THE horrific murders in Paris last week have brought freedom of speech into sharp focus for millions of people around the world.

More specifically, how we define freedom of speech has become the world's most-debated issue.

The murders of journalists and cartoonists who worked for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were undoubtedly an attack on what is seen as one of the most basic human rights, certainly in the western world.

Last week's killings were, of course, borne of woefully misguided religious zeal; and we should not forget that Jewish communities were targeted as well as Charlie Hebdo.

But the fanatics whose actions fly in the face of the teachings of Islam ultimately see themselves as crusaders for a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Such a state would see the severest of restrictions on freedom of expression.

The rest of the world, including the vast majority of Muslims, have no option but to oppose such radicalism.

At the same time, we must remember that freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility.

There is an enduring myth in this country that freedom of speech somehow allows people to say or write whatever they want.

That is simply not the case.

We have all freedom of thought. But once we put those thoughts into words, either via speech or the written word, we become subject to the laws of the land.

Social media has become a legal minefield because people often post their thoughts without considering the implications or repercussions.

This 'I can say what I like' attitude often causes news organisations like the Argus problems with the comments sections on their websites.

Equally, there are those who believe people who forcibly state a view opposed to theirs should not be allowed to do so.

Only this week there have been rows between football and rugby supporters posted on our website.

People from both sides of the debate have contacted me to suggest some posters should not be allowed on our site because of their views.

Yet what the subjects of the complaints have posted is neither illegal or in breach of the terms and conditions of our website.

To ban people from expressing their views just because we happen to find them disagreeable or offensive is the thin end of a particularly unpleasant wedge.

Now more than ever, in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, we have to defend the right to freedom of speech within the law.

There are many views expressed on our website and our letters page with which I disagree. But that does not mean they should not be published.

Voltaire's view (though not an actual quote) - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - means more now than ever before.