In Paris earlier today, French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was attacked by Muslim extremists carrying Kalashnikov rifles in retaliation for a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, published in the magazine in January 2013. 12 people were killed, including the magazine’s editor, Stephane Charbonnier. The satirical publication has often courted controversy and in 2011 was firebombed after naming the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief"!

This latest atrocity highlights three immediate flaws in our society: 1) That certain sections of our society believe that mass murder is a suitable punishment for the crime of publishing a cartoon 2) That those who publish satirical material as part of their assumed 'right to free speech' must now live in fear of being killed, damaging our feeling that we can express free speech at all. And 3) The widespread support for the victims, both online and on the streets of numerous major cities around the world tonight, shows clearly the overwhelming feeling that our right to free speech means we demand the right to feel free to publish ‘anything’, even if that material might possibly be deemed an insult, either to individuals or certain sections of our society.

Our use of free speech and its impact upon our society is possibly something to which we do not give enough thought. The cartoon, published by Charlie Hebdo in January 2013, which was today punished with the execution of 12 Charlie Hebdo employees, was a condescending depiction of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Muslims prohibit the recreation of any image of the Prophet Muhammad, so the Charlie Hebdo cartoon was felt by many in the Muslim world to be an insult to their beliefs, their identities and their way of life. But this does not justify the atrocity…far from it! Murder is wrong no matter what the perpetrator’s excuse. Murder is inexcusable! But are we permitted to insult other people, and in labeling it ‘free speech’, free ourselves from our duty of social responsibility?

The assumed right that free speech permits ‘anything’ is where I feel that free speech ceases from being a tool that can be used for good and becomes a weapon that can be used to hurt others with impunity. Where does this ‘right to free speech’ end? Does the right to free speech permit me to insult your way of life, be it your job, your family, or in this case, your sacredly held beliefs?

I now ask what I feel is a very relevant question: What is more important in society; free speech or social responsibility? Free Speech gives us the right to say anything at any time and waives our duty to social responsibility. Social responsibility asks us to question our actions and whether it would be better to refrain from such action if we feel such action may be to the detriment of others. One asks us to take responsibility for our input to society. The other attempts to give impunity for our input to society.

Clearly, social responsibility is more important than free speech for a number of reasons; peace and prosperity within our society being two key reasons that spring to mind, especially today! The publishing of the Prophet Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo in January 2013 was an example of where the choice was made to abandon social responsibility in favour of the inconsequential attitude adopted by those who took false shelter under the right to free speech. The consequences were an insulted people, of which 2 members today acted with extreme prejudice and murdered 12 people for the perceived crime of exercising their assumed right to free speech.

The mainstream media outlets, participants of vigils all over the world and the online support for the victims in the form of #JeSuisCharlie will tonight declare that free speech is important above all things, but that is quite clearly not the case. I do agree that violent oppression is against our civil liberties, but we must remember our own social responsibilities when we act. I for one think that the belief of the Muslim world in not recreating and publishing images of the Prophet Muhammad should have been respected.

Regardless, no one should be killed for saying or doing something which someone else perceives as insulting, just as no one should kill another, regardless of the perceived crime that one feels has been committed. Murder is intolerable in our society, but we learned today that the right to free speech comes at too high a price if we abandon our more important duty of social responsibility.

My deepest sympathies go out to the victims and their families of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.