New York Times journalist David Brooks suggests that reflecting upon the killings of the writers/editors in the attack, the following step is bringing up a less hypocritical approach to our controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists implying that society should maintain civility towards people who show a uninhibited manner.
Acknowledging this statement, “freedom of expression” should be limited based of this event. Each individual should have the right to express and convey their opinions on one another, since we are entitled to different views on various aspects we encounter in life. However, it should be taken to an extent where it shall not threaten or displease an individual/group, being the matter that Charlie Hebdo have sparked Islamic State to cause such terror and warn Western society in a menacing way. Brooks stated that “healthy societies don’t suppress speech and grant rights to different individuals with different standings”. However we should be more cautious and aware of ones who are “uncivil, funny and offensive”(Brooks 2015) which can help limit freedom of expression to most significantly reduce threat from Islamic State that may occur in the future. However, others may believe that by stating “it is almost always wrong to suppress speech”(Brooks 2015) can create many views than can put strains on officials when it comes to making fair decisions to satisfy everyone in a particular situation.
Word count: 224