 In France , satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was taken to court for publishing the cartoons ; it was acquitted of charges that it incited hatred . In Canada a human rights commission investigated The Western Standard , a magazine which published the cartoons , but found insufficient grounds to proceed with a human rights tribunal ( which does not imply criminal charges , but is a quasi @-@ judicial , mandatory process ) against the publication . These government investigations of journalists catalysed debate about the role of government in censoring or prosecuting expressions they deemed potentially hateful . Critics said the cartoon controversy was a sign that attempts at judicial codification of such concepts as respect , tolerance and offence have backfired on the West . Michael Neumann wrote , " Western piety has left the West without a leg to stand on in this dispute . It is no good trumpeting rights of free expression , because these rights are now supposed to have nebulous but severe limitations . " Tim Cavanaugh wrote that the incident revealed the danger of hate speech laws , writing , " The issue will almost certainly lead to a revisiting of the lamentable laws against ' hate speech ' in Europe , and with any luck to a debate on whether these laws are more likely to destroy public harmony than encourage it . " 
