Agree. Charlie Hebdo was a small shop. Everyone understood what was happening and had visibility into what was going to be done. Charlie Hebdo could take risks with its team because they were so close to each other. Google's senior management taking that decision on behalf of its vast and global team may be less tenable.

There's already an Isis message published to their followers to find and kill staff of another Silicon Valley tech giant for percieved slights. So the threat wouldn't be new, but taking a stand publicly would.

It would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention.

You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". You are suggesting that free speech should not be exercised if there is any threat or violence. That is not free speech.

> You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation".

It's not "giving in" when you would never do something like that in the first place (without the threat of violence). It's just continuing to not do it.

Free speech doesn't require antagonizing anyone. I don't advocate censoring ourselves out of fear, but I wouldn't defend sticking our tongues out at a bully, even if we're on the moral high ground. We would be better served by expressing ourselves in ways that promote understanding other cultures, not widening the divide between them.