Free speech and religious faith - we need to make compromises

I use the word “seemingly” because both are in fact a “faith”, as the belief in freedom of expression is a faith in humanity and also seemingly as absolute and non-negotiable as religious belief itself.
Subsequent protests in defence of the sacred nature of Mohammed in the Muslim world, including one in Niger which ended with 10 people dead, as well as demonstrations in defence of freedom of expression, characterised by the expression “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) and the march of world leaders and over a million people in Paris won’t solve differences – it just reconfirms the stark separation between two sets of values. Here’s what can happen from here on:
First, the two groups can try to convince each other as to why their values are better and hope to “convert” them. Those who stand for freedom of expression can try to convince people who are outraged with Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons that guaranteeing freedom of expression is a indispensable foundation for a free and democratic society. The other group, mostly Muslims, can also try to convince the others that a line must be drawn when it comes to freedom to mock their prophet, whom they consider as holy.
This is very difficult as both sides “faithfully” consider such attitudes fundamental to their values and identities.
Second, both sides can try to compromise and accommodate one another, although where the point of concession lies is vague at best. Some may ask where to put limits on free speech. While “do-harm” speech is easier to spot and ban, and hate speech is either defended by libertarians or banned by some states, (and cartoons by Charlie Hebdo magazines are definitely not hate speech from this writer’s perspective; I also defend hate speech as a necessary evil to guarantee free speech) should possible limits include anything that harms the feelings of someone or followers of some religions, cults or leaders? If so, this would lead to a very long list of what cannot be expressed, and would eventually make the notion of free speech an oxymoron because somewhere, some people would always have a reason for not liking what someone else has expressed.
Third, both sides can try to use force to subdue, coerce or make the other fearful as a result. This destructive path is where the world is currently heading, unfortunately.
As the clash of civilisations continues, it is hoped that both the supporters of maximum freedom of speech and the holiness of Islam work to be as empathetic, peaceful and respectful of each other’s differing values as possible.
The past is littered with changes brought about by coercion and war. Enough people have died as a result and we, collectively, as members of the global community, owe it to posterity to sort out the deep differences of values and beliefs in a less bloody way and in a more empathetic fashion – rather than insisting that it’s my way or the highway.