Few things play such a pivotal and global role as the media. Through it, information is distributed and people can be informed about events that happen a world away. This is why few things can be scarier than an attack on the ones who report the attacks.

On Jan. 7, offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamist gunmen angry over the magazine’s history of lampooning Islam and publishing content deemed offensive to Islam itself. The attacks sparked both mass outrage and great mourning in both France and the world, and it triggered the highest state of emergency in the Paris region until the suspects were apprehended.

Because these attacks resulted from the satirical content of the publication, they have been seen as an attack on free speech in the media, the concept of which is protected by compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights. However, within French law, the definition of free speech is not as clear cut as it is in America.

In today’s world, media is a globalized presence. The main form of news is no longer a print newspaper sitting on a street corner, for now it is communicated by mass corporations and entities using world-spanning coverage. This coin flips two ways, however, for just as more outlets are available to spread news, there are also now more people who see this coverage, and as this happens, there is more potential for cultural offense.

However, even if the issues are offensive, the attack was for the purpose of Islamist terror and represented an unwarranted level of aggression that killed 12 people as part of a city-wide streak of attacks. This also brings up the idea that the media’s purpose requires free speech in order to highlight the issues that need to be highlighted.

The debate, therefore, ranges over how far is too far regarding free speech in the media. Where is the line crossed between informing/editorializing and hatefully attacking? The question is dividing France, as supporters of Charlie Hebdo’s actions organize under the hashtag Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) and others, even those who oppose the shootings, refuse to support it. Further complicating matters is the fact that Hebdo responded to the attack by printing another cartoon in its next issue, and while it is emblazoned with the message, “all is forgiven”, it also features the Prophet Muhammad holding a Je Suis Charlie sign.

The attack was a terrible and violent action, but Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish whatever it deems appropriate. It can and sometimes does go too far is using this right to deliberately antagonize, but, at the end of the day, it does have the right to say what it wants to say. However, it does need to be aware of its globalized media presence and take care not to present its satire in a manner that is insensitive without heed to the cost. France must now come to terms with the rising social issues presented by the rapid influx of Muslims of a different culture into Europe and how this will impact policy and life going forward.