(Repost story to correct incoherent post of last night.)
I did some "freedom of speech"-based indignant rambling, but after a good think, linking to various offensive pictures and labeling them "Muhammed" or whatever, or toothless proclamations of "I ain't scairt of no Islamic soreheads!" or whatever knee-jerk cranky atheist crap I was on about wasn't really the response that this sort of crap merits.
The proper response would be to maturely express sorrow that some people feel so insecure that they need to answer a satire or criticism not even directed at them personally, with violence. An attack against someone who has offered offense is an act of rage, not a rebuttal, and it is weak. Religions and cultures are human--and humans aren't above criticism. The criticism is either just, or it isn't, and while it is true that tone matters, especially if one is meaning to persuade, sometimes an image, even a provacative or offensive one, can have the effect of jarring the viewer into a new understanding of a relationship--accomplishing the same effect with a sharp edge. If a person is offended, they should ask themselves what they find offensive--is it that the criticism itself in unfair or inapt? Or is it just that they don't like being criticized or the tone of it.
It's more mature and healthy, I think, to just say "Fuck you" when something deliberately offends.
So fuck these people who want to see people hurt or dead just because they have hurt feelings about pictures. Fuck them very much.