Freedom is a delicate subject. Regarding (i) the recent declaration from the Pope that it is wrong to mock, offend, criticize, or provoke the faith of religious people; (ii) the "freedom of expression but (...)" comments I have read throughout the Internet regarding the Charlie Hebdo massacre - I have this to say:
If I were to be mocked by a creationist because I believe in evolution, should I punch him and compare my situation to the one described by the Pope, where we should expect a punch from someone whose mother we mocked? Of course not, that would be absurd - in principle, I would be able to defend my beliefs and my position with rational discourse, if I even cared to reply. Why, then, should I be offended, or respond violently, if I know that what I believe is logical and consistent, or why should I resort to violence when someone says x, y, z about my mother which I know to be false? And even if it was true, why should I be offended and angered by the truth, and use that as justification for my violence? However, according to the pope, if you mock someone who holds irrational beliefs, expect retaliation. First of all, I would expect violent retaliation from a child, not from a decent adult - if you are capable of hitting someone because they mocked someone who you love, you are already acting unethically - there's no excuse to it. Now take it to the next level - if you are capable of killing someone on behalf of insults made to someone who you love, while that entity has not even been proven to exist, simply because you hold faith, you are an immoral fiend and beyond hope - there's no way to circumvent this. There is little, or nothing, you can say to open the eyes of an individual capable of taking another one's life in behalf of his irrational beliefs, since basic empathy towards a fellow human was incapable of doing so. But getting back to the point: the main difference between the first situation I described (someone believing in evolution) to the latter (someone holding faith) is that faith cannot be discussed; faith cannot be rationalized; faith is simply too weak and fragile to allow for arguments. Faith is, by proper definition, irrational and unreasonable; by my own definition, unattainable and unwise. However, it has become much more than that. Faith has become a passport to being offended when others mock or criticize your unjustified beliefs; it has become a passport to act upon the fact that you are so sensible, so irrational and so deeply attached to your preconceptions, that you have no alternative way of defending your beliefs other than verbal or physical aggression. The more liable you are to being offended, the greater the constraint on the freedom of expression of others.
The absolute best that we could do right now would be to seriously think about this issue. Learn how to tolerate the opinions that we don't like - that's part of life; be honest enough to realize that faith has no special place among the world except in the personal realm, and will be given no special treatment by others; know that society has evolved due to constant disagreements and critics, which many times involves mockery of what we, as individuals or as society, think absurd or ridiculous - that is how we grew up not only socially, but ethically and morally. There is no human right to not be offended - how could we even attempt at freedom if that was the case? There is an unique meaning to freedom of expression, and "but" is not, and never was, included in the definition. If we are to share the same sky, we must learn how to deal with one another without diminishing the very freedom that enriches our human experience.