As someone who writes opinion pieces, this is where I’m expected to show solidarity with the rest of the free world by proclaiming “Je Suis Charlie.” And please don’t get me wrong – I’m as horrified as anyone about the recent terrorist violence in France aimed initially at the satiric publication Charlie Hebdo. But even though I’m not Catholic, I have to agree with Pope Francis that deliberately provoking religious fanatics is likely to result in unpleasant consequences.

Islamic extremists have killed others for mocking the prophet Mohammad and have called for the murder of many more. Islamic extremists are no different than any other type of extremists – they feel called, as humorist Finley Peter Dunne once observed, “to do what they think the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.” Extremists aren’t just the fecal effluvia of Islam – many religions and ideologies have a lunatic fringe.

Extremists are a favorite target of satirists. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have become household names from skewering the far-right (and anyone else who attracts their attention). And though presented as news, Fox News describes itself as entertainment rather than journalism.

Extremists, unfortunately, have no sense of humor. They are so insecure in their beliefs that they will reflexively attack anything that calls their dogma into question. Extremists cry out to be laughed at, and laughed at they are. But in doing so satirists sometimes cry out for retaliation.

The difference is that in liberal democracies speech is protected while violence is not. Thus the satirist enjoys an impunity he wouldn’t in less-civilized nations. But the fact there is a law against anything, including murdering those who mock us, doesn’t mean people won’t do it.

A talking head on CNN said that while he could sympathize with editors who have to weigh freedom of speech against the safety of their employees, to self-censor in the light of the Charlie Hebdo massacre is to let the extremists win. And I have to agree – when violence silences truth, freedom is lost.

But I also have to think there are ways to tell the truth that balance freedom with the responsibility not to invite the cold-blooded slaughter of one’s co-workers.

And maybe it’s naïve of me to think this – maybe extremists are incapable of any emotion other than blind rage. But the more I learn about Charlie Hebdo, the more I have to wonder if its staff was deliberately baiting the extremists. Why would they? I don’t know, but I’ve known people who enjoy the non-conformist cachet that comes from flouting convention, from either symbolically — or sometimes literally — pissing on things others hold dear. It makes them seem hip and cutting-edge, and is an easy way to get undeserved attention.

I don’t know if this was the case with the victims at Charlie Hebdo – and no one deserves to die for disdaining convention. But ridiculing others can be like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater – people are going to react.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government prosecution, not freedom from persecution. And while there may not be a completely safe way to confront extremists in print, discretion is still the better part of valor. I’m not saying it was deserved, but the Charlie Hebdo massacre shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Charlie Hebdo will keep publishing and extremists will keep killing — the age-old battle between pen and sword never seems to end. But since the pen must win, even if its freedoms are sometimes abused, it’s time for me to say “Je Suis Charlie!”