For me, when you start to say violence is acceptable you unleash an unpalatable set of events. Imagine people who are arguing on Twitter hunting down their opponents, turning up at their house to violently assault them. Or someone like Will Smith may take offence at a lot of things, resulting in them regularly punching people, slapping them, putting them in headlocks. What about if the perceived insult was more severe? Will Smith to host: "Do you want a cut or a break?"
Imagine the presidential debates. Trump says to Hillary. "Your going to jail!" Hillary kicks Trump in the shins. She says Trump makes her skin crawl, so Trump chokes her out. All fair game, defending their reputations.
What type of society do you want to live in? Should laws that punish violence be abolished? Or do we put in exception clauses that say if someone says something you don't like, you are allowed to assault them? Should we allow men to assault their wives for the offence of nagging? How about the wife punches her partner for snoring and hogging the remote?
Comedians have been roasting their guests for years at the Oscars. Yet only one person decides to disgrace themselves with violent thuggish behaviour.
Is this not a case of free speech? Or should we extend the hate speech laws to say that if we don't like something, we are allowed violent retrubution?
For those who think it was only because he was out of control due to anger, well, we have a place for these people: prison.
There are alternatives to violence to express your anger. Surely it should be the last resort, not the first?