Don't let fear curb free speech: Your Say

Does "Charlie Hebdo" cross the line by continuing to publish covers depicting the prophet Mohammed? Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

The "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment is far more narrow than commentary writer DeWayne Wickham suggests in his piece "'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line."

The Supreme Court case Wickham cited involved a face-to-face confrontation. It is unlikely that anything published in a magazine would qualify.

— Michael Freddoso

Is mocking Mohammed like yelling fire in a crowded theater? There is a case that it is.

Free speech does not include inciting riots, and there is a good argument that drawing satirical cartoons of Mohammed is doing just that.

— Henry Crum

Free speech means just that. If there are consequences to your speech, then so be it.

— Scott Hoffman

"Charlie Hebdo" cartoons of Mohammed do cross the line: between good taste and bad.

However, bad taste isn't a criminal offense, much less a capital one.

— Robert Helbing

Letter to the editor:

I read commentary writer DeWayne Wickham's column and find myself vehemently disagreeing with almost the entire piece.

The claims that depictions of the prophet Mohammed invite attacks are the same thing as blaming and shaming a rape victim for "inviting" the attack. We should blame the perpetrators, not the victims.

David Gibson; Fulton, Mo.