[pip08456]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, some people do believe in absolute freedom of speech where people should be allowed to say absolutely what they want, no matter who it upsets. Would you support this?

On the other side of the spectrum, there's places like North Korea where everyone's life is controlled by the state.

I myself believe (like most things in life) that a reasonable balance between the two should be sought.

People should have freedom of expression, but people should always think twice before saying or publishing something online or should face the consequences. The consequence may simply be a retraction and apology (most people don't go out to cause offence and are horrified to learn that they have done so). A recent example of this is the cricketer Ben Stokes who mocked a disabled child for his own amusement.

If they learn something from this, all good and well, but if they refuse or become more abusive, then more robust action is required to deal with their malicious behaviour.

I think that this country is eventually getting to the right balance.

Generation snowflake weren't taught this.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me' is a stock response to verbal bullying in school playgrounds throughout the English-speaking world. It sounds a little antiquated these days and has no doubt been superseded by more streetwise comebacks.

The earliest citation of it that I can find is from an American periodical with a largely black audience, The Christian Recorder, March 1862:

Remember the old adage, 'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me'. True courage consists in doing what is right, despite the jeers and sneers of our companions.

That reference to the expression as an 'old adage' in 1862 suggests and earlier coinage.