What’s all this talk of offensive cartoons about a prophet, boycotting the Danish, censorship, Western values, etc?

Well, first and foremost, it is a social value in free societies that their governments will play no role in deciding what can and cannot be printed. It is, however, a US court established standard, that speech can be regulated to limit someone falsely crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Does the row kicked off by this flap fit that definition? Not sufficiently, in my opinion. Does it broach the line of regulated pornography? Well, since that’s so rarely utilized - mostly to avoid the exploitation of minors or captive participants or snuff films - that line’s not really even approached.

At this point, the role of governments should simply be to explain that newspaper editors make their own judgments and only libel permits a form of redress that involves government agencies.

Second, I don’t buy the line that any editor is cowardly for avoiding republication of the cartoons. It is their job to weigh the benefits and to determine what is necessary to keep their readers well-informed, and to do so with an eye on the business realities of such decisions, as well.

If they choose to not reprint to avoid further antagonizing an enraged mob, that can as easily be called considerate as cowardly, or as wisdom. Periodicals are not on trial, nor are they required to make some stand for values of any sort. They are free entities with a right to choose. Bullying them to publish the toons or not to publish the toons amounts to the same thing: it’s a limit on the freedom of the press.

It is true that some Arab media outlets have published offensive things about Jews, Christians and others, and that I consider such choices to be a promotion of bigotry, an offense clearly wrong in my value system. But turnabout is not fair play and two wrongs do not make a right.

Thus, I believe some members of the Danish press made choices that were inconsiderate, and some - in their responses since - have compounded their inconsideration. They are unwise to do so.

The response of extremists who have responded with violence, is also wrong. It does not take rocket science to determine that they also propel an agenda, trying to incite more Muslims to respond with violence, pushing more middle-roaders to join them at the extremes. So any editor not cognizant of that agenda, who then chooses inflammatory language that furthers the aims of the violent, is at least acting irresponsibly.

One can avoid being censored by a mob without multiplying the size of that mob through the careful use of words, which, in the profession of journalism, they should be well-qualified to do.

In short, mistakes have been made by some publications. But in a world promoting civilization, the proper response to those mistakes is never violence. Harsh verbal critique is justifiable; physical violence is not.

There are now extremists on both sides more eager for a confrontation with no regard to the violence that could result or who could get hurt. Both such extremes are wrong to take that course. And I include in that condemnation the blogger I linked to, whose blogtitle alone I consider to be offensive and bigoted.

Were I an editor covering this dispute, I’d certainly let readers know where to go to find the offending cartoons, but I’d refrain from republishing them. I’d also direct my reporters to interview those who initially printed them, and to interview mainstream Islamic clerics, so my readers could hear the broadest range of opinion and make well-informed judgments based on that.

Finally, if some choose to boycott as a response to the initial offense, I consider that a justifiable response within a civilized world. People can judge for themselves whether to participate and whether they think the boycott is fair. But since it is a nonviolent means of protest, there’s nothing wrong, valuewise, in making that choice.

There are hypocrites and assholes on both sides of this dispute. There are others who made poor choices, some who made perfectly defensible choices, and some who have acted responsibly throughout. But at this juncture, I consider it less important to define who fits each judgment than to simply call for both sides to de-escalate the war of words (and violence) by agreeing to set up a conference where the grievances can be aired and responded to without further needless division.

In short, those who stand for civilization should be promoting conversation between the parties most aggrieved instead of catering to a rigid set of values promoted by those standing on the sidelines lobbing absolutist bombs. Defusing violence does not mean capitulation nor appeasement. It permits the beginning of a conversation, not its end.

WaPo’s Anne Applebaum fears there’ll be more violence than understanding as a result of this conversation. While that may be true, especially in the short term, I remain convinced that the commitment to conversation must remain the highest priority, simply because that permits the broadest range of potential results. Cutting off conversation almost always ensures violence.

We can stand against extremism that promotes violence while always remaining open to talking. Otherwise, we’d be promoting violence, too.