On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, cb at lim.nl posted an article from The Independent (UK) pretty well described in the subject line:
This is kind of a fascinating devotion to liberal principles. This guy has been protected by state bodyguards for years, Rushdie like, but the state feels powerless to influence his behavior apparently on the grounds of unseemliness. And he himself calls for the banning of the Koran on the basis that it inspires violence -- an absurd demand, but one which on the face of it would seem to make banning his film on the same grounds seem like something he couldn't possibly bitch about. But it's impossible for us to consider, on both principled and pragmatic grounds. Although admittedly it's also not work thinking about because it's simply impossible to do nowadays.
Mind you, I'm for these principles, and I'm for upholding them even in extremity. But I somehow I do think providing armed protection gives you the right to dictate to your protectee that he not make your task harder. Even the President of the US is ordered around by his Secret Service sometimes and told what he can't do.
Michael