When Dutch filmmaker and political conservative, Geert Wilders, launched his anti-islamist film, Fitna on
the Internet last week, a storm of controversy ensued, and not just in
the Muslim world. More than 2 million people watched the film in just
the first three
hours. Soon after a flood of criticism, Network Solutions and LiveLeak, the domain server and the site
hosting the film removed it fearing backlash. Now the film is up again on Google and You Tube. 
Wilder's film, like the Danish cartoons
that sparked international concerns in 2005, challenges not only the
value of free speech, but also the use of the Internet to exploit fear
and spread hate. Without the Internet, the response to Fitna
would be limited by its distribution to smaller audiences in the
Netherland. Not only would it take viewers energy to attend a
screening, but they would also risk being identified in public as
individuals interested in the content of the film. The Internet makes
it easy for people to become exposed to views on all sides of the
political spectrum.
Should Google and YouTube be held responsible for removing potentially offensive content? Peter Hoekstra in the Wall Street Journal observes:
Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.
Despite all of the things I detest about the film, and there are many, I do not believe that censorship will spare the world from such divisiveness and hatred. Those of us that believe in the freedom of expression must defend even the hate-mongers such as Wilders. We must defend his right to express himself, because if we retreat from our values out of fear, we risk living in a society of absolutists -- where there is only one truth -- the truth of those holding the purse strings or the gun.
As Hoekstra notes, "I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society." But free speech has always come at price.