Violent responses to a series of 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad blurred the line between freedom of expression and respect for religion.

In September, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten enlisted cartoonists to depict Muhammad in an attempt to address the censorship of Muslim issues by the media. The controversy grew when a Norwegian newspaper ran the cartoons again in January, followed shortly thereafter by several other European newspapers.

The most controversial of the cartoons features the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with the Islamic creed scrolled across the bottom of the cartoon.

The nature of the cartoons, coupled with the fact that some assert Islamic teachings forbid the depiction of Muhammad as a measure against idolatry, has outraged Muslims around the world.

But what is so outrageous about editorial cartoons showing the difficulty a Danish writer had finding artists to draw Muhammad for a children's book explaining Islamic religion? If anything, the illustrations were meant to address a very timely issue rather than demean an entire religion.

In a sick twist of irony, protests have resulted in the deaths of several people in Afghanistan and the destruction of the Danish Consulate in Lebanon, and the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Syria, according to a Feb. 6 New York Times article.

But why respond to the cartoons with violence?

Aren't these protesters, in essence, showing there may be a degree of truth in the Danish cartoons? Acts of violence serve no purpose, especially when the Danish government wasn't responsible for the printing of the cartoons -- Jyllands-Posten was.

This situation could have several far-reaching effects. In the future, news media organizations may censor their editorial content more heavily to prevent another round of widespread fury. We can already see the effects in relation to world trade, as the Iranian commerce minister has stopped trade with Denmark in response to the cartoons.

But were the newspapers wrong when they published the cartoons? Freedom of expression walks a precarious line, and sometimes news organizations stumble across that line without thinking of the possible consequences. You may agree or disagree with the decision to publish the cartoons, but one cannot dispute the fact that the loss of lives is extreme and unwarranted, and that media outlets will now wonder if making people question their beliefs is really worth all the potential repercussions.