Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
If there is an unconvincing champion here, it is not Charlie Hebdo. It's Mr. Barber, a man who seems to think "the principle of freedom of speech" is best represented by speakers with views so inoffensive that no one would want to censor them in the first place.
Update: The Financial Times has replaced Barber's original post with an "expanded and updated version" of the article; in the new version, the phrases "just being stupid" and "not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech" have been removed. Fortunately, I took a picture before the whitewash:
Here is how it looks now:
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.