The question remains, Who decides? Based on what standard?
Yes, there have been certain moral standards -- regarding, for example, profanity and pornography -- *currently* based on Judeo-Christian principles. But, frankly, while I may agree with those, I am uncomfortable with them.
Why? Because our Judeo-Christian principles might not be the accepted moral standard forever. It is not inconceivable that in our lifetime, even the preaching of the Gospel could be ruled "blasphemy."
I don't want the government to have the power to silence *anybody*. That's the *only* way I'm guaranteed to never be silenced myself, no matter who's in power or what passes for the current moral standard.
The answer to offensive speech, is to answer the offensive speech. Censorship? Well if you can guarantee me that only angels will rule over us. Otherwise, no thanks.
Seriously? They will be, what, less Jewish or less Christian with age?
The answer to offensive speech, is to answer the offensive speech
No; that is exactly the point: one cannot answer offensive speech. One can swear back. If one shouts "@#$%^&!!!" what is the answer? There is none. The reactions are (1) tolerate or (2) use force. There are cases for both, -- it depends. The case on hand is that the Hebdo Whatever should not have been allowed to operate.