Part of the reason as to why freedom of expression is often used as an excuse to attack and demote ones opinion or beliefs is because the line of limitation ,when it comes to the topic, is extremley blurred as there is zero censorship and it’s difficult to put restrictions to such a vaguely controversial constitution. The Paris shooting is an example of this idea of zero censorship when it comes to freedom of speech being taken too far and easily being misunderstood.
If an open opinion is intended to attack ones religious beliefs it is considered hate speech and therefore should not be accepted under any circumstances. However, since Charlie Hebdo’s intentions were for comedic and non serious purposes it should not be associated as hate speech ,hence the perspective of those confused by the motivation of the attackers is understandable. (“I have the right to criticize an idea, a concept or a religion.”-Mathieu Davy)
Based off the tragedy that arose from the shooting ,rules, censorship and the reactions of various perspectives must be taken into consideration when potentially offensive freedom of speech, such as the Charlie Hebdo comics, is shared with the world. Additionally, Pope Francis agreed upon the vital necessity for censorship, by acknowledging the idea after the attack, and stating that “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity…in freedom of expression there are limits.”
(The Struggle To Define Free Speech:, and From Skokie To Paris. “Source A.” Sources—Paris, France, 2015 (n.d.): n. pag. Choices.edu. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University. Web.)