His retort was essentially two pronged.
I.) Your stance is hypocritical
A.) The Janet Jackson Tittie Expo at the Superbowl
B.) The Response to those Who Criticize the WMD in Iraq Claims.
C.) Blasphemous Depictions of Christ Get Similar treatment.
Points A & C are legitimate issues for discussion. However, all three are attempts to deflect the discussion away from the central point. The second point is silliness pure and simple. Critics are themselve open to counter-criticism. I don't recall violence being threatened to those who disputed claims of Iraqi WMD (which recall was a claim which most every intelligence agency in the world believed to be the case). Those who criticize must be prepared to be criticized, what is that saying about those who live glass houeses?
BTW, Pete's note about Greece wannting to prosecute a man for a cartoon ridiculing Jesus Christ is well taken and I would urge Greece to repeal the law in play here. This is the proper response, not to excuse oppression because of oppression elsewhere.
II.) The Cartoons Are Offensive.
Yes they are. Look over the left of my blog, see Piglet? That too is offensive to Muslims. My Christianity is offensive to many Muslims, my taste for bratwurst and Old Style is offensive to Muslims. Am I too stop indulging myself in those tastes for fear of offending Muslims?
Mr. Peter Towers of Sweden, where does it stop?
One last comment. Yes, the people of Iran and Syria all look poor and impoverished. However, they are not that bad off. They all look pretty vigorous to me, maybe they don't have a TV in every room in their house but poor they are not.
As much as I detest Larry Flynt he sum it up very well. Freedom of speech and expression are worthless if they do not include the freedom to offend.