The vicious and brutal attacks on the Charlie Hebdo office shocked the French capital and indeed the entire western world. Today it seems attacks are waged not on people or nations, but on ideals and opinions. Though the gunmen called out several editors and cartoonists by name when the assault began, the true target was freedom of expression and the modernist, western values the French satirical magazine embodied

Charlie Hebdo is self-described as progressive and secular. The magazine wears its well-known irreverence on its sleeve. It indulges in dark, offensive, and crudely intelligent humor. Among its many ventures into the realm of comedic taboo, the magazine has published several cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, which are believed to have prompted the attacks.

Modern sects of Islam consider it a heinous act of disrespect to present images of the prophet. The banning of this practice began as to avoid idolatry within early Muslim communities: meaning they did not want the images of the prophet to be worship as if Muhammad, or simply the depictions themselves, were equal to God.

This belief has carried over into the contemporary age. Radical factions of Islam still consider creating visual depictions of Muhammad to be a grave sin.

Still, throughout the past 10 years there have been several controversies over various depictions of the prophet. In 2004, the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten released a series of editoral cartoons portraying Muhammad. The adult animated cartoon South Park had Muhammad fighting against a brainwashing cult alongside Jesus and other religious figures. Depicting Muhammad seems to be either the most gutsy or abhorrent thing a publication or broadcast can do, depending on who you ask.

Reactions to these images have ranged from peaceful protests to the savage violence of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Almost all of the recent published depictions of Muhammad have been in a comedic context. So for retaliators, the issue was not that people were worshiping the images Muhammad, but that they were laughing at them.

It is the condition of many humorists to rely on offensive, crude, or off-color statements or actions to arouse laughter. This is nothing new for comedy. The Canterbury Tales of the late 14^th century had passages describing soldiers being tricked into kissing animals’ rear-ends and promiscuous nuns. Shakespeare, considered the linchpin of high culture, worked in blue humor into his darkest tragedies.

We laugh most when we know we shouldn’t. This is the reason behind the perpetual use of images of Muhammad in comedic works. The pulpit of humor grants the author access to their audience so they can make their point. However the message of the work can often be overlooked by the controversy surrounding it.

The controversy around a Charlie Hebdo Cartoon can illustrate this trend. One of the last Muhammad cartoons published before the attacks presented a picture of a woeful Muhammad, head in hands, lamenting: “It is hard to be worshiped by idiots”.

The shock of the image can induce laughter or outrage. Of course, the world stood with Charlie Hebdo in horror of the attacks. Still, some have spoken out against the offensive content of the cartoon: claiming that the magazine ought to censor itself for security of life and good-taste. Others have spoken out to advocate for Charlie Hebdo to continue to be an outlet for unrestricted free-speech.

Charlie Hebdo made it clear which side of the debate it landed on with the release of its first issue after the attacks. On the front page of the edition, a tearful Muhammad stands holding up a sign with the slogan for Hebdo supporters “Je Suis Charlie”. The image is captioned “Tous est Pardonné” (All is Forgiven).

But both sides seem to have missed the point. The message of the original cartoon, which had Muhammad expressing frustration to the “idiots” worshipping him, was not that the magazine simply at the guts to break codes of political correctness. The cartoon was criticizing the type of violent extremists that would eventually carry out the attack on the office headquarters. The framing is powerful: using one of the central figures of a faith to criticize those who manipulate or ignore its core principles for their own malicious (or as Charlie Hebdo would put it “idiotic”) motives.

The point was lost in a broader argument over free speech and political correctness.

To briefly address these loftier concerns, it is hard to say whether free speech ought to be suppressed to avoid offense. People are passionate over issue of religion and politics, so it is easy to take an attack on ideology as an attack on personal character. Certain voices do, in fact, critique the moral character of individuals in political, social, or ethnic groups. This so called hate speech is rarely forward thinking or constructive, and can easily be suppressed. Not through violence, but by ignoring the voices one does not care to listen to.

There are, however, powerful messages that can only come across by poking people’s hot buttons. Sometimes people need to be offended so they can evaluate their positions and mindsets.

It is important to examine the art and rhetoric that offends us. A simple image or phrase can strike the heart of what we believe. We have to examine the surface and core of the piece, as well as how or why it upsets us.

If we want our side heard, we need to play the game: create our own images and phrases. Some will attempt to find a way around this system by silencing certain voices through force, mistaking it for a source of longterm power

But the rest of the players can show these violent few how little power they have over us. So long as our fingers can tap keys or put pen to paper we will continue the discussion. Because we know that eventually they will run out of bullets, and they will have no power left.