There are currently many challenges to the concept of Freedom of Speech. In my opinion one of the most dangerous is the idea that criticism of religious views is in some way "off limits" because that criticism is likely to cause offence. I would like to point out that I am sometimes quite offended myself by some of these religious views, but I would not presume to want them silenced.
Under no circumstances should government attempt to limit the right to free speech in any way, based on the idea that some people might abuse that right. If there are abuses of free speech such as incitement to hatred or violence, we have laws to prosecute the offenders.
This is how free speech should work:
Free speech is a basic human right for all, not just for those who have passed some sort of value judgement, test, or filter.
Any person or organization has the right to vocalize their thoughts and opinions using whatever medium they see fit, hopefully using some reasoned argument in support of their position.
Any other person or organization then has the right to either support or criticize those thoughts and opinions in whatever way they see fit, but hopefully using some reasoned argument in support of their own position.
This process can continue as long as the participants want to pursue it, ad infinitum.
At some point there may come a synthesis of the various arguments, or the parties may have to agree to differ.
The important thing is that at the end of the process all the ideas have been tested in a public forum, and all persons who have followed the argument will be able to establish their own point of view as a result.
If the process is stopped at an early stage because one of the parties is offended and adopts special pleading instead of engaging in the process of debate, we cannot reach that point.
I would suggest that those who will not submit to, or will not allow, full and open debate use diversionary tactics because they know that their argument is weak and they will be unlikely to press their case successfully.
