>>10
Again, the distinction lies in the issues raised, not the way in which they are raised. Arabs and Hispanics burn flags in protest and Americans and Europeans raise sanctions in protest. Which inflicts more suffering? Which appears more violent?
There are plenty of political cartoons depicting George Bush as satan, and any other major political character likewise. The purpose of the cartoon as I saw it was to demonstrate that Muhammed has been transformed into a demonic figure and used as such to inflict suffering.
And yet it is clearly not his true form. No one has a body of cockroaches and skulls in their eyes. What would be despicable would be to use a 'normal' image of Mohammed when metaphorically drawing the evils of extremism.
You have to try to recognize the situation from both the perspective of Islam and the perspective of those who respect Islam but not its misuse. If you see the image as an anti-Islamic image, I think you've missed the point. The cartoon draws an extremist Mohammed wreaking suffering with extremism. An opposing cartoon might draw a more plain, human Mohammed to demonstrate his humanity and equality or some shit like that.
I think it's misguided to see this event as a for-or-against choice. Both are incorrect, and both conflict with freedom. The messages of the cartoons are the issue. If they carry a message of hate they are wrong and if they carry a message of love they are a poor political activism cartoon. The ones pictured in the paper chose blind hate, as it happened.