With the Muslims on the other hand, their threats of violence (sometimes fulfilled, as with Theo van Gogh) terrify those who might draw or write something the Muslims don’t like. Liberal newspapers and broadcasters attack those who print or show such stuff, and oh-so-brave transgressive artists decide not to show films that Muslim’s might object to. Muslims get their opponents silenced and groveling apologies from Western governments for their citizens exercizing their freedom of speech. Obviously the Muslim methods are far more effective at actually getting results and the press and broadcasters of the West are far more respectful of the sensitivities of Muslims who threaten them with death for stepping out of line than they are of those who hew to peaceful methods. The press even becomes apologists for the Muslim nutters threatening them.

Muslims demand respect after the fashion of a Mafia don and get it from the Western press and broadcasters, who will speak what they take to be truth only to powers, like the US government, other Western governments, Christians, and Jews, that won’t threaten them with real retaliation.

Why would a Muslim sue for defamation? The paper did not defame him. It committed no libel against any particular Muslim person. Under what law could he sue? That is just silly. Muslim apologetic groups will use the law when they can, but generally it will be for curtailing other peoples’ freedoms. It is dovetailed with violence because violence works better and quicker, and serves the function of intimidating the rest of a Western society into conforming to what those radical Muslims want. It’s cartoons today, but tomorrow it will be some other minor thing that stokes their outrage (so easily inflamed; Muslims seem to have a gigantically inflated amour propre). But you will be comforted to know that appeasement becomes easier for the appeaser the more times it is practiced.

Newspapers [in western countries, at least] have the right to publish what they want; however they can be sued in civil court if they defame someone; that’s a private matter between the newspaper and the offended and has nothing to do with freedom of the press or of speech. And if I were a Muslim I might be retaining a lawyer to sue the paper. I could accept that response.

But burning cars, yelling Death To Denmark, and boycotting Prune Danish? ! billion harshly worded letters to the editor would have been more appropriate…