The paper argued that, while the cartoons constituted hateful speech, they did not constitute hate speech, and the commissioning editor was thus right to exercise his freedom in publishing them.
The argument centred around intent. Hate speech, it argued, was characterised by an incitement to violence or harm; if this was present in the intent, it was hate speech. If this was not intended, it was merely hateful speech - irrespective of 139 dead in its unintended wake.
Which sounds a bit like being found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder - "Your Honour, I really didn't intend to kill the victim. I merely pressed the gun against his temple and pulled the trigger - I had no idea that death could result from my actions."
Freedoms are wonderful things. But they are not absolute, and they come with responsibilities. The Danish editor might, on looking back, not have any regrets about his decision, but the families of 139 people who died as a result, almost certainly do.