Who missed the ‘row’ (I prefer crisis) about the Danish cartoon that mocks the Muslim religion? I get a bit tired about how self-righteous and holy the Western press and critics get about freedom of speech in this case.

I agree that freedom of speech means that speech sometimes has to be offensive – in order to allow a breathing space, to ensure that there is an environment for the quality of speech to flourish.

But is this really about offensive speech or something else? There is another aspect to freedom of speech, not an uncommon one to a lot of countries- and it is called the right to reply. That is to say, if this is about freedom of speech, does this mean that we can talk about them all we want, but they cannot talk about us? Where is the voice of the Other? How can we understand why it is so upsetting to them? Why do we only get filtered interpretations of their voices through the Western (hegemonic) press?

Imagine a voice in the New York Times explaining the perspective of the Other in this conflict. Would that not truly be a victory for freedom of speech?

One lesson from speech doctrine: if you withhold someone’s speech or voice, it closes the door to a peaceful way to resolve conflicts. People will find ways to voice their opinion in other means than dialogue: violence. Violence, in this case, is not a cause, but a symptom of a deeper problem where the other feels restricted in their right to reply.

Can someone point me to a voice that explains this issue from the side and perspective of the Muslims to me? A bridgeblog perhaps? Can someone translate relevant portions from the Arabic wiki?

I should take up Arabic lessons.