Some people argue that we have the rights to speak freely. However, expressing our thoughts without restrictions can provoke conflicts like the Charlie Hebdo Attack in 2015.
“Freedom of Expression” has defended remarks that directly offended individuals’ beliefs evoking a sense of discomfort in the Islams. “We believe that freedom of expression should not be misused as means to attack or hurt public sentiments or religious beliefs,” Tasneed Aslam, a former spokesperson of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, commented. As Aslam says, to prevent the recurrence of unpleasant events like this incident, “Freedom of Expression” should be banned, or at the very least have a explicit border in limits, so that one would not agitate another provoking an impulse of attack.
Farhang Jahanpour states “The terrorists and those who wish to limit freedom of expression by violent means should learn that far from forcing others to silence, their acts will backfire and will have the opposite effect”. However, I think that the presence of “Freedom of Expression” has allowed Charlie Hebdo to cross the line by insulting and making fun of a religion which attacks human dignity. Therefore, if “Freedom of Expression” did not exist, the whole incident would not have occurred.