Why Charlie Hebdo is NOT the Penultimate Example of Freedom of Speech

I think 'Freedom of Speech' is a commonly misunderstood right by many people. In fact, the supposedly satirical magazine proves that point. This magazine is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with people. The writer's of this magazine are being held up as some sort of embodiment of freedom of speech, treated as the purist form of expressionism, and the ultimate use of the right that is guaranteed to us by the first amendment. It sickens me, to see all these young french people parading through the streets, my friends in France, my friends here, being misled. Before I continue I would like to clarify. The attack on the Charlie Hebdo is a tragedy, one of the saddest events in recent French history, and a disgusting act of terrorism. I felt personally saddened and affected as a French citizen, to see something so terrible take place in a place a view as my home, where my family lives and where i am from. However, just because something is terrible, and people have unjustly died just because they expressed themselves, does not mean these people are suddenly heroes with a beautiful message. I will tell you what people thought of Charlie Hebdo before these attacks. People saw it as a dying magazine made by a bunch of trouble makers, and make no mistake all these 'journalists'(something they are continuously called by the media, despite the cartoonists never reporting on anything based on the facts, supporting only their preformed biases completely based off of their misconceptions and ignorance) are just trouble makers, with no message, whose only goal is to offend and disturb as many people as possible. The people that drew in this magazine, are some of the most intolerant people to live in France, and that is saying something. What people now parade as free speech and a glorious message is the product of a bunch of people sitting around a table saying "Let's take a modern event or culture, draw a picture of it, at a sexual innuendo, and see how many people we can offend." While this is obviously not what happened exactly, the product is the same. Look at the pictures below:

Now tell me, where is the message in these? Sure you can look at the first one and say "Oh well their making a commentary on the president and saying he's stupid." but please explain the second and third one, and the purpose of the first one since it's obviously not to find a solution since we all already no Hollande is a terrible president. What I see personally, keep in mind that I am an unbiased source in terms of religious affiliation because I do not affiliate myself with one, is extreme disrespect. Where is the message? The only message I can get from this is "We dislike religion, so we will make fun of religion because WE ARE INTOLERANT PEOPLE." Going back to my original sentence, I will tell you one people misunderstand, and why there is a problem with this magazine. Just because one has the right to say something, or anything, does not mean one should ever say it. And just because you can say something does not mean it's true or justified. Look at these two pictures, read about the cartoonists who drew them, and tell me if you really think these people know what Christianity and Islam are all about. Because all I get from these pictures is that the cartoonists know nothing about these religions, and because they are either racist or against religion due to a personal prejudice, they choose to disrespect a culture and the people who it belongs to, because they are intolerant.

Do not get me wrong, just like the other issues we have covered in class, I do not believe we should forcibly limit the speech of others, racist comments should be allowed, a person should be ALLOWED to speak their beliefs, but that does not mean in any way at all that a person SHOULD spew their racist and intolerant idiocy all over the place. And what makes me even more upset about the whole stupidity of this magazine, is that people now think, because of a terrible tragedy, they are open-minded champions of free speech when they are the literary equivalent of a child who chooses to stay out one minute past curfew just to spite his or her parents. Freedom of Speech more than anything, should encourage speech to be meaningful, but these people show the exact opposite. Their speech lacks meaning, and it lacks legitimate motive, unless one counts racism and intolerance as legitimate. 

True Freedom of Speech is represented in those who risk their lives to spread a real message, a journalist who risks his life to bring the truth, and to spread the word. Not a bunch of intolerant bullies who put down other peoples cultures because they don't understand them.