I understand the concerns raised in this article, but in the end it doesn't propose a workable solution.

The article itself demonstrates the problem. If there is no license to offend, then surely it would not be permissable to call Mohammad Khatami an 'expert in doublespeak' or to accuse Philip Frier of giving a platform to racial hatred and genocide. I would certainly be offended if I was the target of those kinds of labels and accusations.

And yet this kind of robust debate is vital, and as I suspect is the case in these remarks, sometimes the truth is offensive. I'm not sure of the exact answer to David Knoll's concerns. But I am sure that removing the license to offend is not the right approach.

Yeah...looks all well and good through my rose-coloured glasses, but who is going to decide what is offensive?

I could suggest that limiting someone's speech is a form of bullying in itself.

Some people find having the mickey taken out of them offensive, others do not. Some people are more sensitive than others. I personally like politically incorrect comedians (not all of them, but a fair few)- will they find themselves in the firing line? Are my friends going to be told they can't call me a Pom anymore because others find it offensve?

Where is the line going to be drawn on free speech and under whose direction?

I am frequently accused of being offensive or abusive here on the forums, yet I rarely set out to be either. Is it my responsibility to ensure that all those who choose to be offended are not, or is it their responsibility to read what I write in the context in which it is written?

Frankly, there are far too many who are simply too "precious" and are keen to find offence in every utterance, often in an attempt to stifle discussion. Pro-Zionists are one of the most obvious examples, along with some other religiously-based interest groups, radical feminists and any other group that finds it advantageous to make a claim for victimhood that can't be sustained with rational argument.

The problem with limiting people to inoffensive speech is that powerful organised groups, such as the pro-Zionists, can swamp any attempt to discuss matters of broad interest with claims of offence taken. In the lead up to the holocaust, the Brown Shirts and Black Shirts were quick to take offence at all sorts of things and enforce its suppression. The Nazis rose to power in a nation that was quite simply not allowed to disagree with the dominant paradigm and had no information with which to do so. They made a claim to victimhood for the whole German nation (except the people they wanted to paint as oppressors or as antithetical to the good of the nation - every victim needs an oppressor) and proceeded to act grotesquely with no questions askable by the people who they claimed to be acting for, on pain of being considered one of the "enemies of the State".

In short, the only ones to gain from a limitation of the right to free speech are the entrenched interests. If a subject is controversial or if it is inherently offensive, there may be all the more reason to discuss it.

It would appear that in the last few decades we have all become delicate flowers that need to be protected from anyone saying anything that we don't like.

Already in the work place employers can be sued by individuals that take offense, and harassment is defined as where any individual is exposed to anything that makes him/her feel harassed.

This leads to ridiculous examples such as some years ago in NYC a male co worker paid a female co worker what he thought was a compliment, and she complained to her boss that he was mocking her, and he was fired, and successfully sued the company for wrongful dismissal.

Whilst this is an extreme example, the result today is that in order not to offend anyone, one has to be so PC to the standards of the day that free expression is but a distant memory.

A prime example of this is the compulsory internet filtering proposal, where individual net filtering software is free.

The author states
'so little from a history where the licence to offend has led to social decay and even genocide, '

The license to defend does not cause genocide. Hatred, pride and hard hearts lead to genocide. Bob Brown offends me almost every time he opens his mouth but I hold no hatred towards him or his like. No doubt he would hold the same contempt for Fred Nile and his views and get genocide or violence is not promoted by either person. Recent vilification of George Bush and John Howard have hardly been matched in history. Mr Obama who does not know they don't speak Austrian in Austria is still seen to be an intellectual giant by the adoring media despite many slip ups in his early days. I think our socialist press in actually incapable of not vilifying.

There are many problems with attempting to restrict freedom of expression (not that we actually have a freedom of expression here in Australia - unless there is some attempt to legislate for it about which I am unaware?)
1. Freedom by its definition implies a lack of restrictions - if there are conditions of expression then perhaps we should call a spade a spade - here are your 'Conditions of Expression'.
2. What ever is passed into law will be used against YOU
3. Open discussion of any topic must at some time offend almost everyone - otherwise we are not really getting down to the nitty gritty. If someone is not offended then we have skirted around the facts, prefabricated explanations, lied about the impacts, cossetted the participants in comfortable cotton wool.
4 'And Iran, of course, continues to sponsor terrorist organisations across the globe.' Linking terrorism, violence, bullying and intimidation with free speech is a spurious argument. It is NOT free speech which creates these aspects of human nature, and placing conditions on free speech will not eliminate them. I suspect that they survive in our society because we have become afraid of free speech, and are no longer willing to speak up and stand up for what we believe in. We have become afraid.
5. Oppressive regimes ALWAYS restrict expression because they recognise the power of expression, communication etc as an essential tool for an informed and empowered community. Real opposition is not possible without freedom of expression, freedom of print, freedom of organisation etc
6. 'Offense' is a very personal notion. What you find offensive I may find acceptable. Offense is also a very manipulable term - 'I find that offensive,' can be used as a form of censorship itself, or as a way of controlling unwanted, confronting or challenging information.

Communities need ways of communicating in respectful ways - this does not however involved censorship or the restriction of expression.