ScaredWebWarrior

Not really - they'd both be an opinion.

Among friends, the banter can at times be extremely derogatory and insulting - apparently, but the people concerned do not seem to betroubled by it.
Should we henceforth prosecute anyone who calls someone an a******e because it is insulting?

According to you, criticism would be ok, but insult wouldn't.

So why is the 'criticism' in the cartoons (i.e. that Muslims permit/encourage terrorism in the name of Islam) now suddenly an insult? Oh, because the people being criticised have decided to be insulted - I guess it avoids having to face the criticism...

Of the cartoons, only 3 were IMHO in any good in that they did satirise, rather than simply insult:

1) Image of 2 women in black veils - letterbox slot for eyes, showing their eyes. Between then, an armed, bearded man who looks like trouble - his eyes cover with the typical black letterbox slot across the eyes - what they use in magazines to hide the identity.
So this one actually doesn't identify anyone - the artist obviously did show sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities - or so he thought...

2) Cloud with gate, imam type looking bloke shouting at a line of suicide bombers to inform them that the everafter was 'running out of virgins'. That one is hilarious. Does it identify Muhammed or is it just a comment on the obnoxious kind of lies perpetrated in the name of Islam that cause people to carry out these heinous acts?
IF the Koran or anything DOES promise anything like this, can Muslims not see how this demonises Islam? "Yeah, strap a bomb to yourself, and you'll also get to rape young girls in heaven."

3) The image of the bearded man with bomb-shaped turban. Again, another visual metaphor for the image that Islam has acquired. The religion that believes in violent expression. Where people are driven, by other people to perform acts of murder in the name of Islam. Where prophet and bombs have become synonymous.
IF the turban had not looked like a bomb, would it have been any more or less insulting?

As someone has pointed out, the rules forbidding images of Muhammed/Allah apply to Muslims ONLY. Just like the customs and rules of other religions ONLY apply to them. So a Jew won't eat pork? More for us christians then.

That's the way a free society works. Live and let live.

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

That's exactly like the cartoon issue.

A joke is a joke, nothing more. Even ones in bad taste can be funny. If someone then chooses to express offence (i.e. reminding everyone how they've got family suffering...) it forces the other person to retract. NOT because they no longer find the joke funny, but because they have to choose whether to continue to exercise their FoS or to conform to thje social norm.

BTW, in your example the offended party merely points out where the offence was caused. I don't think they held a protest rally the following day...

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

The re-publishing WAS confrontational. It was designed to confront the notion that maybe FoS could be 'limited' in some cases - e.g. Islam.

And instead of realising that the reaction over the initial publication was inappropriate - the reactions following re-publication were, if anything, more extreme.

Yes, the editors knew exactly what they were doing, but did the protesting Muslims? Did they realise that by asking for restrictions on publication that they were attacking FoS? Did they realise that by their violent expressions only validated the cartoons and hence their publication?