There's uproar in Japan over those islands too, so it might get ugly here. I could not imagine Japan and China going to war against each other now, it's just mental. 

While, Russia who knows? Anything could happen there?

But, it's possible 2012 is really a major turning point for the world, rather than the end of it.

Anyway, i don't know why some European embassies were attacked in the Middle East, if it's over that film, it was all to do with America

China hates Japan, because of the whole massacre that happened so long ago. I was actually kidding about the 2012 thing, lol. Thats the point, a lot of the protests and the anger are being exploited by groups possibly linked to the Taliban. They attack embassies and make it look like it's anger. 

LOL! the title implys otherwise :P

On topic, I have two things to say...

Firstly, this freedom of speech excuse is getting lame. It's being used to justify people saying or doing (movies, cartoons, etc...) whatever they want, having nearly ABSOLUTE FREEDOM in doing so. People have freedom to drive their cars as they wish. However, if someone were to abuse it by going through red lights, overspeeding, driving recklessly, causing an accident, or endangering the lives of others, then that someone will be fined, have his driving license taken away, or jailed. One could imagine the chaos that would befall any transportation system if people had absolute freedom in driving.

Likewise, depicting or accusing someone to be a rapist, a pedophile, or a murderer, especially wrongly or without any basis, will definately hurt that someones beloved ones (parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends, etc) and you will most likely be sued for by them for that! How would someone feel if their mother was depicted as a prostitue, or their father as a rapist when they're not? How would billions of muslims feel if their beloved prophet and #1 role model was depicted badly in the mass media? Many seem to confuse between that and criticism.

Secondly, 2 wrongs don't make a right! Responding to someone that punched you by shooting and killing him may get you a life sentence. Taking vengence by destroying public property, rioting, and killing will not fix anything. It will only convice the other side that these "Muslims" are violent, intolerent, and uncivilized and they will insist on making more cartoons, more movies, and more depictions, and their products will look believable. Both sides will be stuck in a never ending cycle of hate and intolerence.

It's quite sad because when the prophet and his followers were met with violence, torture, intolerence, exile, betrayal, killings, and several battles, and then he had the chance to take revenge and get even he instead chose mercy and forgiveness. It would be quite useful if many Muslims these days actually took him as a role model.

Well said. You don't have 'absolute freedom' in any areas of your life, be it of speech, of movement, of assembly, of association, of business etc etc. Some people seem to avoid the parts of law that are not suitable for them and try to establish their statements. They don't believe that they can be wrong, that they can be the one who caused some problem. The hatred, chaos and racial problems exist because of these few people.

You don't have the right to drive recklessly, that's where you're wrong. Property rights trump all, and the owner of the roads sets the rules. Don't follow them, and you infringe property rights, and face the according punishments.

Actually, I do have the right to say all those things about your mother and father... so long as I'm not in your property (and you've told me not to), or I'm in somebody else's property who has also told me not to. What you're essentially referring to are the defamation laws that babuks argued earlier. These are an infringement on rights. Here's why:

Your basis for these laws is that you don't want to harm your reputation, or the reputation of your mother, or whoever. What is a reputation? Do you own your reputation? No. A reputation is held in the thoughts of the community, they are about you, but they are not yours. Ergo, you have no right to control them.

In a world without defamation laws, people's reputations will be even more secure, why? Because anybody could say any old shit. I could call your father a rapist until the cows came home... nobody's going to believe me unless I have substantial proof; because they would hear shit like this all the time.

I say the 2012 thing because there are so many protests, everywhere. Not just the middle east, china and russia, but there was protest in chicago (teacher's strike) and catalonia in spain. Catalonia wants to be a country now and so does Quebec in Canada. I don't think there has been so much anger in public before. (I don't believe in the end of the world crap, but all these events, the last few seem to be leading up to something big, a huge change in society. 

But back to the point, China and Japan just hate each other now, and it's probably to do with Japan's imperial past, as Japan were so evil to the Chinese and Koreans, those memories just resurfaced for the Chinese, over some stupid island which is nearer to China than Japan. The relationship between Japan and China, seems to be similiar to the English-French ones. We just hate each other for some reason 

I wasn't talking about having a right in doing so or not. What I'm trying to say is that one could rightly defame others, but if he abuses "Freedom of Speech" and is wrong or baseless, then he should be punished similar to how abusing traffic rules will get you fined, or how having your dog bark all night and annoy your neighbors will get you a law suit.

It is a harmful act. It doesn't just harm feelings, but also could provoke hate which leads to violence or cause financial damage as someone may lose a job, for instance, even due to baseless defaming. Their should be rules or borderlines that aren't too loose or too restrictive to "freedom of speech", but freedom should NEVER be absolute or without laws that ensure others aren't harmed.

I've read some article online (from an Australian report) that said that the only way to stop the recurrence of these events would be to constrain the Freedom of Speech. Why can't we just throw the movie director in prison, fine him, or just punish him (not physically). Punishing everyone for a ignorant Florida Pastor, a Film director, and a large group of Muslims is pretty stupid. Isn't very American.

Actually what they should do... is realase about 3dozen vidoes like that a week until certain muslim's learn to chill the hell out and get used to it.

Just like what happens with Christianity.

Look here's the bottom line...someone made a film. It's inflamatory and disgusting, but it represents the view of one person. We in America believe in (I question this as of late) individual liberty, which translates to free speech, which means we are well aware of the double edged sword we carry by supporting it. That means this persons right to be offensive supercedes the publics right to be offended. If the Arab world wants justice, condemn the individual, not the rights of the people in that nation.

There's a huge distinction between terrorists and Muslims (or people of any faith for that matter.) You surely must see that sir. People gathered in the streets and protested a film that offended them. I commend that action. That is rational expression of outrage, in which case I would imagine that if I were Muslim I would be outraged. But several people comitted an act of murder, which is not something that should be tolerated by any reasonable person. When has it ever been acceptable that speech be turned into violence?