Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals, except perhaps in those cases when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm. Yet, to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm.
Summary
If failing to restrict a liberty would not cause harm, then it’s wrong for the government to restrict that liberty. (Contrapositive: if it’s not wrong for the government to restrict a liberty, then it must be that failing to restrict that liberty would cause harm.)
To offend isn’t something that causes harm.
Publishing something is considered a liberty.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Failing to restrict any liberty (such as publishing something) that just involves offending people wouldn’t cause harm.
So it’s wrong for the government to restrict any liberty (such as publishing something) that just involves offending people.
A
It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that is only offensive.
Very strongly supported. Publication is a liberty. So it’s wrong to restrict a publication if failing to restrict it would cause no harm. Offending is something that causes no harm. Thus it’s wrong to restrict a publication if its only issue is that it’s offensive.
B
It is not wrong for the government to restrict individuals’ liberty when failing to do so would allow individuals to cause harm.
Unsupported. We can only conclude when something is wrong, not when it’s not wrong. (B) makes a sufficiency-necessity swap. The stimulus actually tells us that when it’s not wrong for the government to restrict a liberty, then failing to restrict that liberty must cause harm.
C
It is offensive for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals to publish, but it is not harmful.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest what makes something offensive.
D
It is not wrong for individuals to publish literature that is offensive.
Unsupported. We can only conclude when something is wrong, not when it’s not wrong. Also, the stimulus doesn’t suggest what makes something wrong or not wrong for individuals. It only discusses what makes something wrong for the government.
E
It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that does not cause serious harm.
Unsupported. The exception in the stimulus is triggered by any harm, not just serious harm. It’s possible for a publication to not cause serious harm while still causing some harm. So this publication might still trigger the exception, meaning the restriction might be acceptable.
Hector: You may be right about what the sculpture’s popularity means about its artistic merit. However, a work of art that was commissioned for a public space ought to benefit the public, and popular opinion is ultimately the only way of determining what the public feels is to its benefit. Thus, if public opinion of this sculpture is what you say, then it certainly ought to be removed.