This past week, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed 12 offensive cartoons, sending shockwaves of anger across the Muslim world. Many European newspapers compounded the controversy by choosing to reprint the cartoons, which caricatured the prophet Mohammed. This was an unnecessarily insulting method for conducting a defense of freedom of the press. By now no doubt everyone knows that the most contentious of these cartoons shows Mohammed wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb. The cartoon makes fun of the holiest figure in Islam, and implies inaccurately that all Muslims believe in terrorism in the name of Islam. While the newspapers that chose to reprint the cartoons had every right to do so, they missed an opportunity to gain respect and credibility by showing sensitivity and restraint. The better path would be to criticize those who distort Islam without being insulting to mainstream adherents.

A small number of Muslims who are terrorists use Islam as a justification for their crimes. These extremists give a bad name to ordinary Muslims and it is ignorant for people like the two cartoonists who drew these images to assume, or even imply, that all Muslims believe in terrorism.

Newspapers across Europe simply added insult to injury when they reprinted the Mohammed cartoons in the days following the initial protests against the original cartoons printed by Jyllands-Posten. While free speech allows Jyllands-Posten and other European newspapers that reprinted the cartoons the right to print whatever they please, they all crossed the line of common decency. There is no reason why anyone should make fun of someone else's religion in such an insulting way or generalize about all people of a specific religion or culture. Just because free speech gives you the right to print anything does not mean you should.

The cartoonists and the editors who approved their cartoons should have thought of the consequences of their actions. The view expressed in the cartoons reflected on the newspaper itself; on this point, the editors were negligent. Whether or not the editors themselves agreed with the cartoonists' opinions, an organization capable of spreading its message to millions of people must exercise self-censorship and ask itself, "Does what I am printing unjustly offend and harm the public?" If the answer to this question is yes, the newspaper should rethink its presentation of the opinion and perhaps attempt to convey it in a less offensive way. For example, columnists could write editorials which are not about blowing up Mohammed but which rather convey their thoughts about using religion as a justification for terrorism. The newspapers could have definitely conveyed this point of view more tactfully, had this been their stance (though political partiality by newspapers is in itself another issue altogether).

While I sympathize with the peaceful protests that have taken place against these cartoons, there can be no justification for the violent protests of the past few days. During that time, at least five demonstrations in Afghanistan passed without violence. Muslims across the world have the right to their own free speech and to show their anger towards these prejudiced cartoons. The violent protests are a different thing altogether. On Saturday, protestors attacked the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Damascus, Syria. On Sunday, protestors attacked the Danish consulate in Lebanon. And on Monday, a crowd of 200 people stoned the windows of the Austrian Embassy in Teheran, Iran and tried to throw gas bombs inside.

A small number of troublemakers are causing these incidents, but it seems that their momentum is sweeping across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. I call on those who feel insulted to not get caught up in the heat of their anger and to instead protest peacefully. Otherwise, they will live up to the ridicule suggested in those twelve insulting cartoons.

Serviansky can be reached at mserviansky09@amherst.edu