Tortious Interference and the Caricature Case

One should not take liberties with the freedom of speech. Each right has its own set of duties. I have the right to drive from A to B. But however I must attend to others. It would be inhuman to drive from A to B and kill people in the course of the journey. So it is with writing and speaking. For example, I may wish to call Flemming Rose the editor responsible for the caricatures and a new book which have created so much tension in the world and deaths, an asshole. Of course this is offensive. I expect he might be hurt by that. If he is. Then surely that might signal to him that words do hurt. Of course they do. They can cause people even to commit suicide. Perhaps Rose is hardened to all of this, as he is a journalist, and daily at the receiving end of nasty comments. However, we also saw that when someone threatened to do physical injury to the leader of the Danish People's Party, even though it was in the form of an email, he was found culpable. There are numerous examples of where we must take care of what we say, other wise face criminal or civil action. Words and images do harm. I believe that the publication of the caricatures was calculated to do harm. It was offensive to the Moslems in Denmark, many of whom are disadvantaged. This is equivalent of making fun of the homeless or the disabled. While one has the right to do that - one also has special duties towards them. We are all mature now, and understand that when we make fun of someone, we must consider their status, and more importantly whether it will harm them personally. Those are duties. The laws of Denmark and the EU were exhausted in trying to find a means of preventing the publication, and compensation for the harm. There were serious problems with the laws of blasphemy - they were in the balance more harmful than good. Now, in the light of all the trouble which arose from the first publication of the caricatures, I would like to argue for an unlikely legal instrument for preventing further publication of Rose's book. It is tortious inference. Here we see the publishing house, and Rose, as tortfeasors, "who intentionally damage the business relations" with Moslem nations. During the height of the response to the first publication of the caricatures, Danish companies lost millions of kroner in revenue. This economic loss was made public, and it is argued that Rose and his publishing house, know that the publication of the latest book will surely damage the business relations. Even so, they went ahead, believing the right to publish is more important than the harm it causes, whether it be mental, physiological or in thise case economic. Now, if the companies who stand to lose money were to act, they could obtain an injunction to prevent further publication on the grounds that they might incurr severe economic losses if it were to go ahead. They could take it to the EU courts - who may be willing to support such a measure.