It should be remembered that what is offensive is determined by the offended. When the force of law can be used against whomever is said to be offended, freedom of expression is on its way out the door. There is no right to not be offended. Insults and mockery of various social groups may be repulsive, but the mechanism of correction must be voluntary and social, not legal.

The line is drawn on freedom of speech where the speech in question directly causes physical harm (not emotional harm). This means there should be legal restrictions on yelling causing a panic (yelling fire), or inciting a riot. This is the only way to maintain freedom of expression.

At least in the United States (and many if not most western countries), people have the right to mock and insult anyone (including the Jews and the Queen). That being said, there are limits, as the above poster mentioned. Calls for violence, statements intended to cite panic (fire in a crowded room), and some other very limited instances are prohibited, for example.

France is known for its culture to mock around people , i must agree this.

But what is the importance of mocking around people, why would you offend someone?

Why do you want to pull the trigger to someone , if you know that this person will go mad if you talk to him like that.

I understand that it is vital to have freedom of speech, to have cultural debates.

As we have different form of criticism , i highlight the moral critics here, about our ethic, and how we humans should live together in a "democratic country" imposing that mockery is important I really cannot see the importance. Because it will triggers some people's fury, as you may have insulted his beloved "idol, mother"

Oh, and something came into my mind so i'll throw this and go back to my subject ,

Also why did Dieudonne get jailed if he mocked around charlie hebdo? straight away after the shooting?! isn't that the same thing the magazine did? "incitement of terrorism" but apparently Dieudonne provoked blasphemy , to me it makes less sense

If i go on and you mock around my appearance, and i ask you to stop, however you dont, and continue to mock around my hole families appearance, there will be a high chance that I will become aggressive towards you.

David Cameroon said apparently to counter the pope Francis that" we should mock , and that if someone feels offended cannot do anything against it" because his ideology is that people should be free to "offend" in a free society.

Tomorrow I will then go on the street and offend everyone , starting from the queen Elizabeth(i will get jailed), then her family and son(i will be in court), I will then mock about every personality who affected many people and will publicize this(i will get hated and will receive death treats). Should I do that? I believe no, because this wont help us to move forward and live together whether I am the immigrant or they are, we can have mutual respect always, and make debate critically about stuff, without having to mock, because this just isn't the right way.

I guess my place amongst all this is that though we highly prize freedom of speech and fight for the right if that includes racial discrimination, insult and offence then there needs to be consequences to defend the one who is offended against the one who has created the offence.

While we fight for the right of free speech we must accept equally that our laws will protect a victim of discrimination, insult or offence e.g slander and libel, and the law will prosecute the perpetrator.

Ideally in a saner world those offended by Hebdo would have sued the paper for the insult and the court would decide the punishment and any further action.