Whether it be the Pope or a media commentator - we must avoid capitalising on a terrorist incident to vocalise our opinion on these cartoons and society's attitude towards religious beliefs.
I don't in fact blame the people who think in this way actually. Despite their views, some of them were actually quite nice, The question is: If this is their public information service how else can they think after, being bombarded with information like as the great 'terror expert' Steven Emerson told Fox News?
I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them. So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not.
Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.
This week the magazine Charlie Hebdo will publish a defiant response to the terrorists who assassinated 8 members of its staff and four shoppers in a Jewish supermarket. This response will involve publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad.
Placing an entire population under surveillance whilst failing to adequately resource not only the intelligence agencies but those tasked with holding them to account, is both an unacceptable intrusion of our freedoms and creates nothing more than a chilling effect on free expression for anyone communicating in, or with, the UK.
Steve Emerson's expert opinion that "In Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in" has created the best Twitter banter I've seen in ages. And when I've stopped laughing I will be a little bit offended. I promise...
I 100% agree with the lambasting and jokes surrounding these comments - the comments embody a reality so screwed up we have to throw our hands up and laugh to keep from crying. But we can't forget comments like this also fuels that reality, that today's violent race and religious fault-lines are created by comments like these and the damage they do.
Does your Chief Executive have a blog and use social networks to improve his or her communication? If you answered yes, then congratulations, your boss clearly appreciates that the way we all communicate today has changed beyond recognition in the past half-decade.
The 12 people that died this week were not just heroes, they were martyrs. They gave up their lives in the name of freedom of speech. It is for this reason that 7 January must be remembered as a day of enlightenment once the pain and grief ebb away.
Ahmed Merabet's death is not the first I've witnessed on screen, but it has troubled me in ways that other deaths have not. Warnings of "distressing scenes" have it backwards. This is not about us as viewers. It's about him as a human being.
There are many arguments and opinions abuzz on the social media networks, some radical, many shocked and sad. I can only speak for the ones I am exposed to, but these seem to fall within two camps - The Freedom of Speech vs. The Responsibility of Freedom.
For those over the years who say they support freedom of expression but with opt outs, or who have argued that freedom of expression doesn't extend to articles, photographs or cartoons which offend them, it should be made clear that freedom of expression gives everyone the chance to debate opinions, and that right is vital.
Russell Brand, poor Essex lad turned Comedian and Actor, remains a divided figure throughout the electorate; YouGov's poll in November 2014 showed that 46% of Britons had a negative view of Brand, compared to 13% who felt positively about the comedian. However, one cannot deny he has inspired thousands to question the current system we are living under...
It is legitimate to ask why none of the mainstream UK press decided to print those images on their covers, unlike for example the Belgian and German press. Instead, there was much carping about attacks on freedom and a number of photographs of a dying French policeman... Why the mass self-censorship? I think it was two kinds of fear.
In the aftermath of an atrocity as horrifying as the Paris murders on Wednesday, it is more important than ever to be crystal clear about the freedoms that we hold most dearly. Freedom of expression, which must always include the freedom to offend and to ridicule. Satire is an essential part of a democracy. Incitement to hatred and to violence are crimes; incitement to mockery is not... Freedom from fear, including the fear of being different, or of speaking out, or of questioning majority beliefs. Above all, the freedom from the fear of being murdered.