Logically it would not make sense if a specific topic or group is unprotected against the right of freedom of speech as it would no longer define ‘freedom’ for them. Given that the attacks were triggered off what was not a hate speech but a Satirical portrayal of Muhammad, there is no legal reasoning behind this specific case to be excluded of this right. Many believe sensitive topics starting with religion should often be protected from “freedom of speech” to avoid offensiveness. However the vector of these ‘taboo’ topics are often based off biased personal opinions and is not necessary recognised by everyone, especially as it is natural for opinions to have opposition. Similarly, Pope Francis claiming how “common good” should be considered when using freedom of speech is illogical. The “common good” itself is opinionated and would largely differ depending on the person given factors such as racial and cultural aspects. It is crucial to consider that while it is definite that there is no righteousness to ‘kill’ based on the motive of being ‘offended’, freedom of speech still stands far more legitimately.
It is simply wrong to take away freedom of speech, considering the law already functions excluding personal and biased factors of to interfere with the righteousness of people.