident Muslims; the government chose to insult the pan-Arab ambassadors by ignoring them;  and so on.  At any point a modicum of empathy or kindness or generosity could have defused the situation, at low cost -- but now it has escalated and gets harder and harder to control;  A's bad behaviour is the perfect excuse for B, which then excuses more and worse from A... As the Buddhists would say, anger and ego-desire breed suffering and more suffering.  So to me the moral failing in this situation is present on both sides and started with the original offence, it did not start only when some opportunist Muslim rabble-rouser decided to get a bunch of guys worked up with the exciting prospect of death threats and blowing things up.  Someone handed him that opportunity on a plate.

And still the question haunts me -- did the Danish muckymuck refuse to see the pan-Arab ambassadors -- a gesture which might have saved face and cooled tempers all around -- because he believes so fervently in freespeech, or because A White Man Does Not Apologise to a Wog?  Does he even know, for sure, in his own heart, all the reasons for that refusal?  Can we ever be that certain of the purity of our motives, certain enough to justify absolutism?

Lastly, Lupin, though I agree on a gut level with your impatience with organised religion and all the rest --  I can't really see this as a conflict between modernity and antiquity ("us enlightened folks" vs "those historical losers" in other words):  the publication of scurrilous drawings and doggerel insulting enemies of the state (or just people the artist or his patron hates), is at least as old as graffiti on Etruscan latrine walls.  Nothing modern about nasty toons.  "Nyah Nyah Nyah" might be the oldest words in any language...  and the insulting of the vanquished foe's gods is at least as old as Empire itself.  Hardly modernist, nor are artists guaranteed to be in the forefront of anything other than the cause that their patron is paying them to promote.  [PS I hope your voluntary exile is still proving delightful!]

I think a debate on situational (how about Situationist?) ethics vs absolutist (rights and law) ethics might be an interesting way to discover more about where our differences of opinion come from...  and perhaps explain some things about schisms and factionalism on the Left and other interesting phenomena.  I appreciate everyone's effort to keep a grip on their tempers, too;  a remarkable civil discussion considering the emotional and ethical conflicts involved.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...