With my recent posts about the “Je Suis Charlie” wake up call, the necessity of mockery, and the media’s hypocrisy in dealing with Charlie Hebdo’s new cover, I thought I should take a moment to ask if there should be a limits to free speech? Yeah, yeah, I know the United States Supreme Court ruled you “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” but I’m not talking about that distinction. We freethinkers pride ourselves in defending the right to mock the religious (well at least Christians), but what about the speech we find hateful or repulsive. Would we have been so quick to defend Charlie Hebdo, if the uproar was over any of their supposed racist or bigoted cartoons?

In a USA Today article, DeWayne Wickham, believes Charlie Hebdo continues to cross the line. He refers to the magazine’s past offensive anti-Muhammad cartoons, discusses the limits of speech, and then declares:

If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

I personally find Wickham’s statement despicable. I’m sure he would deny defending the violent attacks, but he is at least attempting to justify them somewhat. To me, his words are just as reckless as these words by the Pope concerning the Hebdo attack that made many of us so justifiably angry:

Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending … If my good friend Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.

And what about the Westboro Baptist Church?

Westboro Baptist Banned From Twitter? Continue to Page 2 >>