[raverbashing]

Well, that's part of the freedom of speech.

If you can't say things that will offend people YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

It's that simple

And I'd MUCH rather live in a world where we can offend Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Cientologists, etc

[Volundr]

Sure, and they could, and nothing (legal) would happen to them. Thus freedom of speech is preserved. They also however, have the freedom to choose NOT to share these images, which is what they have done here.

Much like I have the right to tell someone they are ugly. I find people like me better though when I exercise some restraint.

[raverbashing]

Sure, and you also have the freedom to not opt for the pat-down at the airport and go for the scanner...

[DanBC]

You can say them. You could chose not to say them for the same reason you chose not print anti-semitic cartoons or similar.

Freedom of speech is about governments restricting what citizens can say, and that hasn't happened here.

[raverbashing]

While the definition of freedom of speech is certainly government related, it is also influenced by external retaliation possibilities.

And in a modern society those retaliations should be strictly legal in nature (which unfortunately is often restrictive, but ok, it's part of the game)

Edit: wording

[kristofferR]

No, freedom of speech is about not restricting what people dare to say - it doesn't matter if it's the government or the terrorists that restrict it.