I personally respect free speech and support the idea of ABSOLUTE free speech. Many others I know do too. Are we a minority? What is the ground reality? For many, free speech is an aspiration- Middle East? For others, North Korea? - a question mark. For some others, Pakistan? - good to have but use it with caution... And for India? toying with our own definitions of free speech,(the noise about the film PK, shouting down of the Godse fans by liberals..). Several others really don't care as poverty takes priority over free speech. Does ABSOLUTE free speech REALLY exist? So what is the ground reality? If you examine facts, Charlie Hebdo is the result of a ban on another cartoon publication, "Hara-Kiri" that was published by the same group in France. In November 1970, the former French president Charles de Gaulle died in his home village of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, eight days after a disaster in a nightclub, the Club Cinq-Sept fire, which caused the death of 146 people. The magazine released a cover spoofing the popular press's coverage of this disaster, headlined "Tragic Ball at Colombey, one dead. As a result, the weekly was banned. In order to sidestep the ban, the editorial team decided to change its title, and used Charlie Hebdo. In the US, a show by Bill Maher (in my mind one of the most liberal of liberals, and extreme advocate of absolute free speech) "Politically Incorrect" was taken off the air as he made controversial remarks about 9/11. Bill Maher's talk show Politically Incorrect won numerous award nominations for his producing, writing and hosting of Politically Incorrect, including ten Emmy nominations, two TV Guide nominations, and two Writers Guild nominations. ABC decided against renewing Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect after he made a controversial on-air remark six days after the September 11 attacks. He agreed with his guest, conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza, that the 9/11 terrorists did not act in a cowardly manner (in rebuttal to President Bush's statement calling them cowards). Maher said, "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly." While Swedish society is dominated by the far-left, and considered the bastion of free speech/society,the Swedish Constitutional Committee in Parliament changed the rules under which someone can be prosecuted for libel. Now a person can be arrested and charged with criminal libel for talking about the negative effects of third world immigration. Laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs, for instance, on anti-Semitic speech, Holocaust denial, or racial slurs. On 11 July 2011, the Knesset passed a law making it a civil offence to publicly call for a boycott against Israel, defined as "deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage". The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly for its nationals. However, behaviors or speeches in favor of the North Korean regime, communism or Japan can be punished by the National Security Law, though in recent years prosecutions under this law have been rare. For more on country by country status of free speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country The ground reality of free speech is not as straightforward as many of us liberals would like to think. When it comes to the Muslim world's view of free speech it ranges from the free speech (or the minimal presence of it) in absolute monarchies in the Middle East where blasphemy laws are in place to protect Islam to the free speech that Muslims in North America, Europe, Turkey, or India are used to. The incident in Paris has raised many bigger questions. What is the response when free speech of someone is perceived to be hurting the sensitivities of another? Should murder be the response? Or should the response be to ignore it? Should the view of the majority be respected or the extreme few of a minority win? From a political standpoint there are even more challenging questions for Europe regarding immigration, racial tensions, assimilation of immigrants, “ghar wapsi” of ISIS fighters, law and order and poverty. That is a different discussion for another day.