When a Danish publication printed offense and racist political cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (saw), several Arab ambassadors to Denmark publicly called on the Dane Prime Minister Rasmussen to issue a public apology. He refused, and appropriately so.

In a free society, the government is not responsible for the press. To apologize is to accept that a government is a parent of the press, and such an acceptance is a slippery slope to limiting freedom of speech. If the government is responsible for what the press writers, then why can’t the government limit speech that would embarrass the head of state? Messer Rasmussen was right to rebuff the demands of Arab ambassadors who, given their own country’s human rights records, are in no position to lecture anyone. And nations like Saudi Arabia have anti-Semitic writings in some of their papers. If the Saudi ambassador to Denmark is offended by hate speech, he should lecture his press first and foremost.

Messer Rasmussen was right in standing up for free speech. But the question has to be asked: does the West defend free speech with no limits or does it practice selective free speech? For many Westerns that answer is clearly the latter.

Many Western government expressed outrage that Muslims who ask for a public apology when their faith is offended. I would join in that outrage. No one has an entitlement to live free of offense. But the West is hypocritical, because they will defend free speech when the hurt party is Muslim but when the hurt party is another group; these same Westerns will righteously defend limits.

And in an effort to underline their support for free speech when Muslims are offended, many Western publications made it a point of proud to republishing the offending cartoons. Mind you, they did not just write an editorial in support of their Danish colleagues, but decided to actually reprint racist cartoons. Do they partake in the same practice to defend speech that offends, say, Jews? As we will see the answer is NO.

Months after the whole Danish cartoon controversy, a admittedly grotesque neo-Nazi, so-called historian David Irving was convicted for Holocaust denial by an Austrian court and sentence to three years in prison (his sentence was later suspended, but he did serve months in prison). Holocaust denial is perverse, but in a free society the denial of a fact should not be a punishable offense. On a practical matter, why let people who deny well-documented fact to pose as martyrs for like-minded fanatics? But practical is beside the point and as should be subdued for questions of moral principle. Speech, no matter how offense, should never been punishable short of explicit threats or libel. But Western nations have decided that certain speech when offending certain parties should be banned. Not only is Holocaust denial an offense, but France has also made it a criminal offense to dispute the claim that what happened to Ottoman Armenians was a “genocide” even though this, unlike the Holocaust, is a question of debate among respectable historians. Bernard Lewis, professor of emeritus at Princeton, who wrote a definitive book on modern Turkey, for instance, opposes the term “genocide.” But the French parliament decided that speech was no longer accept if it did not concur with the Armenian lobby. Did the same European publications who reprinted the Danish cartoon on the grounds of free speech, then reprint the writings of Irving or Lewis on the grounds of free speech when European government were using the legal code to restrict said speech? No. That is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. These people do not shy away from re-offending Muslims, but when other parties are involved they may write an editorial but do not subject their readers to painful words. Selective free speech.

Duke University’s campus paper adopted the same tactic during the Danish cartoon controversy. But would the “Dukester” - that isn’t the real name - ever reprint anti-Semitic cartoon in defense of free speech?

Our Scandinavian friends have now provided us with a new newspaper scandal. Sweden’s leading daily Aftonbladet recently ran a report which claimed that the New Jersey Rabbis recently arrested for selling kidneys on the Black Market were part of an Israeli plot which involved the removal of the organs of Palestinian children killed by the occupying IDF. The story is false and deeply angered the Israeli government because not only does it falsely malign the IDF (there are enough facts to do that without resorting to fabrications), but also because it is very close to the anti-Semitic libel that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make mitzvah bread.

The Israeli government condemned the article. But it wasn’t only, the Swedish embassy in Israel duly followed. That was uncalled for. As I previously wrote, in free societies government have no explaining to do for what their private press does. If government accept responsibility, then with responsibility will eventually come restrictions. When government gets involved, its controls usually follow. Fortunately, the Swedish government removed the apology posted on its Tel Aviv embassy web-page.

This has angered the Israeli government which has called for the government to reissue a condemnation. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser Uzi Arad spoke with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt to pointedly make such a request.

An Israeli official, identified as a senior diplomat, was quoted in the Jerusalem Post, “It is very disappointing that our sensitivities are a non-issue for the Swedish government.”

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy stated that Sweden was using “freedom of the press” as a mere “excuse” to not condemn the article.

And, typically, when Israelis do not get their way they resort to the last refugee of a Zionist: shamelessly using the Holocaust. Israel’s far-right Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who wants to ethnically cleanse the country’s 1.3 million Arab citizens, stated that the Swedish government’s refusal to apologize “reminds us of Sweden’s conduct during World War II when it also did not intervene.” In the myopic mind of Lieberman, which believes the entire world is anti-Semitic, defending free speech and inaction during the Holocaust are the same thing.

Quick separate note: Is the constant cynical use of the Holocaust for political purposes not an offense to the memory of the 6 million Jews who were killed? I think so.

The words of the Israeli government are quite outstanding. They are behaving exactly akin to the aforementioned Arab ambassadors. Why should the sensitivities of Israelis be so much an issue for the Swedish government that it should condemn a private paper? And “freedom of the press” is not an “excuse” to prevent government intervention in the press, but the whole point of a press corps in a free society. It is not the responsibility of the Swedish government to condemn conspiracy theories.

Again, fortunately the Swedish government has continued to rebuke the Israeli demands, the latter’s sensitivity notwithstanding.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated, “No one can demand that the Swedish government violate its own constitution. Freedom of speech is an indispensable part of Swedish society.”

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt added, “Freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition. And that strong protection has served our democracy and our country well. If I were engaged in editing all strange debate contributions in different media, I probably wouldn’t have time to do much else.” In an interview with Swedish press he properly stated, “It’s Aftonbaldet’s job to take responsibility for what Aftonbladet publishes.”

What the Israeli government is asked is no different from the demand of Arab ambassadors. Then Western and American press were so offended by the demands of Arab ambassadors that they reprinted the Danish cartoons. Will Western papers now, at least, write editorials in defense of Swedish free speech and criticize the arrogant demands of Israeli officials who debase freedom of speech by calling it a mere “excuse”?

Where is Duke University to condemn the Israeli government’s entitlement?

Time will tell, but don’t hold your breath. At least for the American press.