After Danish authorities uncovered an assassination plot against the cartoonist who created the most notorious prophet-depicting illustration — one where his turban is shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse — Jyllands-Posten, Berlingske Tidende and Politiken were among the publications that reprinted that very cartoon the next day.

The latest outbreak in the controversy looks like the same situation that first appeared in 2005.

Much like before, the republication was considered a matter of principle — a necessary exercise in freedom of speech and press. And again, thousands around the world are angry and offended by prophet depictions that are forbidden in Islam.

Since the republication, Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places have spoken out against the cartoons — again — and some have threatened to sue the newspapers. On Saturday, thousands of students in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, gathered to show their outrage, some burning Danish flags and repeating anti-Netherlands and anti-American chants.

It all picked up right where it left off, though the latest news hasn’t stirred up the same level of media hubbub it did when this began. Perhaps, as in the case of other polarizing issues, there are few viewpoints and only so much fist-pounding that can be done. And it’s all been done before.

There was no resolution then. No consensus or lessons learned. Indeed, there’s no way to completely resolve differences based on fundamental beliefs. That’s why this same issue is doomed to repeat itself. And in the future, maybe publications like Jyllands-Posten won’t mess up royally.

There’s no doubt that Muslims and non-Muslims are genuinely offended by such depictions, or at least disagree with Jyllands-Posten for printing the cartoons. When looking for ways to help resolve tensions caused by these cartoons, it’s pointless to argue about the “legitimacy” of being offended. Many people have tried. But just as there are those who believe the Danish cartoons aren’t offensive, they’re matched by others who believe the opposite — both sides have legitimate and differing perspectives. You simply can’t convince someone not to be offended, and they shouldn’t be.

Nothing about this is new. Where there’s free speech, there’s the risk of offending. What make it sometimes worthwhile — or should, if done correctly — are the meaningful discussions it generates within the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, free speech has no impact.

In the second coming of the Danish cartoons, it’s difficult to see how Jyllands-Posten and others’ defiant act of free speech serves any real purpose. No matter if you agreed with the cartoons’ original publication more than a year ago or not, it did generate an international discussion about the cartoons, their meaning and Islam. Whether it was worth offending thousands still isn’t clear.

No such luck this time. This wasn’t a brave new act meant to awaken the public to a worthwhile issue — it was maintenance. They did it because they could. Those plotting to kill the prophet illustration’s artist was used as an opportunity to show that no one, no matter what they do, has control over their content.

Sounds like a defiant child testing his or her boundaries.

It doesn’t matter what these newspapers were trying to say — it’s lost in how and why they said it. No matter how secure editors and newspaper officials feel in their supposed victories, the situation — Muslims’ resentment of Western media — is needlessly worse.

There’s no question that cartoonists in liberty-loving societies have the right to create controversial work, and newspapers have the right to print them. But if they botch the delivery of those messages and ideas, there’s no point.

Lindsey Poisson is the State News opinion writer. Reach her at poisson4@msu.edu.