In "Free Speech and Radical Islam" (Feb. 15), Flemming Rose unwittingly assumed the role of the German officer he mentioned when he allowed the malicious cartoons to be published. This obviously and predictably would enrage millions of Muslims around the world. His concern about free speech is disingenuous.
He clearly gives a free hand to insult Islam and Muslims by neglecting to point out, based on his logic, that it would be equally allowable to ridicule the Holocaust or depict a figure of Martin Luther King containing a caption with the "N" word. I doubt he would allow that, as well he shouldn't. If he strictly follows his own logic, why didn't he point out that there are laws in Europe prohibiting opinions denying the Holocaust, or that the U.S. news media refrain from using derogatory terms for African-Americans as a form of censorship?
Muslim nations and much of the former colonialist West, to be sure, have a formidable task in dealing with radicalized elements of the faith. Mr. Rose's actions are part of the problem. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the omissions from his discussion are those expected from one with prejudice rather than from one seriously dedicated to free