What constitutes &quot;reasonable&quot; is a hard question. What I <i>know</i> is that all societies on this planet curtail speech to prevent intimidation. They only vary on the degree of intimidation they forbid. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation.<p>I also, again, must take issue with the use of &quot;free speech&quot; in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that &quot;I would like to rape Ellen Pao&quot; is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don&#x27;t mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of &quot;free speech&quot; (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds).<p>I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not <i>apply</i> (and I&#x27;m not talking about various <i>exceptions</i> to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Freedom_of_speech" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Freedom_of_speech</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...</a>