This began as a comment to another post, now on the recommended list, written by someone I respect immensely as a person of tremendous integrity. I write it not "against" what my fellow poster wrote, but simply because I have a different opinion on certain matters, even as I agreed with much of what the other post had to say. I am not going to engage debate or comment any further, as I have nothing more to add.
1) I can't countenance hate-speech laws of any kind. Here's why: One person's legitimate argument is another person's hate speech. I'm not willing to put anything on the books that would allow right-wing Christian conservatives to decide whether my criticism of their, for example, religiously motivated sexism or homophobia is, in fact, hate speech against their religion. Giving anyone the right not to be offended or hurt by words will, without question, lead to liberal and, even more likely, radical ideas being suppressed by people who claim they are hateful. Hate speech laws are thus too subjective, and too much of a danger. That's why freedom of speech, other than the established exceptions for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or advocating actual, physical violence/insurrection/incitement, must remain 100% absolute. We cannot legally restrict or punish hate, even as we fight it with every fiber of our being. Freedom of expression literally depends on it, and freedom of expression is either complete or it doesn't exist. People have a right to hate. What they don't have is the right to act on it.
2) I still am Charlie. The reason I still am Charlie, even though I find some of their cartoons deeply offensive, is that they were murdered specifically as an attack on freedom of speech. I am Charlie, even though, and maybe especially because I find some of their work filled with hate. Despite my feelings about their work, we who support freedom of speech — which includes the right to criticize and condemn hateful speech— must remain united in our defense of it against those who would, through direct, physical intimidation, destroy it. I am Charlie because there is or will be someone, somewhere who finds something I say hateful and bigoted, most likely on the right, and I need to have been on record in the strongest way possible in favor of freedom of expression. It’s easier (if not always easy) to stand with people whose speech isn’t abhorrent. Denouncing those who would destroy freedom by murder is important enough to stand with the abhorrent in the most powerful way possible. That’s why I still am Charlie. I realize this is essentially a rhetorical point, but I want to make it in the most powerful way possible.
3) I reject Islamophobia, and I don't need individual Muslims to speak out or apologize for anything. They aren't responsible. But it is helpful when Islamic organizations, and prominent Islamic religious leaders do speak out, do denounce this kind of hateful murder, as so many have done, and not just after the most recent massacre in Paris (the canard that Muslims haven’t done so is simple ignorance, or worse). Do those organizations need to apologize for the murders? No, of course not. People don’t need to apologize for something they didn't, themselves, do. Organizations or leaders might choose to apologize if they feel they hadn't done enough, in the past, to combat extremist hate coming from within their communities or co-religionists.
Furthermore, just as we ask white Americans to denounce and fight back against racism and, even more importantly, racist violence in the U.S., it is right and proper — and not at all Islamophobic or bigoted — to ask Muslim leaders and organizations to denounce jihadi extremism and violence, and, yes, to ask individual Muslims, where feasible, to push back against hate when they encounter it directly, (so long as they can do it safely, obviously, something many Muslims may not be able to do depending on where they live). Muslim preachers have, in their role as religious figures, spread hate, and have, yes, advocated violence. Therefore it is important for the overwhelming majority of Muslim preachers and organizations who reject hate and violence to say so.
Other than in direct self-defense (which includes, obviously, fighting against institutions who are using force to oppress you, even if not in the given moment), violence is never acceptable. When the denunciations, especially after such a horrific, hate-filled act of violence as this one, come from within the same community in which those committed the act place themselves, they carry that much more power and do that much more to reassure the members of the targeted group that not everyone in the community feels the same way. That matters, and helps ease tensions going forward.
Thank you for reading.