I didn't expect this - the courts here have granted an interdict against several newspapers blocking them from reprinting the cartoons that have raised the ire (to varying degrees) of a number of Muslims.
The nature of some of the cartoons is obviously subjective - I find a few quite amusing (especially those making fun of the competition in general), I just don't understand some of them, and I'm just confused as to what possibly positive messages a couple of them can be said to have at all. None change my view of Islam or of Muslims in general or of particular Muslims I know.
As usual, however, I fear the extremists within the group being offended are doing much more to hurt the situation than the initial offence. This happens whether the offended groups are gay (such as recently around the silly policies of the blood transfusion service, where the whackos were the generally disregarded one-man-show GLA), Christian (FotF, CWA, and friends), or Muslim.
Those seeing the calls for violent responses to the cartoons being published in Denmark and subsequently elsewhere are just going to slide along the scale away from a positive outlook on Muslims in general, despite such calls being from those in other countries and of different beliefs. (This is not unlike what Michael Moore does to people who might otherwise think the US Left are onto something, or what some Open Source supporters feel the Free Software people have done about getting FOSS accepted in The Real World.)
What's needed (and certainly provided from my Africa Source II friends), is a discussion and understanding of the context of the appearance of the cartoons, what was printed and what wasn't, what was offensive and what wasn't, and which actions are justified and constructive, and which are not.
Which comes to the interdict - is it justified and constructive? In short, I can't see how it is. These cartoons are newsworthy, and news is the purpose for which newspapers are intended. Having those cartoons printed only serves to aid the discussion mentioned above.
Of course, it may be that the interdict is there to prevent a display of a depiction of the prophet. Which in many ways is the flimsiest reason for a court to grant such an interdict.
The point of freedom of religion is that the intersection between law and religion is the same for all religions - that you have the right to choose whatever religion you want (if any), and act in accordance to that religion uninhibited by laws that don't apply to all religions.
That means that actions that some religions believe are not moral (whether it is divorce, sex before marriage, wearing of skimpy dresses, drinking of alcohol) are not forced upon others. So long as people act within the law, they are free to follow or not follow the rules of their religion or other religions, whether their actions are offensive the others or not.
This includes taking newsworthy cartoons and publishing them in newspapers. So, what was the reasoning of the court which granted this interdict? I can't see how it was the right decision, and I sincerely hope it doesn't lead to more people seeking court interdicts to effectively prevent freedom of religion (and speech).