On Jan. 7, two gunmen, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, in response to their cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. The attacks killed 12, including the magazine’s editor and cartoonists and a police officer.

In response, Charle Hebdo’s first edition after the attacks featured an image of the prophet shedding a tear and holding a sign that says “Je suis Charlie,” as the headline reads “Tout Est Pardon,” or “All is Forgiven.” 

In this publication’s “Views on the News” segment two weeks ago, several respondents stated that publishing the cover was an insensitive mistake that could be perceived as an attack on the Muslim faith and that offensive materials should not be published, particularly to prevent possible violent responses.

First of all, let us not ignore the fact that Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were satirical and that the magazine satirizes all religions, including Christianity and Judaism. Besides this, however, the belief that the cover, as well as other offensive materials, should not have been published for both their insulting nature and their sparking of violence is an egregious mistake. The second we allow our inherent right to free speech to be restricted—regardless of reason—we undo the very fabric that weaves together Western society.

The right to express ourselves is the culmination of years of progress toward liberalism in the face of repression. And lest we forget, it is a right that has only been extended to us relatively recently. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic tenets of democracy and is enumerated as such in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

This right is also one that is of great importance to the French; France prides itself as the nation of Voltaire, with a tradition of social satire and its history of secularity, or Laicité.

This does not mean that criticism of offensive materials isn’t acceptable. There is nothing illiberal about questioning the wisdom of the publishing of something considered insulting to a significant portion of people. Western society requires accepting the freedom to offend, but it also allows for the exercising of restraint. 

It is crucial, however, to ensure that freedom of speech is not hampered by the desire to be overly politically correct. Political correctness, the desire not to offend anyone, has gripped Western civilization. While a noble cause, political correctness leads to the excessive censoring of dissenting ideas that go against the status quo. 

Political correctness has gotten to the point where Western leaders, including the Obama administration, refuse to acknowledge that the Kouachi brothers were fueled by radical Islamic extremism. Worse still, political correctness leads to a refusal to identify the root causes of attacks such as those that occurred in France.

Many, including former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stated that “these images will have the potential to be inflammatory,” have criticized Charlie Hebdo for provoking violence by being needlessly inflammatory when the reality is that it’s precisely the violence that justifies the inflammatory content. 

This form of criticism is shortsighted and naive. Should we not print certain materials due to a fear of a violent response by Islamic extremists? If we do so, then we will live in a society where expression is dictated by radical extremists. Western liberty should not be controlled by those who fundamentally disagree with it. Those who say that the offensive cover should not have been published for fear of violence are unknowingly forcing Western society to capitulate to the demands of those who seek to see it dissolved.

As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat stated in an Op-Ed published the day of the attack, “By publishing something that might get you murdered, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.”

Rather than insisting Western publications not print materials considered insulting to Islam, the Western world should hold accountable those who believe it is acceptable to murder on the basis of a drawing. And rather than criticizing those who believe in their right to publish what they wish, the Western world should scrutinize and criticize the ideologies that oppose this freedom and the factors that contribute to their growth. 

And support for these ideologies is growing in Western countries such as France. According to a BBC report, in the largely Muslim neighborhoods in France, a significant portion of children—comprised of all 3 major religions—didn’t stand for the national minute of silence in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack. According to another report from the same outlet, support for the attackers was prevalent across Muslim pupils in the country, with one student telling their teacher that, “They [the journalists] got what was coming to them. You do not mock the Prophet.” Other examples include a 31-year-old Tunisian-born man who was jailed after verbally threatening police and saying an officer shot in last week’s attack “deserved it” and anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who posted a statement calling himself “Charlie Coulibaly”—a twist on the “I am Charlie” movement and a reference to Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed four people inside a Paris kosher market shortly after the Hebdo attack. 

Instead of insisting that Charlie Hebdo should not have published the cover depicting the prophet for fear of violence, one should question those who seek to perpetuate the response in question. There must be a difference of some sort between Islamic radicals and other extremists; Jews and Christians have not viewed Hebdo-style satire as reason for murder.

Taking away the object that sparks the violence in a politically correct act of censorship is the easy thing to do but one that also goes against our democratic ideals. It would only act as a temporary solution without solving the underlying problem. Engaging in introspection and examining the elements of our society that allow such violent beliefs to thrive, on the other hand, might be more trying, but it is also the right thing to do.

Saying that speech should be limited due to an offensive nature constitutes the undoing of centuries of progress toward liberalism and Western ideals. The freedom of speech and the freedom to offend are integral cogs of a free society.

This is what the editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo believed in.

Thus, if you state that “I am Charlie” yet believe that certain materials should not be published for fear of offending anyone, then you are not really Charlie at all, are you?