When should freedom of expression be limited?
The question of freedom of expression is usually a limited one. It is asked under circumstances that arise because of competing values. In this case: the cartoons.
Mill’s basis for liberty is that “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”. Who decides what is insulting, what is dehumanizing, what is acceptable? Who defines what is harmful? If we use the “court of public opinion” are we to use the American, Middle Eastern, or European court. As global communications expand, we experience events occurring in different regions of the world within our own homes. Now there is a global public opinion court and it brings the question should it take precedent over local ones.
It seems the Islamic court of public opinion has spoken. It becomes obvious that the cartoons are considered insulting. The reaction to the cartoons has become physically violent. On a global level, the reaction has been voiced by republications of the cartoons in 125 newspapers in 45 other countries, as an act of sympathy and support of free speech. Racial hatred, misunderstanding, paranoia (the threat of terrorist attacks), 9/11, and the occupation of Muslim countries by Western troops, have created a exceedingly polarized world. So, here we have the competing values, those of the Islamic nations and their friends and pretty much everyone else.
If the questions are answered by the global public opinion: The answers appear to be NO. Free speech can be used by those who intend different consequences than the simple exercise of their freedom of speech. Response to question posed on The Smell Test