You do not have the right to prevent this image from circulating:
(I debated for a while putting a stronger warning at the top of this post, to avoid hurting religious sensibilities. But you know what, I’m not feeling overly tender towards religious sensibilities right now. They need to grow the hell up and learn how to live in the real world, which does not cater exclusively to their strange whims about ‘prophets’ and magical invisible sky-daddies).
The media reprinting this cover? Naughty naughty, they’re ‘encouraging the circle of violence’.
The Muslim groups protesting the publication of this image? Oh, they’re just exercising their right to free speech! It’s not like anyone’s going to take them seriously and firebomb news outlets or brutally massacre journalists, right? “Muslim leaders lined up to condemn Charle Hebdo for its decision to put a cartoon of the prophet on the cover and warned that it risked fuelling sectarian tensions.” … Yeah, you know what else fuels sectarian tensions? Shooting people for not agreeing with you.
Free speech does give them the right to protest, as it gives media the right to publish the images in the first place. But how can we blame one side for encouraging violence and not the other?
Should those journalists not have been drinking so late at night, wearing such short skirts, drawing so provocatively? Were they, in fact, Asking For It?
This accommodationism is gross. I don’t believe we should hold groups of people to lower humanitarian standards just because of the colour of their skin or because they believe in fairies.
So many people have been murdered for their unwillingness to treat religious beliefs as sacred and unquestionable.
The least we can do is carry on in their footsteps.