“When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... sec

“When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... secondary.” Of course that is secondary. That much is obvious. It is a pointless distraction to even argue about that and it’s very questionable to even put the murder and the content even into the same context. That just does not compute. Those are emphatically and obviously not two sides of some issue or some bullshit like that. However, I personally would make the editorial decision to not republish the cartoons because I find them to be in bad taste and quite racist and that’s that (that’s my quick and dirty assessment of them – I do not have to make those editorial decisions so I didn’t research this issue exhaustively and I could very well be wrong; please take this as my provisional opinion and just run with the hypothetical here). That would be the reason for me personally to decide that way, definitely not the murder. How is free speech defended by me publishing something I do not like? That’s just a very confusing stance on this.