Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech? 
Gaiman does a reasonable job with this argument, but in my mind fails to address the most pernicious thought in the letter:<p><i>The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?</i><p>This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed.<p>"If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a <i>premise</i> concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it.<p>"Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.