[lovemenot]

Appreciate your conciliatory language. I believe the article is really all about Voltaire's maxim : I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Such an argument pretty much necessitates an unpleasant exemplar.

Read the obituary of Bob Randall currently on their front page for one instance of the Economist decrying institutional racism in a thoroughly heartfelt manner.

[misuba]

As discussed elsewhere in the thread, rights are not at issue; social consequences are. This is about a group of people saying, "not everything you have the right to do is beneficial. When introducing something into a given conversation in a given way, for the mere sake of the performance of your right, has known negative effects on the conversation and the people in it, you're not being a free speech warrior; you're being a jerk."

[lovemenot]

Why must it be either/or? Rights and social consequences are not exclusive. I agree that the artist behaved as a jerk. I just don't think it is desirable to try to prevent him being a jerk by shutting him (and others) down. As the article contends, by bending the definition of "safety" to now include not having to put up with jerks.

At the start of this thread, others had tried to make your voice irrelevant by down-voting your comment. Presumably because they disagreed with you. More recently, I have received down-votes against my first reply to you. In both cases, (and for the same reasons as this discussion) I think it would have been better for those who disagreed to say why they disagreed, not to attempt to shut down dissent. Disagreement is fine, as long as it is in the open. Silencing critics (jerks even) may feel good at the time, but the precedent is insidious.

Did you read that obit yet? http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-... Adjusted your view of TE editorial policy on racism after doing so?

[tacone]

BTW, actually Voltaire never said that thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall