One of the most retarded things I read about this talk is this: "As organisers of LCA2010, Andrew and I have discussed this current situation and think some of Mark's slides could be inappropriate and considered bad taste, but they have certainly achieved their purpose of making us all sit up and think, and more importantly, to question. In our view, Mark's talk was not discriminatory or harassment. It obviously offended some people, but then he is entitled to shock, horrify and offend under his right to freedom of expression (as long as his actions aren't breaking any laws, like discrimination laws etc)."
So this person thinks that it's no problem if you offend or shock people, as long as you don't discriminate(there's a discrimination law for speeches?! since when?). This is the culmination of a current trend. Intelligent people would go for the "as much freedom as it's possible" kind of approach, on the other hand people with problems would go for the "let's censor every kind of offending words or thoughts"(which is stupid but at least it's somewhat coherent), then there's the aberration of the mind kind of approach, that is "let's censor just the things I don't like(like discrimination), but everything else is just fine".