I would welcome additional debate on this in the current era of algorithmic social media. With the rise of illiteracy in all its forms and the ever increasing ability to deceive, we need to leverage these same tools to educate and inform. Hitchens would be missed in such a debate.

On 2016-06-14 19:02:40, Indran wrote:
similar to what Sean said, the pro free speech side should have been able to easily win this debate without interrupting their opponents constantly. Gourevitch and Hitchens´ poor etiquette has no bearing on the strength of their arguments. But I wonder if these debaters forget that the pedestal they have been given here (and elsewhere) is a privilege, not a right. In addition to the freedom of speech, there is the freedom to ignore d-bags, no matter how sound their arguments are. In my opinion, a more effective debater would keep that in mind.

On 2016-01-23 11:35:34, Sebastian wrote:
Why do we correct our children when they say something offensive, promote bad behavior, or bully other children?

On 2015-01-20 22:17:39, Sean Campbell wrote:
Firstly, I think both sides are correct (stunning I know). Free speech must be allowed even as a Christian, I often times am offended by those that criticize the existence of God through lawsuits attempting to remove nativity scenes from Church lawns. However, even Christ would understand not silence them, nor would He take action *against* them (though he may defend). Also, those that have the power (that comes with responsibility) of free speech (news magazines, etc.) they must realize tenuous situations whereby may draw unnecessary harm to others. I.E. one may strongly criticize Islam without insulting Islam. One is constructive and the latter is attack. Free speech with social responsibility - balance of the two. *Side note: it's insulting and un-polite for Hitchens to interrupt others during a debate as this. There is structure to the format and he discredits himself by not respecting others.

I'm offended, therefore it should be illegal. Khan seems to think that since something isn't of value to her, it must not be of value to anybody else. What a self centered and completely obtuse point of view. She would like to make it illegal to say something simply because she personally does not find value in it? So.....what if other people find value in it? Is she the arbiter of what is considered to be of value? What a horrible argument....no wonder Hitchens had an outburst. She's making outright fallacious arguments, and there is NO possible way that she's not aware of this.