There is no such thing as a free press ... yet.

The now-infamous printing of offensive cartoons in Danish newspapers does not represent a failure of democracy, a call to more confined publishing standards.

If anything, the fact that they were printed is a victory of democracy, if democracy is still something to be desired and sought after.

This has not, however, been the reaction people have had to the cartoons.

"The freedom of the press is one that all journalists should hold dear to their hearts and notebooks: it is a vital part of any working democracy and should be defended in the event of a realistic threat to its survival", wrote Dave, NBC, in an opinion peice for CUP.

"The justification for publishing them delivered by the newspaper in question was that it was their democratic right to do so."

Do we need less democracy in newspapers, then? No -- in fact, I'd say we need more.

What would more democracy have done? It would have made racism less evident, groupthink less contrite, and the decision to publish possibly inflammatory cartoons really about free speech, rather than about childishly pushing boundaries.

Not only did the worldwide reaction to the cartoons get people interested and involved -- it highlighted our own complete ignorance of cultural divides, and the absolute failure of journalism to bridge these divides appropriately. And while I'll admit it is unfortunate that it came at the expense of Muslims, a large (and don't forget, newsworthy!) segment of society, critics must also take into account that the vast majority of the people protesting the cartoons are quite safely located in the Western world, safe from any preclusions of democracy. Safe, largely, from any reason to understand why the cartoons would be offensive -- or why they would be published in the first place.

We're not used to controversy. In fact, Western "democracy" is, arguably, already a dead dogma -- by forcing discourse, through increased democratization of the press, this wouldn't happen.

"The Danish editors' assumption that Muslims living in countries that have not undergone the democratic upheavals long past in most Western countries will immediately embrace one of the underlying principles associated with a free democracy is, needless to say, a gross oversight," Dave wrote.

Well, not quite: publishing something that disagrees with the political and spiritual belief of another group, even -- perhaps especially -- if that group is in the international majority is not sneaky or underhanded. It's not a potshot at the lack of democracy in the Muslim world. It was an assumption, yes, and an egregious one at that: that a free democracy should have a press that prints things that piss people off. Controversy, I know, is out of style. But does that mean that publishing the cartoons was cowardly and underhanded -- or is it just a painfully clear delineation that there is not enough cross-cultural dialogue?

More importantly, by forcing discourse, the cartoons may have spurred a few people to care more about the role of the media, as decrepit as it may be. That newspaper was not "feeding the goat" with that coverage, they were contributing something. It's easy to talk about the ethics of what should be printed, but it's much harder to reconcile that with what doesn't get printed, and the eventual proceess by which journalism becomes as stale, tired, effortless and useless as what is read in the Canadian media, particularly on this subject.

"At the very least, it strikes of a lack of understanding as to why freedom of expression exists, at the worst: gross intolerance and hate speech," wrote Dave.

Did the Danish paper do a social good by publishing cartoons offensive to billions? Of course not. But the fact remains that freedom of expression has been, and will continue to be a social good -- even in this case, where not only was intolerance presented in a gross fashion, but it was also explored, and protested, and It was gross, yes; intolerant? very. But was it hate? No.

Freedom of expression at its worst is self-censorship. It's selective editing, it's a world in which people not only express only what they want to express, but are so safely entrenched in one perspective, entirely possible today, that they are unable to think critically and assess the cartoon, and the rationale for printing it, for themselves.

The world's problems are not going to be solved by selectively editing what people have access to. Sometimes, we need to be confronted to see the power that democracy, when it works, can wield.

That's the funny thing about a democratic media: when it's good, it's good. The myth of the free press -- that you can call what passes for a free press "free," or even "relevant" -- has been busted wide open, for the good of us all. It hurts, and you know what? Democracy hurts. If it's something the Western world is so keen to spread, then we'd better start actively participating in it ourselves.

Selective editing? No thanks. As long as democracy (or lack thereof) is an acceptable excuse to intervene in a country's policies, or a reason to condemn a country, it must equally be used to make people aware of all sides of the story. This one, though ugly, is true, and the truth hurts -- but it's worth biting into sometimes, regardless.