Quote from: scout on January 24, 2013, 08:04 am[SNIP]Regarding freedom of speech, is there ever a point at which something should be done to try to quiet the storm if that speech begins to harm others? I'm well aware of my place and duty here, but I learn something new every day about how to approach these matters, and how to do a better job here. Aside from the frustration of lacking a clear answer, these calmer discussions are thought-provoking. Both sides make some indisputable points. Can we all at least agree that it's kind of fantastic to be part of a community where people with such differing philosophies can co-exist (for the most part)? In conclusion:Ah, drugs, you wonderful sometimes-unifier of philosophical opponents!Hi scout,Personally I don't believe that there is ever a point where 'something should be done to try to quiet the storm if that speech begins to harm others'. Freedom of speech is, by its very definition, unshackled. If it offends someone, then that person needs to harden their sensibilities.Where is the justice in silencing one person simply to allow another to enjoy that silence, or to censor a person so as another won't be offended? Offense is something we **choose** to partake in. Things only become offensive when a person wishes to push their views on another by refusing to accept that they are entitled to their own point of view.We can all agree that it's incredible to be part of a community where people with sometimes opposing philosophies can co-exist; what makes that all possible, however, is freedom of expression. :)- grahamgreene