Reply #41: I think you're ignoring the timetable of the Danish cartoons

[muriel_volestrangler]

I don't remember seeing anything about them on DU when they were originally published; if there was, it was low key. It became a big story here when the boycott of Danish products became news, Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador from Denmark, and then the street protests and riots started. That was when it became a free speech rallying cry here, because many Muslims weren't just saying they were offended, they were saying they wanted the paper punished, or laws passed in Europe against offending religions. And that's what I think is similar to the Irving case - it became a big thing here when there was someone saying he shouldn't be allowed to sayit - in his case, the Austrian courts with actual power, rather than Muslims without power to enforce their views.

That many people were also saying they didn't think the cartoons were offensive, or that it didn't matter if they were offensive (and in my opinion, it doesn't, as far as deciding if the paper should have been able to publish them), isn't relevant to whether the claims about free speech are consistently applied by its supporters here. In the case of the BNP, we're still in the first phase - they have stated their intention to print the leaflets, and people have said it's shameful etc. There's been no attempt to stop them - so their speech is still free. Hence no calls for freedom of speech to be respected.

The Danish newspaper story was actually about publication and response to publication, not "free speech" - that's confused me. Publication is exercising freedom of speech, and when the response is to call for the prevention of publication, that's denying the freedom. Why do you think they're different things?