We all are on the same page when it comes to linking actions with environment. No one is permitted to show pornographic materials to young people or shoot off their guns in urban areas. But we seem reluctant to use the same kind of thinking when it concerns speech. Most of us accept we cannot yell “fire” in a theatre but then why do we think it is ok to yell racial slurs or incendiary remarks about religions in environments where it would cause the same sort of panic? What we need is this same kind of restrictions we have on actions, on speech. Environments matter because context matters. Claims made in a debate in a controlled setting is a far different thing than the same claim made on a subway car to a random and non-consenting audience. If we can assume ‘no’ is the default setting when it comes to sex, so too can we assume ‘no’ is the default setting when it comes to attacks on people’s identity. We have an obligation to get peoples consent, implicitly as when they attend a debate or explicitly when they engage you in a debate.
