To publish or not to publish?

The Prophet Mohammed cartoon issue has been on my mind lately, as it has on several others, I'm sure. And I've been debating how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, there is the press' right to freedom of expression, which I strongly believe in, for obvious reasons. This is also why Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons, media reports say - to show that they will not be cowed by religious dogma and fundamentalism. As such, I think that they should stand by their right to express themselves freely. For, if they give in now, they will only help spread the belief that, if sufficient pressure is exerted, the press can be controlled and moulded the way the powers-that-be want.

However, I do think this newspaper, and the others that reprinted the cartoons, acted rashly and without thought to the consequences of their actions. Because, Islam across the world is in a volatile state today. With fundamentalism reaching heights above what it has been for a long time, and with the West's tenuous standing in several Muslim countries, any action that appears, even remotely, to be spurred by anti-Islamic views can stoke the smouldering embers and start a flame that could very quickly spread out of control.

And that is what is happening now. As rioting and violence spreads across the world, the question, from a practical point of view, is "Is it really worth it?" All this to prove a hazy point about freedom of expression? That too in Denmark, where the press' freedom hasn't really come under any real test in the first place.

Or perhaps this whole reaction has proven a point. That maybe freedom of expression is not completely unequivocal, and the press can't get away with saying anything under this protection. Perhaps there are some things that are more important than freedom of expression.

I have also been thinking about how I would react if the depictions had been of Jesus. I would have been furious as well. Journalist or not, I am a Christian first, and my loyalty to Christ comes before my loyalty to my career and even my rights. So, I can see very clearly where the anger is coming from. I would definitely have written some angry letters, maybe even protested, and exercised my own right to freedom of expression. But I would not go so far as to riot and use violence, simply because that would be hypocritical and dilute the very point I'm trying to make. And this is what the rioters themselves are doing. By resorting to violence, they are going against their own religion, the very religion that they claim they are trying to protect - they are being hypocrites.

And there are others trying to fan the flames -- such as those who have publicized cartoons that weren't even in the original publication, including one of Mohammed with the face of a pig. Others are printing cartoons desecrating experiences that, while not always religious, still hold strong, poignant significance for other groups -- such as that of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, published by the Arab European League. And in Iran, newspapers have announced a contest for cartoons mocking the Holocaust. In the latter two cases, those responsible are exercising their own right to freedom of expression. But again, at what cost? What are they really proving? That they can be as irresponsible and offensive as the European newspapers?

So, when I said that I strongly believe in freedom of expression, I do. But, I also think that it is up to the media to be responsible about how far they take this right, and to decide that, in cases like this one, where the publication of the cartoons was gratuitous, they should relinquish this right for the greater good. But, now that the deed is done, giving in will only give the impression that, under sufficient pressure, the press can be manipulated, which will have strong implications for the future of free expression.

Any thoughts, my phantom readers?!?!?