Freedom of press: the right to oppress?

The controvery surrounding the publication and republication of pictures of the prophet Mohamed is typically the kind to induce heavy headaches. To me, it is a moral, political, religious and ethical grey area which dumbfounds. On the one hand, reading about the frightening surges of violent or dramatic protests rocking through the muslim countries make you curse out religious fanatics; on the other, you wonder what is achieved by pissing them off.

Because, have no doubt about it: while the initial publication may have been a desire to create a buzz and unintenionally led to a bizarrely overstated response, the republication of the pictures serves no additional purpose. Except of riling people up. It seems the Danish press had discovered a button labelled "Piss off muslims worldwide". While the creation of a debate may be a healthy alibi, the immediate consequence is that you portray your opposition as mindless fanatics and effectively alienate them all as a group. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" indeed. The purpose, in my opinion, is to enforce the wave of xenophobia coursing through the country and isolate muslims, instead of encouraging a real conversation between the immigrant muslim minority and the Danish society.

I, for myself, am not that upset about the publications. I still believe in the freedom of the press, but I also wish that the press had higher ambitions than to create confrontation between two groups who already have some serious communication problems.