Topless or headless

Magazines are printing topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge (aka Kate Middleton) and anti-Muslim cartoons.  Why is it permissible to publish the former and not the latter?  Seeing the Duchess topless (good gracious!) is not considered a threat to national security, while seeing Mohammed in a cartoon is.  Because the satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" has published some cartoons mocking Mohammed, so the French Government has closed down Embassies, closed schools and put its National Guard on alert.  I think they should do this over the topless photos of the British Royalty and not over the anti-Muslim cartoons.

If you think that Muslims will riot, so what, let them continue to riot and let our security forces take care of them.  I have a suggestion, every newspaper in the West should print a satirical cartoon of Mohammed, next to a topless photo of Kate.  Then let them riot.  In the end, if we keep doing this, they will get fed up with rioting, after all how many times can you riot and achieve nothing.  They will trash their home cities, but they are used to living in such conditions.  They will kill each other (decapitation is their favorite way), but they do that anyway.  Maybe if they see the topless photos of Kate they will stop rioting for a moment, or maybe they will riot more.

The British Royal family have sued the French newspapers and obtained an injunction to stop any more publication of the offending photos.  Why can't the Muslims do the same thing, the civilized way.  But, of course they won't, civilized is not their forte.  Since there is freedom of expression in France and in Denmark, topless photos of public figures will continue to be published and satirical cartoons of Mohammed (like those of Jesus and Moses - I'd like to see a satirical cartoon of all three) will continue to be printed, at least until the Muslims take over.  In the meantime we should not let the Islamic forces or the Royal Palace spoil our fun.