Earlier this year (shortly after the Muhammad cartoons), Saskia Sassen wrote that in a time of war, "free speech" is a contested issue. Indeed, this condition has made us brought in to "a new frontier-zone."
Frontier-zones are spaces of imbrication. They are not lines where civilisations clash. They are areas of hybridity. What liberal democracies are experiencing is the limits of their closure and of the presumption that the world should like the way they look.So what are the boundaries of "free speech" and "hate speech"? Even in the U.S., these boundaries have been defined only recently, and "through struggle." Still, double standards apply. Masoud Shojai, head of the Iranian Cartoonist Association said, "They can write whatever they please about our Prophet (Muhammad, PBUH). But when one person questioned about the Hollocaust, they are fined, even imprisoned." Republika reported that David Irving, an English historian, and Frederick Toben, an Australian hostorian, have had to stay in the cells for being skeptical about the hollocaust.
Many discussions about this issue, such as shown here, just proves that a particular issue may be a laughing matter for one person (a "light" issue), while at the same time it's hurtful (a "serious" issue) for another person.
For me, intentionally hurting anyone's feelings and beliefs (not just in terms of religion, but also race, gender, etc) is a mean act. In this case, I consider the anti-Islam, anti-Semit, anti-gay, white supremacists, and other fundamentalists mean. But imposing a double standard to cover one's own fundamentalism, that's hypocricy, and it may well be meaner.