Niam, I just have one question. Can you read?
Because right now, I'm scouring this image, and I don't see where he says they deserved a mass shooting. All I see is him saying that Charlie Hebdo "uses its free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society." That is the only factual assertion he makes in this image. And, at the very least, the fact that someone on here defending Hebdo says it prints some things that are "tasteless" strongly implies that there is some gray area from which McIntosh's factual assertion may be true.
Without knowing what the "because" was in reference too, we do not know if he is defending what happened to Charlie Hebdo.
For example, if the KKK is firebombed and someone asks me "Do you think the KKK are a group of good people?" and I respond with "no, because it uses its free speech to harass people." That is a non-issue entirely and I speak only to character of the group and not the terrorist act. If the question is "do you think the KKK deserved what it got?" and I say, "yes, because it uses its free speech to harass people," then I am defending the firebombing. Simple, no? This is why context matters, and I ask what the because relates to.
And don't tell me about law. I know the law a lot better than you do, son.