Freedom of speech missing from Turkish rhetoric over Paris killings

?I am Charlie Hebdo; because I, like many members of my generation, grew up reading and admiring satire, which, by definition, attacks sacred cows ? the powerful, the pious, the seemingly pure. Otherwise it is not satire,? a very dear friend of mine wrote on her Facebook account.

The former colleague and friend, who is unfortunately no longer active in journalism, touched very acutely on the gist of the debate that has gone around the world since the deadly assault on Charlie Hebdo: "In the debate that centers on the question ?Ah, but shouldn?t they have been less offensive?? one important item is missing: The difference between satire and political rhetoric. A Charlie Hebdo cartoon where Muhammad hides his face and says ?it is so difficult to be worshipped by fools? is NOT the same as Ayaan Hirsi Ali describing the world?s Muslims as violent and pursuing a policy that would discriminate against Muslims in terms of immigration/citizenship rights in the Netherlands. Offensive humor (satire?) is not identical to racist rhetoric/policies. Most of the time, our world is a humorless place where the powerful bear little criticism ... In many countries, including my own, satirical magazines do a better job of opposing oppression than most of the serious papers.?

The international discussions that have followed the Paris massacres have put freedom of expression on center stage. Even among Western circles there seems to be a disagreement about the characterization of Charlie Hebdo. David Brooks, whose article ?I am not Charlie Hebdo? in the New York Times prompted my friend to pen her thoughts on Facebook, is critical of the magazine. For Jordan Wiesmann who writes for Slate, Charlie Hebdo is racist.

Olivier Tonneau, on the other hand, reacted in...