DtG I don't think we strayed off of the path, it's just that it gets complicated when you try to decide who is responsible for protecting various interests: (1) the playwright and theatre's rights of expression; (2) the Sikhs' rights not to be subjected to offensive disparagement, or even hate speech, and (3) the theater's and theatregoers' rights not to be assaulted.

It appears to be unanimous agreement on (3), and this was a failure of government. We have mild dissent on (1). I was unclear in addressing (2). I was there addressing the Sikh's rights to redress of their grievance. (In my opinion, after someone hears them out, they need to understand that there are certain advantages to living in a theocracy but they ain't got one.) (I also think I am in agreement with Peter K on Wilde - I was just pointing out that it is a proper function of government to look at what he said, for its risks, even if it didn't rise to a sufficient level for action.)

Shambles is also talking about the problem where the government is actively part of the problem, rather than passively negligent. THAT'S when you've got the obligation to fight.