In a different but similar context, some one wrote:
Even if she had meant harm, you and all (......) leaders should have been standing up for her. The idea that one may legitimately be imprisoned, or lashed, or even killed for poking fun at someone still remains. Do you understand how this threatens the foundation of free society? Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, or if they are they're perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed one of the foundations for free inquiry. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor's opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant's power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
