After days of rioting, the media seem to indicate that the tumult over the depiction of the prophet of Mohammad is beginning to die down. But has it really? Even if it has, what about the roots that caused it? Or is this a case of two wholly disparate cultures who have come across a divide where neither one is willing to cross?

    A question arising from the whole cartoon controversy deals with free speech: Should it be free and unlimited? Should it enforce boundaries and restrictions, if it could incite violence, whatever that means? The Danish government has taken the first stance, saying they cannot intervene in the matter of what is a free and independent newspaper. This stand has obviously incensed the Muslim world, who sees unlimited free expression as licentious, and in the case of the cartoons, blasphemous. Many have protested against what they believe to be an offense to their sensibilities, whether they have been violent or nonviolent in their reactions.

    There are those in this country who suggested that the cartoons should be presented, people such as Lou Dobbs. These people, who seem to mostly be from the West, are concerned that self-censorship in the matter of the cartoons is essentially catering to the terrorists. This libertarian approach inveighs the State Department’s condemnation of disrespectful depictions of religions, a direct statement against the cartoons. To them, it is like the government has given a directive to the American media, implying that publishing the cartoons is belying their wishes. This could appear as a harbinger of the government restriction of speech.

    In some ways, though, the reticence shown by the government, while seeming to reserve opinion, seems to suggest that sometimes it is wise to put the brakes on free speech. It is sort of like the Supreme Court decision that questions if it is responsible to yell “fire” in the middle of a movie theater and cause a panic. Of course someone can literally yell “Fire,” but it may be irresponsible, and could destroy public order.

    This premise is seems similar to the caution suggested by the Washington in the realm of protesting the war, whether by demonstrations or criticism by media or politicians. Protestors and media are warned that their dissent could be used as rhetoric against those captive, or to deflate the morale of troops in general, an argument which goes back to World War II at least. It is interesting to note that the United States and Britain have been very conservative in encouraging the press to publish the cartoons. It is as though because of their positions in Iraq, they don’t really want to incite any further outrage by seeming anti-Islamic. This reaction is understandable, seeing that with all the international dissent, the cartoons seem to represent not so much the idea of free speech or no free speech, but the clash of civilizations as Samuel Huntington as predicted.

    From the burning of Danish embassies, Secretary Rice’s accusation that the governments of Iran and Syria had a hand in the fracas, to the destruction of American icons such as McDonald’s, this idea of the clash of civilizations is one to keep in mind. So what should one do? Should one keep his or her mouth shut just to keep the terrorists quiet? This position sounds very much like the people who are willing to have the government rescind any rights, “whatever it takes”, just so that the war on terrorism could be won. Bad enough that our speech could possibly be wiretapped for no reason, now we can’t talk at all?

    To give up the right to be critical of the terrorists for fear of inflaming the enemy sounds like the ultimate of political correctness, and not useful at all for the American spirit. But on the other hand, with Denmark’s stalwart refusal to back down in the face of destruction, it seems like a declaration of war just by being the fact that you live in a country with a bunch of malls. Because of just that accident of birth, you’ve been recruited in a war you never knew existed. It’s the ultimate and universal draft card. This is exactly what the war on terrorism is.

    The question now becomes, how to engage the strategy of this war: do we retreat and try and negotiate by standing down on the cartoon issue? Or do we engage in full offense like the Danish, and let the value of free speech prevail no matter what the course? This debate is more than a bunch of cartoons, more the value of how one should engage in free speech. Obviously, the burning of embassies is a violation of law for those who are that upset, and in the countries of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon seem to be an excuse to engage in something larger.

    The best response to this violence is to continue engaging in the rights that we have decided constitutionally are an inherent, and not compromise these rights with those who probably aren’t interested in compromise anyway. Dialogue with moderate Muslims and talking about respect of religions is a beginning, for those who engage in dialogue, whether West or East, are more likely to engage in peaceful negotiations. The death of Coretta Scott King brings up an interesting correlative regarding fighting discrimination. Nonviolent protest, as well as boycotts of Danish products is the best way to express anger, similar to Martin Luther King’s nonviolent protest. Compromising values to appease violence is submission to a bottomless well that probably won’t be able to be filled, and may lead to more violence. The answer to the violence is to speak out against it, exercising that right to expression in a nonviolent way.