So a writer with articles in The Guardian condemns a cartoonist for publishing works in the Guardian that exhibit the censorship he decries. It is a strange world, but I was certain that the Guardian will only publish writings that have an anti-Western, leftist, Islamist agenda.

Looked around but couldn’t find the Guardian article(s), but found out that Mr. Napper likes Blade Runner and has an independent, ornery streak. So far, so good.

There can be no ‘but’s to free speech, no limits, at least among adults. If you give an inch, people will take a mile. One day it is cartoons, then it’s the Quran, then dress codes, then footbaths, and then they want to take away your bacon.

For some people, respect -- like both free and hate speech -- is a one-way street: Bad for some, fine for others.

I dislike cartoons that rely on social, religious or cultural stereotypes. I don't think they further any agenda apart from promoting hate.

I believe that the (mis)use of religion or religious ideology by extremists resulting in terrorists acts is abhorrent. There is no place for this in modern society.

There is no but. Being against both things isn't wrong.

Carz

Do CH's cartoons rely on religious or ethnic stereotypes? The ones I have seen didn't, but I have only seen a small sample. They attack religion and religious figures, extremists and bigots. Some are pretty eye-watering, but that's the genre. Parodying Jesus or Mohamed is not racist, in my view.

Should the management of Charlie Hedbo have put their employees as well as the police and members of the public at risk simply because they thought it was clever to constantly provoke a bunch of psychopaths?

To clarify my sources and because this error has been rightly been brought to my attention, the quote which I posted at the beginning of this thread can be found at http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/, is titled I am NOT Charlie, and is dated Thursday, January 8, 2015. Scroll down to find it if you like.
The other site where I first found this article is by the same person but seems to have gone weird.

The first verse of the first Psalm is:

Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers

No, it's definitely wrong with no reservations to take the life of mockers,
It's even wrong to stop them using the force of the law,
but mockers, who make a living out of hurting the feelings of others, will be brought to justice and punished - if not during their current lifetime then afterward, they have no escape.
Meanwhile, it's best not to sit in their company.

I am sad for those who were killed for sitting in the company of mockers and for their families, I am especially sad for the cleaner.