I might not get "liked" for what I'll say,but I fully support harsh freedom of expression without any restrictions in public and private places,no matter if it is considered as negationism,racism,hate,religious extremism,blasphemy,apostasy and what not....
Nowadays what's considered as freedom of expression and not is being set by politicians for whatever their goals and interests are.
I agree with the second paragraph. Freedom of speech argument is being used to push various agenda's and narratives of various interest groups around the world in order to mislead people (manufactering consent).
Though I do agree with the support of freedom of speech, there should also be ethics and the simple act of acting responsible when it comes to media. What we see from the media today is pure lies. Media in general needs an overhall where ethics and responsibility should come first. This isn't a new thing by the way, ever since its inception the media has been used like this. Argument's like freedom of speech which have become especially popular in the recent decade has been been used as an excuse to preserve the current level (or lack thereof) and keep on manipulating and uniforming the average person. This problem exists in the whole world by the way, not just France, Europe or Turkey. I heard this from Denzel Washington in an interview: "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed. If you do read it you're misinformed." In both cases we are at a disadvantage.
If you call me someting, to which I respond is insulting to me and ask not to do it again. Is it sill allright if you continue with it? If you do continue with it then do you still have the right to act like the victim if I do lash out in some way shape or form? Muslims voiced their displeasure to these cartoons when they were first aired in Denmark. When they were re-aired in France, then the fault also belongs to those that aired them and the consequences are theirs to bear. Yes, the thief is at fault, but so to does the fault belong to the person that didn't lock his door. If that makes sense.
We got to understand that there are millions, even billions of people. Not everyone is going to act the same way. It would be irrational to think that everyone will act the same way. And out of all these people the likelyhood of there being outliers is always a posibility, there could always be an individual reacting in an extreme way. As a rational and responsible person/journalist, they must be aware of this and act accordingly. Even still, purely out of consideration for their fellow man and their feeling and emotions, they should've refrained from publishing those cartoons. Freedom of speech sure, but not at the cost of acting responsible and taking responsibility.
