In the past two months, the role of satire in a free society has been front and center, once for tragic reasons and several times for sentimental reasons. The horrifying and outrageous murders at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris prompted a rally of four million people in Paris, organized to confirm that such a heinous act would not halt the rich French tradition of satire. In the United States, the unexpected announcement from Jon Stewart that he would be stepping down from The Daily Show, together with the upcoming retirement of David Letterman and the repositioning of Stephen Colbert, triggered an outpouring of appreciation (for the most part) from not only the viewers of these long-standing television jesters, but also by the targets of their humor. If anyone is looking for a sign, in the midst of political rancor, that our democracy is healthy, look to the recognition of the role that satirists play in a democracy by the very leaders of that democracy.

Fortunately, our jurisprudence has reinforced this tenet – most particularly, my favorite legal opinion on record: the dissenting opinion by J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit in Falwell v. Flynt, 805 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1986). Judge Wilkinson's eloquence on the role of satire is worth revisiting in light of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. As most will remember, Falwell v. Flynt involved a tasteless ad parody of Reverend Jerry Falwell appearing in Hustler magazine. Recognizing that Falwell was a public figure, Judge Wilkinson noted the robust history of political satire – specifically referencing Moliere's treatment of the French lay clergy in Tartuffe and cartoons involving not just political figures, but also religious figures and "public moralists."

A society that comes from a tradition of free speech is perhaps better able to put satire in its proper perspective and preserve the notion of respect while still appreciating a good zinger, more so than a society without such a history of free speech. However, anthropologists have determined that there is no known culture that does not have a sense of humor. There is also no known culture that does not have some degree of politics. Humor – particularly biting satire, even if it sometimes crosses the line of generally accepted taste – is oftentimes essential in political discourse, and I would argue that every society has the capability to recognize and process satire without dismantling the precepts upon which that society is founded. As Judge Wilkinson stated: "Nothing is more thoroughly democratic than to have the high-and-mighty lampooned and spoofed. An observant electorate may also gain by watching the reactions of objects of satiric comment, noting those that take themselves seriously and those whose self-perspective is somewhat more relaxed."

Engaging in or even just tolerating irreverence does not suggest that there are some things that are not worth being respected and/or revered. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Wilkinson specifically noted that the American tradition of satire has enhanced political debate while not undermining respect for "presidents and priests."

But there is a reason why four million people took to the streets to express their support for Charlie Hebdo regardless of their opinion of the cartoon that supposedly led to the slaughter. There is a reason why Jon Stewart is the most trusted "newscaster" in America. There is a reason why leading U.S. politicians participate in events like the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner and the White House Correspondents' Dinner, where they not only are lampooned but participate in the lampooning. The reason can once again be found in Judge Wilkinson's words: "Satire is particularly relevant to political debate because it tears down facades, deflates stuffed shirts and unmasks hypocrisy. By cutting through the constraints imposed by pomp and ceremony it is a form of irreverence as welcome as fresh air."