To go back to the first reply on this thread, where the fatuous reply that free speech demands responsibilities from the speaker, but none of course from the listener. That reply was made incidentally with no attempt to scrutinise the op link provided. This is indeed nothing more than a knee jerk, glib, shot in the dark in an attempt to itself quell freedom of thought and speech.. To suggest that an individual should have the obligation not to unnecessarily offend, is to make every individual responsible for the thoughts of every other, theoretical individual who might be offended by one's words, or even, as we see now all too often, just claim to be offended for malicious purposes.Perhaps the problem for the long-term survival of Europe is that in modern politics, too many individuals are seeking to base legislation on protecting people from being offended, instead of basing legislation on what is best for the national and cultural security of a country. Too many countries, based on originally well-intended laws that repress free speech, have already fallen into the trap of the truth is no defence. That of course leads to the major politically incorrect elephant in the room:
Is it possible that there are people who are exploiting the West's open but expensive legal process precisely to shut down freedom of speech and political views they find inconvenient for themselves?