A tricky responsibility is free speech, one person's sincerely meant opinion may be offensive to another simply because that opinion is in conflict with a religion or ideology. The claim to having a right to free speech is often deliberately manipulated to cause hurt and insult.

If person A claims "my point of view is":
1.
2.
3.
For the following reasons; 4, 5, and 6.

The only 'offence' (I have used italics deliberately) this could cause is to someone whose beliefs are so deeply held that the very thought someone has a completely opposite belief to them cannot be tolerated. Sometimes, we call that reaction being a bit 'precious'. However, if the opinion is reasonably and sincerely expressed, whatever that opinion is, if it is taken as offensive then that is more the issue for the offended person than the one who has expressed themselves in courteous, respectful and reasonable terms.

A reasonable response would simply be to say, "I disagree because my POV is X and the reasons for it are 8, 9 and 10".

However, when the above is expressed along with derogatory terms such as "you are a 'feminazi-loving leg humping suck-hole'" for saying whatever POV has been expressed, well even a four-year old will know that is offensive and intended to insult.

Deeply held beliefs can be expressed passionately or in completely pragmatic terms, without resort to labelling, name-calling or deciding with malice the state of mind of another person or group of persons.

It is the cowardice of a bully who claims that someone else 'started it' for saying something the bully disagrees with. Even more cowardly is to try to justify malice by claiming the 'right' to free speech. Any 'right' always comes with responsibilities. Everything we do and say has consequences.

No-one has the right to malice, however, we all have the right to free expression. If someone cannot give an opinion without respect, then that results in lack of credibility (for the opinion) and indicates other issues such as anger, guilt and misanthropy.

A major omission in this article is a link to the debate that David Knoll refers to. It can be watched here http://www.iq2oz.com/events/event-details/2009-series/02-march.php and the audio can be downloaded here http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/04/03/2534072.htm It's worth a listen.

There are valid grounds for limiting freedom of speech that all of us endorse: inciting violence, a hoax fire alarm in a crowded theatre (as noted above), defamation, any speech intended to bring about harm or violence to others.

It strikes me that much of this debate comes about because we still don't have ways of dealing with speech that is hurtful, rather than harmful. However I tend to agree that 'offensive' is not grounds for curtailing freedom of speech - offence does not of necessity equal harm.

First, inciting violence or harm is fairly easy to define and test. By contrast, it's well-nigh impossible to define 'offence' in any consistent, enforceable way.

Second, there are higher values than freedom from offence. For example, in the eighties many claimed to be offended by discussion of sexual behaviour, but the success in fighting AIDS through promotion of safe sex has demonstrated that protecting some people from offence might have catastrophic consequences for others.

Third, the corollary of freedom of speech is the freedom to dispute and condemn any utterances you find offensive. Indeed the most effective strategy for dealing with offensive speech is to engage and discredit it, or even better, to allow it to discredit itself (hello, Pauline Hanson).

In a society that allows freedom of speech, stating that you're offended by what someone else has said is a legitimate form of discourse. Peter Andren, an audience member at the IQ2 debate, reminded us that in years past people who complained about abuse or vilification were told to stop being whingers and to turn the other cheek: "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

Continued

In a multi-faceted society, this simply isn't good enough (to extend CJ's argument above). Stating that you're offended is not the same as trying to restrict freedom of speech. We need to feel free to speak out when we're offended without having to deal with accusations that we're wowsers or whingers. An example of this type of accusation came from gay writer David Marr, one of Knoll’s opposing speakers in the IQ2 debate, when he took a crowbar to gay rights advocate Rodney Croome:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/tyranny-the-price-paid-for-not-giving-offence-20090331-9i7p.html

It’s not wowser-ish to insist on being treated with the same respect as everyone else. However there’s something very sinister in publicly howling down legitimate expressions of offence.

In my view, until all of us feel empowered to dispute the hurtful, we will continue to hear calls to limit free speech.

To return to Knoll’s article, for me, a powerful argument against limiting hurtful or even hateful speech is that it doesn’t work. Today Germany limits speech by prohibiting denial of the holocaust, promotion of racial supremacy, and use of Nazi insignia. The minute a right-wing organisation is banned, its sympathisers blithely start a new one. The swastika is displayed with three hooks or five, rather than four, and holocaust deniers simply use code phrases to convey their views that historians have been lying to them since 1945. So far, Germany’s right-wing lunatics have been sufficiently inventive to survive and indeed thrive, despite the restrictions.

To those who lost loved ones in death camps, and who today feel personally threatened by anti-semitic hate speech, hearing denials of the holocaust is excruciating. Yet placing limits on speech is a fruitless means of dulling the pain, because it simply doesn’t work.

Yes, Jonathan Sacks is right. However you can’t legislate for responsible speech, any more than you can legislate to stop people farting in church. Engaging hurtful and hateful speech is far more effective, and respecting people’s views when they state that they are offended is an important part of this engagement.

And of course there are ill-mannered oafs like Antiseptic who clearly intend to cause offence. However, if they want to behave like petulant four year-olds, then - as somebody else said - they should be free to do so as long as they don't cause any actual harm.

Certainly, it makes the puerile boofheads easier for adults to identify.

Free speech and insults are not related.

It is possible to express points of view and different ideas without insults and abuse. This is free speech. Insults and abuse are not free speech they are insults and abuse. Free speech cannot begin to exist until the insults and abuse end.

There is no free speech associated with the problems in Palestine. There is plenty of insults and abuse, and that is never going to lead to any sort of solution to the hatred between the Jews and the Palestinians.

Free expression of ideas has never caused hatred or genocide. Insults and abuse always leads to hatred, and often genocide.

Runner tells us that the "socialist" press is incapable of not vilifying.

If you want some good old time vilifying why not try USA Fox so called "news" and some of the "pundits" that infest it. And the various blogs etc that link into it too. Not much "socialist" sympathies to be found there. Try the huge man of fat Russ Limbaugh.

Or why not try the various right-wing propaganda hacks from the Murdoch press here in Australia. They are always vilifying someone, either individuals of groups (large and small). Andrew the DOLT does it in every rant that he writes.