The answer to increasingly hostile and aggressive public debate is a return to civility.
Last month's horrific massacre in Norway understandably provoked intense public discussion about gunman Anders Breivik's motivation. Debate over whether Breivik was a lone deranged madman or a politically motivated terrorist egged on by extremists has polarised opinion.
In Australia criticism has been lobbed at several public figures quoted in Breivik's manifesto, including former prime minister John Howard and former treasurer Peter Costello, on the grounds that their statements were inflammatory and provocative. This is unfair.
Their comments may have been controversial. But the themes they grappled with - multiculturalism, Islam and ''Western values''- certainly fall within the bounds of legitimate and rational debate.
We should not rush to stifle public discussions on the off chance that an unhinged individual (whether politically motivated or not) misconstrues them as a clarion call to violence. Nor should the far-right groups Breivik associated himself with in Europe be suppressed. Restrictions on extremist groups inevitably push them underground and out of authorities' sight.
When the racist, sexist, xenophobic minority are included in public debate they must justify and defend their radical views to the more tolerant majority. Most are swiftly debunked and marginalised. Some highlight genuine grievances which are incorporated into mainstream discourse.
But while greater regulation of political speech is certainly not the answer, surely some societal self-reflection is appropriate. Opposing knee-jerk restrictions does not have to mean embracing - and defending - hysterical commentators preaching intolerance.
While Australia has experienced the horror of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed, we have thankfully escaped the seemingly politically motivated violence seen in Norway.
However, there are worrying signs that the public discourse is becoming more rancorous and angry. Several politicians, including the Prime Minister, have been the subject of death threats. A participant at a recent public meeting suggested to Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey that Australians take up arms against the Government.
In online forums, where much of our political debate now takes place, vitriol and insult are par for the course. Personal attacks, nasty name-calling, and the occasional ''meow'' substitute for clever, considered claims.
This is not new. Almost a decade ago Peter Saunders and Nicole Billante, of the Centre for Independent Studies, called for a return to civility in public debate. Today, with political animosities again at fever pitch, their argument is again worth revisiting.
Political theorist John Rawls argued that civility requires ''a willingness to listen to others and a fair-mindedness''. Yet in so many participants in public debate, these qualities are sorely absent.
Saunders and Billante contend that at the heart of civility is respect for others. This ''does not mean that one must meekly give in to opponents – liberal civility is fully consistent with robust criticism and passionate advocacy - but it does mean that expressions of hatred, contempt or distrust of political adversaries is ruled out as illiberal and uncivil''.
Civility also means that ''the principle of 'shared governance' has a superior claim to one's allegiance over any sectional or ideological claim''. In a free society, politicians, commentators and public figures should be allowed to vociferously voice their opinion, even if that opinion is unfashionable, out of step with the mainstream, or likely to cause offence to some.
But a civil public debate demands that they show respect to their adversaries at all times. Respect and intolerance cannot coexist.
We can recognise the importance of the right to offend, without reflexively embracing offensiveness.
We can vigorously defend the right to free speech, yet still despair of the state of our current political discourse.
We can forcefully reject any suggestion of legislative controls on public speech, without tacitly validating the viewpoint of every boorish crank to open their mouth.
Should advocates of free speech be cautious of calls for civility in public discussion, for fear that robust debate will be rendered impotent with politeness? Could civility simply become a cover for political correctness?
Saunders and Billante argue that just the opposite is true. As public discourse becomes increasingly uncivil, calls to restrict public speech intensify – as debate around the Norway massacre demonstrates.
Hysterical commentary is grist for the mill of those who wish to stifle free debate.
For Saunders and Billante, ''self-regulation ... is all that stands between us and the increasing use of coercion by the state''.
Perhaps if Europeans had talked about issues of migration and multiculturalism more freely, more rationally, and more respectfully in the first place, the seething resentment expressed most volubly by far-right extremist groups would not have bubbled into so much anger and intolerance.
Embracing civility, thoughtfulness, and self-reflection in public debate does not mean embracing self-censorship. Volatile issues must remain on the table. But it does mean embracing respect.
Jessica Brown is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies