Before people in the Western world had forgotten about the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo early this year after this French satirical magazine published controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons, a similar shooting case took place on May 3 at a cartoon contest to draw Muhammad, run by extreme far-right groups that have advocated genocide against Muslims, in Garland, Texas. Two men opened fire, wounding an unarmed security guard in the ankle, before being shot and killed by police. Later the Islamic State claimed responsibility for this event.

Both incidents featured images of Muhammad, which some Muslims believe is blasphemous. The latest event shows that the tragedy that happened to Charlie Hebdo did not raise enough awareness among the public. Meanwhile, it invokes fierce debates over the freedom of speech that was hotly discussed not long ago.

Some US media claim that in a free society, even the most offensive views may be expressed. Indeed, the freedom of speech is a commonly used tool in the US to slash against other countries or groups. The US has successfully made it into a universal value that it believes only it masters.

But within the US, debates over the boundaries of freedom of speech have never ended. Other media noted that during a particularly volatile time when the relationship between the West and the Islamic world is tense, pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech with intentionally provocative messages is certainly not a wise choice and only poisons public opinion.

One week before the incident, 145 American intellectuals boycotted a ceremony by the PEN America which conferred its annual courage award for freedom of expression on Charlie Hebdo. One of the writers believed this magazine represented a "forced secular view" and "cultural intolerance."

It is worth comparing the reactions of US media in the aftermath of the two terror attacks. Several news organizations, including CNN and The New York Times, refused to show the cover of the magazine's new issue that featured a cartoon drawing of Muhammad and was considered a symbol of freedom of speech.

While the editor of the magazine slammed US media, The New York Times published an editorial, saying that although freedom of expression is broader in the US than many other European countries, there are "legal limitations on speech that involves incitement, libel, obscenity or child pornography," and "it is best for editors and societies at large to judge what is fit - or safe - to print."

This shows that the US leaves room for itself to maneuver in freedom of speech.

It is regrettable that a similar event took place after the Charlie Hebdo one. Free speech rhetoric should not serve as a means to incite hate among different communities. Meanwhile, resorting to barbarism and craziness should not be allowed.

It is necessary to keep a space where different groups of people can hold different ways of thinking. Pope Francis, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack, said both freedom of faith and freedom of speech should be respected, but there are limits to freedom of expression.

The Charlie Hebdo event has already proved to be a diplomatic dilemma for Europe.

It tests Western governments' wisdom to avoid such impasses. Holding up a narrowly defined freedom of speech shows indifference to Muslims' religious affiliations and helps little to solve religious conflicts.

The author is a freelance writer based in Beijing. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn