Since I've been specifically called out here, I'll just say that there are at least 3 questions here that need to be distinguished:
1) Whether speech can cause harm.
2) Whether such speech, if engaged in by a researcher in the course of his or her research, can be punished.
3) Whether the state can require that all research somehow involving other people, including speech outside of a treatment context and reading written works, receive prior approval from the government or an agent of the government.
I think you can answer the first two questions "yes" and the third one "no."
I think Bruce and I actually managed to narrow the scope of our disagreement as to IRBs during our exchange on this issue in the past.
Two quick points: first, the idea that IRBs as they currently function see human subjects protections as their primary role is questionable if not dubious, and second, the idea that contributions to sociology or any other generalizable knowledge justify behavior of commission or omission that causes harm on subjects shows just how messed up our perceptions of ethics in research really are.
Which is to say, "very."
Caw and Fetters
Commenting by HaloScan
