You have just called them racists. Earlier you have called them xenophobes. Accusations, I may add, that you have invented out of thin air.

"The publishers of satirical magazines must be held accountable for the dissemination of hate speech like anyone else."

A picture of Mohammed isn't hate speech. And vigilante justice like firebombing isn't the right way to hold someone accountable.

If you really think for some unscrutable reason that they are engaging in hate speech, sue them. That is the proper way to deal with it. Perhaps you could transmit this way of procedure to your new allies on the islamic right?

"what anti-muslim campaign? "

I just see a satiric magazine standing up for freedom of speech. Attacked by islamists, who you defend for some reason.

And yes it is totally legitimate to satirise minority religion.

South park e. g. made fun of mormons and scientologists. That was funny legitimate and not oppressive or persecution. And South Park is probably a lot more influential then Charlie Hebdo.

Of course they were attacked. In words of course too but there was also the fire-bomb. If that isn't a attack, what do you need?

"Muslims have no voice" - I am sure that the muslim media in France has a lot higher circulation numbers then the circulation of Charlie Hebdo. Not the count all the muslim ministers, parliamentarians, mayors civil servants journalist etc. in France. And the official representation of muslim organizations.

"There is no freedom for hate speech."

Define hate speech. Freedom of speech has to include undesirable speech or it isn't much of a freedom.

"And even though this is not hate speech in the legal sense, "

well, in this case where is the problem?

"it functions as hate speech,"

That assertion you should perhaps prove at some time

"which is why I criticise Charlie Hebdo's despicable publication."

You see an despicable publication, I see a rather mild satire and an attempt to assert their right of free speech.

That is at worst ill-advised. Not despicable.

"I note that you categorise my speech as an attack on free speech: apparently only anti-Muslim speech is free."

What anti-muslim speech? And categorizing an satirical publication as hate speech is an attack on free speech. I on the other hand haven't tried to suppress your speech or demanded suppression or whatever.

As you very well know, there are no citations in the perceptual world ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

You answered it yourself.

You can't be me, I'm taken

Rushdie was deliberately provocative because he was describing his own cultural experience - in a sense his own commentary - on the Qur'an. He knew it was a sensitive subject since most of the world's religions protect their 'Words' very carefully, even if the bulk of their rituals are derived from regulated commentary on the 'Words', not the words themselves.

Like the Second Amendment.

But of course provocation was not his primary motive, if a motive at all. His motive was to explain how he came to be, what he had experienced. His sin was to be W*st*rn.

You can't be me, I'm taken

"He wasn't satirising or criticising."

If that is true that rather strengthens my argument.

I don't think critique, even provocative critique - and some people are provoked by everything don't need to be from the inside - whatever inside is - to be legitimate.

You probably know the term "outside agitator". Has a lot to do with the definition who inside or outside.