This study aims to examine the argumentation regarding freedom of speech and the statement “je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) in eight opinion articles from different Swedish web magazines. Two doctotral dissertations who’s main topics are the freedom of speech and different types of arguments regarding freedom of speach, was used in this study. The study also uses the actual Swedish law surrounding the freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of the press and breaches of these laws. Also mentioned as different types of theories are; utilitarianism and journalism ethics and standards. This is a qualitative study using rhetorical analysis as a main method, but the study also uses some tools from the field of argument analysis, such as theses and main arguments. The results from this study shows, amongst other things, that various arguments can be used when trying to get your view surrounding the freedom of speech across. However there seems to be a clear difference between the writers who argue that the freedom of speech is more important than the right to not having to be discriminated by a statement or an utterance, and the writers who argue that the right to not having to be discriminated by a statement is more important than the right to potentially disciminate someone while uttering something. The writers who share the first view presented here, that the freedom of speech is more important, are also the ones who support the expression ”I am Charlie”, and the writers who don’t think that the freedom of speech is of more importance than the right to not having to be discriminated, does not support the expression ”I am Charlie”. However, while looking at this study, it’s imoportant that the reader bares in mind that the results from it doesn’t say anythning about anything else apart from the articles studied.