I personally believe (and I accept that I cannot prove this) that a great many people who are currently speaking in favour of Charlie Hebdo's right to deliberately offend a "them" would take offense to the Sia video and would be denouncing her right to incidentally offend the "us".
How many of those people you imagine exist do you imagine would change their tune if the people who worked on the video were all shot in the head?
sounds like you're the one with the problem. Its simple - if you insult a person, expect them to respond. If you greatly insult a person, expect them to respond greatly. Your actions have consequences, same as anyone else. If you your a man, man up and accept them.
Is there an upper limit on what "greatly" means for the response? Arson? Murder? Nuclear war? Destruction of your planet and its three nearest neighbors?
And as for the analyst who was spying on her spouse, she's damn lucky she got a slap on the wrist. She could have gotten much, much worse for that.
That's kind of the problem. She could have and should have gotten much worse. The fact that she didn't indicates a serious dysfunction in the system. And it's the type of dysfunction that sounds a lot like the type of arrogant, "The rules don't apply to us," and, "If you're not police, you're nobody," attitude you get from dangerously corrupt police forces in countries we sneer at. That's not good. Not good at all.
Given that, I have a very hard time buying the idea that these people take their jobs seriously at all. Anybody who took that job seriously would have immediately stomped down on that person, drummed her out of the service, and immediately made changes to make sure it didn't happen again.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.