I think any urban centre should be expected to fail the town square test. Some people are violent and unreasonable, by their nature. As for by-standers, most don't want to get involved, daylight or dark night. Isn't that human nature, rather than a reflection of a society's commitment to liberty?

Chris Pontius is a case in point. I doubt that he knows about Natan Sharansky, but one of Chris' videos amounts to a failed attempt at the town square test. He suffered physical harm while stating a religious belief. On the other hand, a few people stood up for him. Anyway, watch it all here.

First, nobody is aggressively violent by nature, rather some people are violent because they are idiots. They can learn to use violence only in self-defence or defence of others and to settle other differences through discussion.

Second, if doesn't cost a group of people much to stop an attack by a single aggressor. The real issue is do they want to stop the attack?

The mere fact that Pontius was harmed doesn't seem to be the point of that video. The man who hit him was rather large. The people around him just could not stop him immediately, but they did try and eventually succeeded. They were trying to make it safe for Pontius to express his views. The delay might have also been because they thought the idiot would stop attacking him because he would feel ashamed at his actions. This would be a better outcome than the thug being forced to stop his attack.

If I were to be beaten up in the middle of Oxford for wearing an Israeli flag would anyone even try to stop the attacker? I don't know. I don't think I would bet on it.

Finally, I am somewhat confused as to why anyone would say that this constitutes evidence that the town square test is BS. Perhaps the poster who said that would explain further.