[quote=@Andreyich]
You shouldn't censor free speech but you should also not be surprised of the repercussions. [b]Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been killed but...[/b] 
[/quote]

I'm not sure you're up to speed on [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237]Charlie Hebdo.[/url] 

To the thread in general -- I'm hearing a lot of "Well the government shouldn't step in and protect you from violence." And I'm just sitting here like.... I mean, that's pretty much [i]all[/i] I want the government doing. Let's reverse the situation for perspective -- let's say a newly married interractial gay couple stands on a street corner in (insert stereotypical redneck cartoon location here -- South Carolina? Is that how liberals think South Carolina is?) and somehow communicates to another human being that they don't believe in Jesus. Are you truly arguing that the gay couple have no rights to personal safety? No rights to protection? The police should just let whatever happens happen, because hey, they shoulda knowed better? 

[quote=the actual first amendment of the U.S. Constitution]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

"Freedom, but then you're fair game" is an abridgment of freedom. To that I say no, absolutely not. Controversial speech is the speech most in need of protection, and Uncle Sam had damn well better protect it. [i]Literally being murdered by the roomfull[/i] for publishing a cartoon should not be considered a "logical consequence," from which no protection is deserved. That's downright lunatic. Like.... legitimately, what the actual fuck are some of you on right now?