On Jan. 7, 2015, two heavily armed assassins murdered two security guards and 10 Parisian journalists during an editorial board meeting at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication notorious for its controversial depictions of Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of color.

This attack comes shortly after the controversy surrounding the release of “The Interview,” a satirical political comedy in which Kim Jong-un — the supreme leader of North Korea — is assassinated.

The Guardians of Peace hackers threatened terrorist attacks if Sony Pictures proceeded with the movie’s release.

Both of these instances evoked questions about precisely what types of speech our freedom of speech protects and just how far the freedom to speak satirically extends.

The Maroon’s editorial board understood the gravity of the situation going into our editorial board meeting last Thursday.

As a result, members of our editorial board were extremely divided about how to appropriately and delicately cover the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

If Loyola is a university that encourages critical thought and nuanced discussion, then this discord comes as no surprise.

The dramatic irony of this situation is that while we argued, debated, played devil’s advocate and evaluated the ethics of particular standpoints presented, we generally ignored the fact that these journalists were murdered by men who rejected their freedom to express dissenting opinions at a meeting of the same brand.

For this precise reason, we are ultimately forced to conclude that we are, in fact, Charlie.

Although our publication prides itself on championing rights for those who are traditionally villainized through, alienated from and persecuted by mainstream media, there have been times when The Maroon’s editorial board has run editorials and articles that have been inherently controversial in their nature.

The Maroon as a publication advertises itself as a lamp and a mirror of the Loyola community. As a consequence, we actively advocate for the freedom of creative expression of all types in all mediums.

Without a publication’s freedom to express their majority opinion in an uninhibited, open capacity, the freedom to produce work of a high caliber does not exist.

It is necessary that we vocalize provocative opinions of dissent.

It is integral to our missions as both journalists and critical thinkers that we produce work that facilitates nuanced thought and alternative perspectives.

Although The Maroon can identify with Charlie Hebdo in this respect, our editorial board emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that we do not condone the publication’s tradition of publishing insensitive work that crudely depicts stereotypes of marginalized groups and promotes a culture of prejudice and hatred.

On the other hand, we cannot condone the radical acts committed against the publication on behalf of these terrorists.

It is important to note that although these journalists published material that targeted and was intentionally offensive to the individuals who executed this attack, these pieces of journalism do not infringe on the terrorists’ freedom to respond in an appropriate manner in any capacity, nor do they warrant the murders of the journalists responsible for them in any way, shape or form.

As The New York Times coined it, “It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.”

There are appropriate ways to counter controversy. There are appropriate ways to disagree.

This editorial board believes that conversation should be met with reciprocal conversation, not insensitivity, not violence and certainly not death.

We do beg that you not allow this incident to perpetuate any deep-seated prejudices or Islamophobia.

This small, isolated group does not reflect on the morals and principles of Islam, nor should it incriminate the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims living in France and around the world.

Voltaire, perhaps the most famous French writer and philosopher of the Enlightenment, is attributed as saying, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

It is times like these that his sentiments seem hauntingly appropriate.