After the Charlie Hebdo shooting it has come to mind a question. Are there limits to the freedom of speech, or everything is always allowed in any circumstance?

The Charlie Hebdo writers were shot by terrorist because of some offensive images that criticized the prophet Muhammad. The reaction has gone too far, but should public opinion and the government do something about some direct criticism to a religion that demonstrates some extremist who do not tolerate satire?

“The government must not limit the freedom of speech,” said  history teacher Mr. Eric Shulman. “However, the cartoonist should have been ready to deal with the consequences of their actions: if you punch somebody you must be aware that there are many unpleasant consequences that you might face.”

“It’s hard to set the line of what should be wrote and what should not” said senior Erin Rehmann. “The cartoonist should have been ready to take responsibility for their actions, however, they didn’t deserve such an extreme consequences as death.”

Some of the perspectives show that even if in disagreement with the cartoonist, a person must accept the criticism or they might respond through peaceful protesting and raising of awareness.

“The sole interest of the terrorist was to ultimately make their religion appear as attacked, so to be able to recruit Muslims that now feel the need to defend their faith,” said English teacher Mrs. Carolyn Edwards. “If they wanted, though peaceful protest they would have been able to even shut down Charlie Hebdo.”

One argument is that if citizens don’t agree with the government policies, they should consider relocating.

“I don’t accept that immigrants come in my country and start setting rules and violating my freedom of speech,” said senior Johnathan Riad, “If they are not happy with the conditions offered by the country, they might as well go back to what they came from.”

“Freedom of speech can’t be violated” said junior Elizabeth Thackston, “and this counts whether you like somebody else’s opinion or not.”

Freedom of speech shall always be protected, but what happens when words can threaten other peoples’ lives?

“Writing should be driven by self-conscience” said senior Brianna Pomponio. “It’s hard to see when you’re invading someone’s personal freedom, and because of that there must be a self-regulation that is meant to prevent such events.”

Safety, though, is an important consideration that cannot be disregarded.

“I believe that other’s safety must come before the freedom of speech.” said senior Alyssa Worrell, “Events like this are unfortunate, but it’s hard to expect something constructive come out of this kind of criticism. On the other hand, focusing on similarities would promote tolerance and acceptance of each other’s differences.”

So is freedom of speech worth the risk? History teacher Mr. Daniel O’Malley thinks so.

“I’m a supporter of free speech to the extreme” he said. “Even if I might not agree with what Charlie Hebdo satirized, I still accept and protect them as a part of free society.”

It’s impossible for the government to decide what might be appropriate or not, and even if it was possible, the government must not interfere with the precious right of freedom of speech. Once that governments start imposing themselves as jurors of what must be allowed and what could endanger society, there is the immediate threat of the loss of other rights that will conclude with the creation of tyrannies.

Even if opinions are in disagreement with personal views, there’s one central idea that must be kept in mind: it’s just someone else’s view. Views aren’t always right, and are not always motivated from the right reasons. Someone else’s view must not affect life to the point to instigate revenge and violence.

Just because a person legally can do something, it doesn’t mean that they necessarily should say it. And just because a person has been offended, it doesn’t mean that they are justified in seeking  revenge.

There must be a degree of reflection when there’s the power to affect the lives of many people. However, this must not limit the freedom to giving an opinion because it create the chance of spreading new views and the diffusion of awareness for the problems that affect today’s society.