Bring it, I'm bored. Challenge me on anything

Sooo for those of you reading the comments section you've probably noticed that I backed out of Puck's original challenge due to a lack of interest in the position I would be defending. My apologies to those who were disappointed, I simply don't have quite enough time to come up with a BS argument at the moment. I will keep my opening statement brief as I have to be at job number two in about two hours :( The resolution as stated by my opponent is "It was not ok for Danish Press to publish cartoons of Mohammed" I will be looking at this from a couple of different angles: first from a practical standpoint, and secondly from a moral standpoint. I'm sure my opponent will argue about the need to defend free speech, and I certainly agree that freedom of speech is important. But we mustn't forget that words and images have power. There's a reason I can't write f**k on this website or give a speech in a public square inciting my listeners to act violently towards members of a certain race. Certain speech and images have little to no place in a sophisticated society. When the editors of Jyllans-Posten decided to publish these cartoons they claimed to be doing so in "an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Especially coming so close on the heels of the bombings in London and Madrid, these editors should have been more aware of the need for sensitivity at such a time. Aside from the obvious outrage that the cartoons would cause, as images depicting Muhammad are considered idolatry according to Muslim tradition, some of the cartoons appear to be downright racist. One of the cartoons depicts a scowling Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, the Muslim shahada is written on the bomb. Another contains a poem blaming Muhammad for the oppression of women. Given the current political climate this seems to be a foolish decision. It is blindly, if not intentionally damaging to inter-faith dialogue. This incident is especially curious because of the issue of Muslims in Europe. Muslim immigrants in Europe have found much less acceptance and have found it much harder to assimilate into their new homelands than their American counterparts. With this in mind, if the editors at Jyllands-Posten were so concerned with the dialogue on self-censorship, why did they reject cartoons of Jesus Christ that they thought might be offensive to readers (http://www.guardian.co.uk...)? The same editor who found it appropriate to publish the somewhat racist and stereotype-enforcing cartoons about Muhammad responded to the cartoonist who had submitted them with this quote "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." This is laughably hypocritical. The cartoons which the paper instead chose to publish, excuse me, ASKED their cartoonists to create, misrepresent Islam as a vehicle for violence and Muslims as war-mongering, bulbous-nosed misogynists. This was not an expression of freedom of speech, it was a childish publicity stunt done with a complete lack of respect for the feelings of an already alienated Muslim community.