This is where corporations and staff struggle to find a policy that reduces the amount of harm caused by the sending of a message from a speaker to an audience that is uninterested and reciprocal. When a speaker’s interest fails to fall in unison with an audience, miscommunication can cause more harm than the actual message being sent. A speaker expresses their opinions and ideas to engage in communication and to be recognized as an informed citizen on public concern. An audience member however, acknowledges the benefits of being the recipient of other speeches, and can attend social gathers or seek out certain speakers to become better informed, and facilitated in the pursuit of one’s ideas and values. When a conflict of interest arises, it can create and endorse “a constant state of outrage, even toward well-meaning speakers trying to engage in genuine discussion” (Hadit). Limiting the opportunity for a speaker to send certain messages can cause more issues then projected benefits. Harm, perhaps rather than by the messages themselves, is being caused by the over censorship of the offensive or unpopular messages. The harm test, in contrast to Mills harm principle, addresses the danger of inequality that comes with this regulation. He comments that “any restrictive policy passes a harm test: the government must be able to show that hate speech poses a significant risk of harm to minorities that are its targets” (Sumner, 149). When applying this quote by Mill to trigger warnings being used on campus the state has little right to deny access to people’s rights to expression due to controversy and offence, Sumner concludes that “forms of expression which pose no risk to others then the freedom to engage in them must be inviolable” (149). Offensive content or unpopular opinions can be destructive, annoying and indecent but are not harmful. Offensive speech is vastly different than hate speech. If public health and liberty are at risk due to immoral actions opinions and views, then State regulation would be deemed appropriate. But since all citizens have the fundamental right to free speech it would be immoral in itself to assume all offensive and unpopular opinions are fallible. For the state to impose on one’s freedom of expression to meet the demand for better public health and individual liberty it would need to pass the harm test.