Against the abuse and truncation of the freedom of expression

As the latest issue of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo hits newsstands on Wednesday, the first after its editors were gunned down by extremists in Paris last week, the world is still embroiled in a heated debate about what was behind the appalling terrorist attack.

The Jan. 7 carnage, the first and deadliest of a series of dramatic episodes that left a total of 17 killed in addition to three murderous extremists, was deplorable and inexcusable. No grounds whatsoever, whether religious or moral, could justify such heinous crimes.

The thinking, of course, should not stop there. In order to ensure that the 17 lives did not perish in vain, soul-searching is needed and indeed imperative, particularly in the West, where sense of supremacy and even chauvinism are not difficult to find.

To many, the onslaught against Charlie Hebdo was also one against free speech, and the assailants were attempting to muffle free press by massacring journalistic cartoonists. The rationale is simple: Despite the controversy swirling around it, the magazine is part of the press community, and it was attacked because of what it printed.

That is a sound argument. And at a moment of shock and confusion like now, all members of the international community need to speak in one voice loud and clear that they stand against all assaults on the freedom of expression, not least those in the form of barbarous killings of journalists.

However, that is not all there is to it. Although there is no "but" in the articles enshrining the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in constitutions, there is always one between the lines.

Words have consequences, and in a variety of cases what one says cannot be warranted by free speech. For example, in most countries shouting bomb onboard a plane constitutes a crime, so is "Heil Hitler!" in a public place in many European countries. Certain appellations are deemed highly inappropriate in many societies.

That aspect of expression is especially true in mass communication, given its public nature. While the press should be encouraged to be diverse so as to cater to the different needs of the general audience, they all shoulder an innate responsibility of promoting the general good of humanity.

Needlessly offensive reportage that only worsens misunderstanding between cultures and exacerbates mistrust between civilizations is in no way conducive to the well-being of mankind, and thus is in all its forms on the wrong side of the baseline.

Given that, basic prudence on the parts of the speaker and the press is essential. For starters, it is easily deducible that provocatively caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad would only feed what is described as Islamic radicalization, a dangerous trend many in the West include in the causal links to the Paris massacre.

Thus as far as free speech is concerned, the Charlie Hebdo bloodbath should serve as a mobilization order to defend the freedom of expression, both against the curtailment and the abuse of it.