Final answer:
The statement wrongly attributes the belief to Bret Stephens that true liberalism does not permit offending others, which is false. True liberalism does uphold the right to freedom of speech, including the right to offend, subject to certain limitations like threats, 'fighting words', and defamation. Governments have the right to restrict certain expressions that pose a threat to safety or public order.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement suggests that Bret Stephens believes true liberalism teaches that free people do not have the right to offend others and it is their responsibility to cope with being offended. This statement is false. True liberalism, as reflected in the philosophies underpinning the United States Bill of Rights and the practice of free speech, acknowledges that while the right to freedom of speech is extensive, it is not absolute. Under the First Amendment, most forms of offensive and unpopular expression, particularly political speech, are protected. However, there are key restrictions that limit our ability to speak or publish opinions under certain circumstances, such as incitement of a criminal act, 'fighting words', genuine threats, and defamation of character.
For example, a person in the United States can criticize a political candidate, even dishonestly, without breaking any laws restricting free speech. However, making a threat against a candidate's safety is illegal. Furthermore, while private individuals may sue for defamation, lying about political candidates is generally not subject to the same legal consequences. Therefore, governments that protect the free expression of ideas have the right to restrict some types of expression, especially when they pose a genuine threat to individual safety or societal law and order.
The harm principle, as referenced in another question, assumes that freedom encourages an experimentation and open dialogue which allows dangerous ideas to be rejected.