An obscure newspaper in a small country commissions and prints a series of cartoons. The cartoons depict the leader of one of the world's major religious faiths.

Mal Fletcher

Leaving aside the controversial subject matter, they're not particularly good. Even some of the artists, who are paid the equivalent of just £80 each for their contributions, agree on that.

Publication of the cartoons provokes some local opposition, followed by disquiet in a few other countries. Four months after their publication, however, two more prominent international newspapers reproduce the cartoons and this time the effect is explosive.

Embassies in foreign countries are attacked and torched; sometimes violent demonstrations fill news reports around the world. Prime Ministers are pulled into the ensuing discussion about freedom of speech versus religious tolerance.

It all sounds like the plot for a second-rate novel, but of course it is not.

This week, we've seen and heard an explosion of vitriolic rhetoric and violent action in many nations -- all as a result of cartoons first printed in a Danish newspaper. Sometimes, the truth really is scarier than fiction.

There are two major issues involved with the publication of the now infamous cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The first is the issue of freedom of speech.

French and German newspaper editors defended their decision to reproduce the cartoons. They were, in their minds, making a stand for this important social freedom. They went to press knowing full well that they may be stirring up a hornet's nest -- not just in the Middle East, where the cartoons have caused deep offence and led to violence against Danish and Norwegian people and property, but at home in Europe.

Freedom of speech is one of the great cornerstones of modern liberal democracy. The French philosopher Voltaire famously said that whilst he may disagree with the views of an opponent, he would vehemently defend the man's right to express those views.

This right is so central to the interface between government and the governed that any attempt to dilute it in law quickly raises protests. This happened recently with the British government's bill regarding the incitement to religious hatred -- a bill opposed by law Lords, religious leaders and entertainers alike; a bill eventually thrown down.

The right to freedom of speech is vital, but it is not an absolute right without limits. It is a right which, like others, comes joined-at-the-hip with social responsibilities.

We may live in a free society, but none of us can say whatever we like without consequences. Freedom of speech is not a right which overrides every other right in society; neither does it negate the need for civility among people or respect for differing views.

I might think all kinds of things, but not give voice to them because they will damage other people or tear at the fabric of society - a society which affords me the right to speak in the first place.

The second issue at stake is the freedom to demonstrate. This has been exercised on a large scale by some Muslims in the West, even in cities which had not seen the published cartoons -- London, for example.

Again, the right to demonstrate is a key foundation in modern democracies. It is not always an automatic right in the Middle East, or in countries which do not share Western views on human rights. In fact, in some of these areas demonstrations quickly turn to riots because peaceful protest is either frowned upon or brutally trodden down by officialdom. In the end, people turn violent and the mob mentality takes over partly because it seems the only way they can voice their views without being overcome.