The harm principle represents the standard for judging others' speech, but it can't tell us what punishment is appropriate or separate good faith from bad faith dialog.
Just as tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance, the possibility of free speech must be forcibly maintained and policed according to some limits.
Criticism of the letter tends to move far beyond the words on the page. That move is no doubt justified in some circumstances, but perhaps not justified in all.
We need to communicate risks and encourage compliance, but sensationalization threatens to undue whatever gains we might make.
Given worries regarding political representation and the Supreme Court, it may be time to reconsider the purpose, function, and makeup of our judges.
What model of punishment best accommodates our intuitions in this particular case?
Are there legitimate fears that might explain reluctance to offer those ready to flee Hong Kong safe harbor and a path to citizenship?
There may be no ideal one-size-fits-all solution for schools reopening, but that doesn't mean that all plans are equal.
Does the very possibility of wrongful conviction — inherent to the BARD standard — render capital punishment unconscionable?
Whose rights are at stake when businesses require patrons to don face masks? How should we define the boundaries of our individual freedom?