Personally, I am a bit divided on the issue. Yes, I support the principle of free speech (of course), but I wonder: Is freedom of speech really "unlimited"? It`s very easy for us in the western world to say "look, moslems, we have no problem in printing derogatory pictures of Jesus, and christianity is our religion, so you should really accept it if we show pictures of Mohammad riding a pig (or whatever)". But is it really taht easy? It`s still, even in our western, civilised world, just been a few decades since we would have been equally outraged if someone had printed a drawing of Jesus anally impaled by a cross (or whatever). Many countries (my own included) still has a blasphemy-paragraph in the law (emotions are reflected in law, usually on the issue of how long a person should be incarsarated for the various crimes, but also, in some cases, such as the laws on blasphemy, as part of the actual law). This law hasn`t been used in a while, but it`s only been a few decades since the last time. And really, what about things we, in the western world, find outrageous and disgusting? Imagine this: Let`s say someone printed drawings of someone engaging in pedophile activity (I know this is an extreme, disgusting example, but it`s often in extreme examples we find the truth about yourself). I`m not talking about photographs (that would be photos of an actual illegal act, and would be prosecuted by law) - I`m just talking about drawings. Drawings of someone raping a child. Now, would you consider this to fall under the right to freedom and speech and freedom of press?
On the other hand...if we don`t accept words, images, etc, that we find to be utterly, horribly (as in my example above), fucking disgusting (!!!) - can we really claim to have free speech? And if we can`t, then what really is the difference between ourselves and the moslem world?