So, because we have a group who will kill you if you offend them, then somehow it is the fault of those who speak the offence and not the fault of those who perpetrate the grossly and despicably disproportionate response?
What interests and concerns me most with the debate over free speech and offending people is that instead of discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed the more direct issue of how one deals with being offended should be brought up.
Everybody is offended in life, it's not necessarily a daily occurrence but it's an occurrence that is part of our nature. Rather than hiding the offending thing away so as not to offend people what should happen, and what has for most of the world, is dealing with that offence in the proper manner.
For example in a workplace two men are chatting, one is talking about his significant other and ends the sentence with "Ugh Women!". Now a neighbouring female co-worker overhears this and is offended by this phrase as she feels he's generalising her gender.
Let's look at her options for dealing with this offence.
Firstly she could simply choose to ignore it and let it roll off her back, sure she might seethe a bit but she bites her tongue.
Secondly since it's a workplace the company guideline state she should take any complaints to her superior so lodging a complaint is her second option.
Her third option is to confront the Man and ask what he means by that phrase and to inform him that she is offended by it.
Her fourth choice is to file a suit against him for sexual harassment, this would be unlikely as it wouldn't be considered harassment under the law and was not directed at her.
And finally her fifth option is to murder him for offending her.
Now let's say a Man is watching Porn on speaker on a Bus with people of differing faiths and morals and even Children present.
Following the same structure the first option would be to ignore it until they get off at their stop, secondly would be to inform the driver who would ask him to turn it off, thirdly would be for someone or some people to ask him to turn it off and inform him how inappropriate and offensive it is to view in public, next for someone or some people to get into a physical altercation with him about the offence, and finally to flat out murder him for causing such offence.
These are generally the steps most would go through in most countries with these examples, not always in the same order but 99% of the time without resorting to the final option.
If Jesus is depicted in satire I'm sure many would complain to the party responsible, as would those of the Jewish faith for satirising Moses.
To the best of my knowledge Extremist Muslims are the only ones in this day and age who go right to the final option of Murder.
Is it "wrong" to depict Mohammed? That depends on who you ask. But ask the majority of the population of the world is it wrong to murder in retaliation for being offended and the answer would be yes.
Civilised society would nearly always choose the most peaceful option for dealing with someone who offended them.
'civilised', word.
