Protecting people from feeling offended, not bodily harm. His entire point is that it is a slippery slope trying to police speech when people can be offended by anything. The right to criticize, satirize, and otherwise commentate on ideas is a fundamental part of free speech, and that is all he was trying to defend.
People looking for a scandal here need to go touch some grass for a while.
Is it bad to value speech over protecting people?
Protecting people from feeling offended, not bodily harm. His entire point is that it is a slippery slope trying to police speech when people can be offended by anything. The right to criticize, satirize, and otherwise commentate on ideas is a fundamental part of free speech, and that is all he was trying to defend.
People looking for a scandal here need to go touch some grass for a while.