Freedom of speech is a relatively recent right of the common person in historical terms, and it is practiced with broad freedom only in the democratically governed countries we are familiar with. For most of the world's history people were at daily risk of severe consequences for speaking too freely. We had to know our place.
Even today, treasonous speech is rarely taken lightly in any modern liberal democracy. The closer one's country is to being at war, the more sensitive it is to speak treason. Still, speech is punished generally less vigorously than acts of treason.
A case of treason (versus freedom of speech?) in a democracy: that of the Israeli who was kidnapped by Mossad and brought back to Israel and imprisoned for decades, after speaking freely about the mere existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program.
Blasphemy, to many of us, seems to fall into a sort of category of "old fashioned" or more accurately "out of style" type of treason. It is still viable and holds contemporary meaning to the devout, literalist Muslim, who believes every word from the Koran and its revolutionary mission of converting the world to its version of the truth. The "prophet" is protected against comments. Not every Muslim is going to back the route of sending death squads to teach those blasphemous Europeans a lesson. Some do.
We have this relatively young notion of freedom and liberty in our social contract, that we see as sensible, and worth dying for to protect. That social contract is fairly unique to West democracies. We see it as normal — especially within our borders. It's part of our sovereignty.
Muslims have a sense of duty and honour to protect the status of their spiritual prophet that some feel is worth dying for to uphold. In their countries that may be normal. They seem to not respect that notion we have of borders and sovereignty, where rights of speech may differ. They see blasphemy as a heinous act and react much in the way that a patriot may reserve for acts of treason.
I think the honour at stake on the part of the extremely religious Muslims, some of whom are moderate, and some of whom are not, and how they can get a just (in their eyes) response is a test of how our antagonisms will play out.
That said, bullying (which is what the terrorists are trying to effect) rarely changes anyone's ideas. It may change behaviour in the short term, and highly inconvenience the West, but it won't change the West's ideas of freedom. It makes it a damn sight easier to get authorizations for going to war.
