Cartoons sometimes involve challenging subjects that provoke a great deal of public debate. This is particularly true when their subject matter relates to integral characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation. An example of this is a series of cartoons published by the Jyllands-Posten daily newspaper in Denmark.

This series of cartoons parodied the Islamic faith and were deeply offensive to a variety of Islamic peoples. Several Islamic activists responded by asking for a retraction by the paper and demanding censorship of the cartoons. Many of those protests where peaceful, yet some of them also turned violent as hatred burned. Regardless of the cartoon's offensive nature, violence should never be a response to cartoons.

During the September of 2005, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of a Danish daily paper Jyllands-Posten commissioned a series of cartoons relating to Islam and particularly Islamic fundamentalism. He wanted to question the taboos of Islam in Danish society and the unwillingness of people to criticize the religion of Islam. Most cartoonists were unwilling to draw such cartoons fearing the public backlash and possible legal consequences. Eventually on September 30th, the cartoons were published. Within days, there was a significant reaction both domestically and internationally. Dozens of letters were sent to Jyllands-Posten in protest to these offensive cartoons.

October 14th marked a peaceful protest by 5,000 Muslims and others in front of the paper's headquarters. Three days later, Egyptian paper El Fagr republished the cartoons prompting a number of Muslim countries' ambassadors to request a meeting with Danish officials. The embassy in Denmark declined, arguing that freedom of press prohibited them from getting involved. In following months, protests turned more violent. Denmark's embassies in Syria and Lebanon were set on fire, and 139 people were killed in violent protests. Violence sprang up across the Muslim world.

This violence was unacceptable. People who found these cartoons so patently offensive had the right to protest, they did not have the right to injure others or destroy property. These cartoons attacked people's identity, but they were only drawings on paper. They themselves did not cause violence. In the immediate aftermath of the cartoons' there was no violence. Yet, over time people's anger at the values that these cartoons attacked caused a few activists to engage in protests that were violent. Violence may be a sensible reaction to some grave injustices or in response to other violence, but these cartoons alone should not have provoked such an reaction.

There are many peaceful reactions that could serve as sensible critiques to these cartoons. The pointed critique of these cartoons in El Fagr Newspaper was the most sensible reaction. By critiquing the cartoons the public was informed about the false stereotypes these cartoons perpetuated. Likewise, the peaceful protest in front of the headquarters of Jyllands-Posten helped to educate the public about the deeply offensive nature of these cartoons. More offensive, but peaceful was the Iranian newspapers exploring the other side of the issue by publishing anti-semitic cartoons. With all these options to educate the public on what was wrong with these cartoons, there was no reason to destroy property or hurt individuals.