Charlie Hebdo comic should be banned

Considering recent events, I assume the resolution of this debate, that the 'Charlie Hebdo comic should be banned' is referring to the recent comic portraying Muhammad. http://www.debate.org... Caption: '100 lashes if you do not die of laughter' (1) I argue that this cartoon, and ones similar to it, should be banned for four main reasons: 1. It is unnecessary 2. It directly offends a large amount of people 3. It has been shown to provoke violence 4. It is a form of (and encourages) religious intolerance There was no reason why this cartoon should be published; it may be considered funny but there is enough comic material to not have to resort to material that is directly offensive to many people. Its publishing was unnecessary. Now I have argued that it is unnecessary, we can see that something that directly offends many people for no reason should not be published. On a utilitarian basis, the unhappiness resulting from it being published outweighs the happiness from it. The reason it is offensive, is that it portrays Muhammad - a deeply loved and respected figure in Islam - as a violent, sadistic person. Therefore, by insulting Muhammad it is also insulting all those who love and respect Muhammad (Muslims), just as insulting my mother is also insulting myself, given that I love and respect my mother. Furthermore, the caption directly mocks Islam as a religion, as it portrays it as violent and self-centred. Considering this, it can be seen that this cartoon is offensive to muslims who deeply and sincerely identify themselves with their religion, to such an extent that they feel personally attacked if their religion is attacked. My third reason why the comic should not have been allowed to be published is that it provokes violence, indeed it did, in the shootings of January 2015 (2). The magazine editors were not ignorant; it is common knowledge that portrayal of Muhammad, especially in such a way that it mocks Islam, is going to offend muslims. They also knew that violent Islamic extremists exist and have previously been prepared to attack Western cities. The fact that the cartoon was still allowed to be published is therefore very irresponsible. Note that I am not saying that the extremists' actions were justified, but that the magazine was foolish and irresponsible to publish these cartoons, especially considering they served no purpose. Just as it is foolish and irresponsible to poke a sleeping bear with a stick. Finally, the cartoon encourages religious intolerance because it needlessly mocks a major religion. It is a form of religious intolerance in the same way that mocking Asians would be considered a form of racism. But what about freedom of speech? This is the most common argument in favour of allowing cartoons such as the one above to be published, but it fails as an argument because it assumes that we currently have a right to freedom of speech, but in fact, our freedom of speech is already moderated. For example, I do not have the freedom of speech to go into the middle of a busy street and start making fun of homosexuality, or African-American culture. I would be arrested. In a similar way, a magazine is not allowed to have obscene language on its front cover. Why? Because it is offensive and unnecessary. You know what is also offensive and unnecessary? The Muhammad Cartoon. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.independent.co.uk...