Charlie Hebdo Case Study

be prohibited is based on the distinction between conduct and speech (including symbolic speech - which the wearing of the veil obviously is).

b) Case study of the hate and terroristic messages, as well as the representation and interpretation of religious messages

An example of the use of the « supplementary elements » in a particular case. We all remember, the deadly attack on the « Charlie Hebdo » (QUOT) on the Jan. 8 2015, from the first approach, we can
, however, the case is more controversial than it can seem in the begining.

There are several opinions which can opose the legality of the situation, in order to better measure the situation, it 's necessary to imply the use of the « supplementary elements ». In the case of « Charlie Hebdo » those elements may be considered the conditions which accompany the portroyal of Mohamed in caricature. From the side of the muslim religious

On the other side, if a part of muslim population was not sitisfied with the Charlie Hebdo behaviour, the only justice they could apply for, was the court, which would decide on the legality of the caricature and it 's use.

Surely, the court would took into the account that Charlie Hebdo principal activity was the carricature of person, with no exeptions, and such a case the court would support Charlie Hebdo , based on their principal activity and gained respect, « supplementary elements » Instead, the barbarian killers, covered themselves with their religion, and killed all the Charlie Hebdo active employes.

This actions, may clearly depicted as tbe homicide, and physucal expression, translated in case, it it was happened in the US, as a « hate message ».
We know that The “hate speech is a threatening form of communication that is contrary to democratic principles.” (Tsesis,