The shooting at the Charlie Hebdo office has given rise to a spectrum of opinions being expressed. While some consider this effect a direct claim to the Freedom of Speech, what with the range of people commenting, it is commonplace to forget the very concern here: people were killed by other people. This is not justifiable by anyone.
Looking at the variety of responses, we have notice the right going berserk, the left being defensive and a popular online reaction. But what of the fact that, again, people were killed? It brings me to consider the context of these comments. The right to be heard or seen as socially aware and upholding a moral standard. This is what I consider Moral Panic in the global now. Around the world, responses are offered. This is not purely an attempt at a popular social movement, but rather a sort of contention with the idea of presenting as socially aware, as being opinionated. The Moral Panic which I suggest is not one against certain morals, but rather a generic form of offering one’s opinion. Opinion for opinion’s sake. This is the moral confusion (or conviction) of the day.
The globalised individual is aware of their surroundings, extended to the corners of the world, this galaxy, the next and all to come. Perhaps this latter condition is the next step. We will have ethics about how Andromeda should not be interacted with, but then we can have the saviour complex swoop in and suggest needing to extend protection.