The Scott McIntyre imbroglio worries me because I think it throws into a relief a problem not easily capable of solution.

The problem can be stated simply: different people find different things offensive. And offensive things outrage many people, often in destructive ways. Put like that, it seems so anodyne, but tease it apart and a many-headed monster emerges.

When McIntyre wrote a series of tweets attacking the Anzacs and their day, he offended so many people that their collective outrage was sufficient to get him fired.

When Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, was found to have donated to an anti-LGBT charity, he offended so many people that their collective outrage was sufficient to get him fired.

When Alan Jones made disparaging remarks about Julia Gillard and her late father, he offended so many people that their collective outrage led to calls for his resignation. Advertisers deserted his hitherto popular radio show in droves.

When Charlie Hebdo sent up both French Muslims and their Prophet, it offended so many people that their collective outrage was sufficient to ensure that many people – now including noted Australian author Peter Carey – declined to come to its defence after terrorists murdered most of its staff.

When anti-vaccine campaigner Sherri Tenpenny announced an Australian tour, she offended so many people that their collective outrage was sufficient to ensure that not only did all her Australian venues cancel her appearances, her entire tour was called off.

In my view, only in Tenpenny’s case did the outraged have right on their side. And I think drawing the line is difficult.

A great number of pixels have been expended over the McIntyre sacking. The principle disagreement has been over whether it represents an attack on freedom of speech.

Subject to what’s in his employment contract (although I’m reasonably sure I have this right), McIntyre’s speech rights haven’t been violated. He isn’t being censored. Nor was Brendan Eich, whose situation was analogous. xkcd’s cartoon on this point applies completely.

There is, however, a larger problem, one David Leyonhjelm highlighted on Saturday. The public shaming of people for their views is killing our national capacity for genuine debate.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson argued (although his position is a nuanced one) that sacking McIntyre was “proportionate”. Wilson also drew attention to the same “hysterical culture” of outrage that worries Leyonhjelm and me. However, I part company with him on the first point.

One of the reasons I don’t think the McIntyre sacking was proportionate is because I happen to believe that the only way to head the outraged off at the pass is for individuals and corporations to stand up to them. Lots of people try to browbeat Leyonhjelm, and, well, you’ve seen his reaction. He won’t wear it. He tells them to build a bridge and get over it.

Both left and right hit the outrage button on their pet topics, as do feminists – witness the anger (it’s legitimate to call it “confected”, I think), over Salman Rushdie’s use of the word “pussy” in a tweet.

Rushdie backed down because he is courteous, but didn’t apologise. Surely, however, a writer as great as he may point out that he has likely forgotten more about how to put words together than his interlocutor will ever know.

John Stuart Mill famously spoke of two types of constraints on freedom. The first is the obvious one, when the state censors by providing for laws against speech. The second is less obvious, but Mill believed it to be just as dangerous.

“There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling,” Mill argued, “against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent.”

Mill recognised that this is not something for the state. It’s the job of civil society. As I suggested with respect to Tenpenny’s cancelled tour, civil society has to draw those meaningful lines.

In a brief piece published after the McIntyre sacking Peter Brent related how – in response to a couple of impertinent, pseudonymous emails – Paddy McGuinness once told him to “go fuck yourself”. Brent, unlike those who complained to Mike Carlton’s employer in similar circumstances, did nothing. “What sort of person,” Brent asks, “attempts to get people sacked because they don’t like what they write?”

Lots of people, unfortunately. I’ve had people write to my employer trying to get me sacked multiple times. It still happens sometimes.

When we feel the sting of offence, more of us need to respond like Brent, rather than firing off irate emails to employers. Remember that different things upset different people. Rather than seeking to harm – by getting someone sacked, or worse – remember that the sting we feel from disagreement is the price we pay for a free society.

Helen Darville is an adviser to Senator David Leyonhjelm.