This is an incredibly important topic and as a swede myself it's particularly interesting now.
As I see it it's the same situation really. Has my opinion changed since last year? Maybe, probably not much though.
I may consider muslims the most pathetic people around for overreacting over a bloody picture when they don't say a word when raped girls are stoned for "dishonouring" their families. But as always there's two sides of every coin.
Everyone understands you don't, unprovoked, walk up to a homosexual person and say "you're a fucking faggot", and expect him/her to respect that. First of all, you'd understand it's wrong doing so in the first place, secondly you'd expect the person to react negatively towards you.
The ONLY reason Lars Vilks made this picture was to provoke muslims. They try to claim they did it only to make sure freedom of speech is respected. Well, they're simply wrong, this has NOTHING with freedom of speech to do.
If it would've been about freedom of speech, then why don't we see caricatures of gay people in the papers? Simply because we know they'll feel disrespected, and will react to it. But because WE think a picture of Muhammad doesn't matter to us, it obviously does matter to them. So we just respect it and don't make pictures of him. It's not like it's impossible avoiding making pictures of him, right?
Freedom of speech can never be about provocations. But if you think it is, then expect the black person to hit you back when you call him a nigger. Please tell him you're only using the freedom of speech, and I'm sure he'll perfectly understand.
I'm not defending the overreacting, pathetic muslims, but I fully understand the logic in reacting when being provoked. And the muslims didn't start this.