You Can Say To-may-to as Long as I Can Say To-mah-to

There are folks for and against nearly everything that can be conceived.

Raging debate is at the heart of our modern world. The argument can be as mild and reasoned as the correct pronounciation of Linux, the free Unix-type operating system; as piquant and lively as where to find the best fish tacos in Key West; as spicy and spirited as America's political parties' differing stance on foreign policy issues.

For every person convinced that red M&M's are indeed the best of the bunch, there's someone else equally as sure that the green M&M's have the superlative ingredient.

The point is, everyone has an opinion. It could be deeply held or simple unthinking adherence; it could be defended by citing objective writing, or in some instances by going directly to the source to get a definitive answer - often, it's simply what a person believes inside to be true.

Most of the time, in the end the combatants agree to disagree in public, meanwhile continuing to cherish their own private opinion.

This is a small and simplified example of free speech. The right to state your opinions out loud, and to discuss, write and publish an opinion with which the audience may likely not agree.

The flip side of free speech is to understand that you may hold an intensely crappy opinion; a hierarchy of market value is definitely at work, and if your train of thought is sloppy or out and out craptastic, chances are you won't get a very wide hearing. But when you step up onto the soapbox you take that chance.

If you, A, think that cartoons drawn by B and published in B's country under rules of free speech (to choose a wild and completely un-topical example), disrespectfully lampoon one of your most deeply held religious beliefs, is in bad taste and isn't particularly funny, that's your opinion. B may hold a differing opinion - not that the cartoons are that funny, but that B has the right of free speech to publish them.

A does not have the right to decide what B should either believe, think, write about or publish. A does not have the right to dictate rules to the free press in B's country.

A has a selection of ways in which to confront B. Even though A is extremely upset, under the rules governing free speech A's actions should not alter B's practices even if A stages riots, killings, burnings of government buildings and businesses or flags, none of which are considered civilized methods of confrontation.

There are several ways in which B can acknowledge the difference of opinion - B may issue an apology and claim momentary insensibility. B can fall back onto the rules of free speech and let the natural hierarchy decide; after all, B could be espousing a rather crappy opinion.

I believe A should just suck it up and accept that the entire world doesn't share its particular view.

But that's my opinion.