The geographical boundary of freedom of speech

Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten writes "'We were not treating the Prophet any differently from anyone else in Denmark'"

This statement itself has a problem and says a lot about the nature of the issue. Problem is Prophet is not a citizen of the Denmark. So his statement does not to people in Arabia or elsewhere.

Flemmings statement has clear christian undertone because,
if the statement has to apply one needs to apply Jesus's statement 'Do onto others what you would do to yourself'. Here we see a failure scenario of that dogma.

Danish press is doing to outside Islamic people exactly what they would have done to their citizens. What if Islamic countries would have done to Flemming Rose what they would have done to a blasphemist in this country?

The underlying problem here is everybody in a country is bound by a mutual agreement. This agreement varies in content country by country. Freedom of speech is an part of this agreement in Denmark but not in, say, Saudi Arabia. Also this agreement is not there between people of Denmark and people of Saudi Arabia. So this row is about thrusting christian,secular values in Islamic world.

In these scenarios, understanding what something would do to others(as opposed to what it would do to yourself) does make lot of sense.