It is, in fact, possible to condemn physical attacks such as the violent one on Charlie Hebdo and the cyberattack on Sony Pictures without also lauding the material that provoked the attacks. The Sony hack, which resulted in the temporary censorship of the film The Interview, is an excellent example of this. Initially, the response from many was shock and outrage that America would bow to pressure from an oppressive regime like North Korea, especially by censoring criticism of the Kim family. That was both expected and right. But the claim that making The Interview was somehow a brave, revolutionary satirical tour-de-force is unjust and unmerited. As Adrian Hong of The Atlantic writes,

It is not a stand against totalitarianism, concentration camps, mass starvation, or state-sponsored terror. It is, based on what we know of the movie so far, simply a comedy, made by a group of talented actors, writers and directors, and intended, like most comedies, to make money and earn laughs. The movie would perhaps have been better off with a fictitious dictator and regime; instead, it appears to serve up the latest in a long line of cheap and sometimes racism-tinged jokes, stretching from Team America: World Police to ongoing sketches on Saturday Night Live.

Being irreverent is not always worthy of reward, and nor does it justify terrorism. So blanket condemnation of terror and support of its victims need not go hand-in-hand with blanket approval of the content of their speech. The hero/villain dichotomy is not useful in examining the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo.