I have to disagree with the statement. The world doesn't simply operate on suchsimple means and accordingly, the life of any human being isn't governed easily bysimple factors. The world is nuanced and complex and what this statement fails todo so is by not taking into account most the other variables that fall in between. Itsimply isn't black and white and the word harm has to be better defined to fit in withtoday's society. Moreover, any effort to transport this principle to larger socialsettings gives everyone a huge incentive to become truly offended at the speech ofothers so that they can now have a lever to suppress their ideas. The angrier you get,the greater your rights. Work yourself into a white heat, and the world must yield toyour outrage. That dynamic will not work in a private setting where the organizer ofthe group has strong incentives to prevent any systematic move to extremes. Despitethat, I am all for individual freedom but there must be a limit as this fails to considerthe things that have the potential to bring harm not just to others, but society as awhole. Additionally, this doesn't provide a narrow scope of which actions count asharmful towards oneself or the population and it cannot be used to determinewhether people can be punished for their actions by the higher governing body
