In the UK at least, we deal with difficult subjects through satire. But where do you draw the line? I am one for open - although much material on the web is offensive (as seen from me). I'd have rather the images were reprinted, and have the whole thing forgotten about. But there was some gesture of respect and sensitivity shown by the west deriding the work. The debate has also come up with the turn around of the BBC to allow the BNP on question time. So I think it is important to provide the material and the appropriate fora, and freedoms of speech. The herd and mob mentality is usually a result of ignorance. But it takes a long time for attitudes to change. In Britain in the eighties, people were still afraid to speak their minds or challenge the establishment. My father's attitudes have changed incredibly over the last 10 years. And I guess so have mine.<p>My personal belief is that people can practice what they like, but with the following caveats: no harm to others, animals or the planet. I don't belong to any faith, but see myself as more 'Christian' then many practising Christians. People get lost in doctrine or the mob, and forget to question for themselves. Natural law is far simpler.<p>The web provides an outlet for many voices, who's authority do you trust? Moderation requires some form of censorship. I'd rather it all open. I can't stand pruned forums, they feel like rigged referendums. It's just incredibly difficult wading through it all. As usually the average Joe, hasn't really anything much interesting to say.<p>So is it fear or learned sensitivity?