The problem with the freedom of speech debate is not only that those who advocate it co-opt it for negative use, or that those who use it think that exercising freedom of speech and being deserving of being listened to are mutually exclusive, but is that invective and hateful language is moulded into common vernacular with the play of society's very own Get Out of Jail Free card.
These rules aren't instructions on how to be funny. They certainly won't stop anyone taking offence. These rules are, however, a statement of what I hope is a reasonably clear moral position which preserves the right to criticise and caricature in such a way that the ideals of a liberal society are still upheld.
You aren't being censored. The times when freedom of speech is restricted are remarkably rare and they exist for the greater good, rather than to stop you insulting whoever you like. It's probably correct that the police get involved when someone tries to post bacon through the door of a mosque, even if they claim to be exercising their right to freedom of expression.
In light of the recent attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the debate on freedom of expression has once again come to the fore. It is claimed that Muslims are being overly sensitive and overreacting when it comes to the reprinting of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)...
There is no justification for murdering journalists or satirists. No degree of offence legitimises the use of violence. The deaths of the journalists should be mourned for that particular reason, but no more so than the two officers or the maintenance man who were also killed in the tragic shootings..
Nothing will or can ever validate the actions of those who effected this unforgivable massacre, and the elimination of terror must be realised, without concession. BUT - if attenuating bloodshed and trauma for entire nations matters, it may also be best not to mindlessly encourage anyone else to 'be Charlie'.