IN THE aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings, free speech has been at the forefront of discussion across newspapers, television, radio, the internet, the dinner table and the pub.

While condemnation of the killings has been unanimous, the other issues raised by the shocking attack are much less clean-cut.

It won’t surprise you to hear that, as a journalist, I’m firmly in favour of free speech of all kinds. Of course, I recognise the offence the cartoons caused to Muslims around the world, but it seemed to me the simple fact that a section of society would have been upset is not a good reason to hold it back.

In 2011 Charlie Hebdo printed a cartoon depicting British men as dull, grey, suited men and women as obese, underdressed and backwards. Am I offended by this? Slightly, but I can’t in good faith say it shouldn’t have been printed.

But there is an issue that seems to have gone somewhat overlooked – what exactly was the magazine trying to say with the infamous cartoons?

Having looked at a set of the cartoons they don’t seem to be making any relevant points, so the only conclusion is, with depictions of the Mohammed banned in Islamic law, they were printed solely to shock and offend.

With this in mind you have to wonder what the point was? If it was to get publicity and attention it worked – but sadly in the most tragic way possible.

When Charlie Hebdo was thrust into the limelight earlier this month the general consensus outside of France, where the majority of people were unfamiliar with the magazine, was that it was a kind of French Private Eye – a clever, respected publication which relies on the intelligence of its readers to understand the meaning behind its winking references.

But what has become increasingly clear as we get some distance from the attack is that the magazine is much more akin to something like Viz – raucous, cheeky and sometimes filthy, but in reality pretty low-brow and something most people in France wouldn’t be seen dead with.

While certainly there’s value in that, was it worth 12 people’s lives?

Certainly not, but hindsight is always 20-20.