From the relentless muckrakers of the Progressive era to the highly talented (and obviously humble) writers of our school-based newspaper, freedom of the press has influenced our country throughout history and modern times.

As a country who repeatedly – borderline obsessively – prides itself on unrestrained freedom of expression, there comes a certain point in which we become desensitized to sensationalism. Whether it be radical internet trolls or paparazzi desperate to satisfy a deadline, the presence of zealous media has become a cultural norm. Lawsuits for libel and slander are virtually nonexistent in America, as our cardinal right in the Constitution calls for uncompromised protection of expression. Usually in this country, no matter how frustratingly offensive or ignorant some commentators are, their voices are something that others will simply have to grudgingly accept.

Although we take most of these ideas for granted, a tragedy, which struck last month in Paris, throws them sharply into question.

On January 7 at 11:30 AM, Charlie Hebdo, a French weekly satirical publication, suffered an attack to their headquarters that would ultimately leave twelve dead—including security and police officers. Gunmen stormed into the complex during a lunch editorial meeting after killing one of the security guards on duty, demanding certain individuals turn themselves in for execution.

The attack was carried out with deadly precision as the victims were shot one by one, accompanied by the tune of the gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar,” or “Allah is the greatest.” Within a few hours, Paris was declared under lockdown as the world mourned the tremendous and astonishing injustice that had unfolded. The mantra “Je suis Charlie” rang from every corner of the world as thousands gathered for a vigil that very night.

The implications of this attack, however, extend far beyond inexplicable tragedy. The issues behind this hate-fueled event are essentially two-fold.

The first concern resides in Hebdo’s actual publication of offensive content. As discussed previously, controversial satire that degraded the Islamic religion provoked the extremist gunmen. While a vast majority of Muslim (along with basically every other denominational group) adherents would adamantly condemn any violence in promoting their own religion, there inevitably remains the few radicals from every belief system that would take extreme measures when reacting to provocative content. This unavoidable extremist demographic begs the question: was the publication at fault for provoking outrage? Exactly how far is too far when it comes to controversy?

The second concern at hand is how exactly to allay extremist views and prevent any further tragedies. Olivia Seltzer ‘15 suggests that “it has to do with culture and surroundings – there are a lot of people who do not consider Islam and terrorism to be mutually exclusive. News stations don’t exactly help, either, considering that they foster sensationalism. It is only after going against predetermined values and becoming informed that both discriminatory and extremist views can finally subside.”

By being willing to deviate from prescribed norms, individuals will be less prone to blindly follow whatever is fed to them or to adhere to illogical and heinous acts of unsubstantiated hate.

Yet the world, despite its unfathomable and painfully regular tragedies, continues to turn. Under the weight of heavy hearts and somber crowds, the Eiffel Tower went dark in remembrance of the Charlie Hebdo victims the night after the attack. After a minute of what seemed like an eternity, the lights resumed, illuminating the dark Parisian skyline. The silence broke as hushed vigils began to breathe again and cars slowly sparked their ignitions while the dizzying beacon twinkled into the dawn of a new day.