During the trial of the editor-in-chief of Playboy in Indonesia, the court ordered the doors to be closed. This order inflamed Islamists, seen at right, apparently more than having a magazine with a scantily clad (there was no nudity in Playboy Indonesia) woman on an extra-long magazine page.

But follow along with me, if you will, and if you do I’m hoping you can explain something to me.

Indecency is against the law in Indonesia. That is the charge Erwin Arnada faces and could serve up to 32 months in prison if found guilty. Since Playboy Indonesia did not have nude photographs but rather photos of women in lingerie, we can gather the Indonesian government believes women posing in lingerie is risque.

I certainly don’t buy that, but fine, I’ll concede the point to make the larger argument. While I certainly have never seen an issue of Playboy Indonesia, I have seen a Playboy within the United States. I must assume the articles (yes ladies, there are articles and they are actually fascinating) were not deemed indecent. I mean what is risque about ‘Man Track’ (an article on toys and gadgets for grown men)?

“Under Indonesian law, indecency trials are closed when witness testimony is being heard to avoid obscene material or discussions being made public.”

We must conclude, therefore, Arnada is on the stand and the prosecution is asking him to describe the pictures that appeared within Playboy Indonesia. That, I suppose, is deemed indencent.

But Islamists are protesting, threatening “to break down the courtroom doors if they are not granted access to the proceedings.” In other words, they want inside the courtroom in order to hear Arnada describe the photos, photo shoots or other possibly ‘risque’ behavior . . . and yet they protested over the publication of the magazine. Would not the testimony be just as indecent as the photos, therefore uncomfortable for the Islamist to hear?