The Pope famously made clear his views about religion and freedom of expression in the wake of the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris.

Referring to people who insulted the faith of others, he commented: "Say a curse word against my mother ... expect a punch in the nose."

The Pope was talking about reaction to provocation; what many people might simply call the right to freedom of speech. Now the singer Sir Elton John has taken offence at a so-called provocation. His response is retaliation; a verbal and commercial punch in the nose.

When fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana gave an interview in which they described babies conceived by IVF as synthetic and spoke of them as "chemical offspring", Elton John went ballistic.

The celebrity father of two IVF children embarked on an Instagram rant. He vowed never to buy from the designers again and called for a boycott of their clothes. At the time of writing 25,000 people had joined the cause. I'm surprised the figure isn't higher. After all, there are more than five million IVF children in the world. That's roughly 10 million parents with a reason to feel equally aggrieved.

Their numbers are a flea bite set against the 1.6 billion Muslims the French magazine risked inflaming but I doubt it feels that way to the designers who are on the receiving end of this ire.

So why would fashion designers make the sort of statements that would estrange them from their high-profile clientele? Why would they draw upon themselves the wrath of the famous and influential?

Both Dolce and Gabanno are openly homosexual. They were in a personal as well as a professional relationship for almost 25 years. However, as we should know by now, individuals are not easily put into boxes and frequently defy definition. Dolce is a practising Catholic.

At the beginning of this month, the designers displayed their autumn/winter collection in Milan with a show dedicated to motherhood entitled Viva la Mama.

Afterwards, Dolce said in an interview: "Procreation should be an act of love. You are born and you have a father and mother. At least it should be like that."

He was simply repeating the teaching of his faith.

He went on: "That's why I'm not convinced by what I call chemical children, synthetic babies. They are wombs for hire, semen chosen from a catalogue and then you have to explain to the children who their mother is."

It was a normal world view until the birth of Louise Brown in 1978. I suspect it remains the belief of some who know better than to say so out loud for fear of sharing the fate that has befallen Dolce and his partner: a public shaming. Also, the threat of a significant dent in sales.

The D&G statement was, however, offensive as well as ill-informed. Lots of IVF children are the product of their mother's egg or father's sperm or both. Lots of IVF children are brought up by a father and a mother.

Also, mainstream public opinion has shifted closer to the view of fertility expert Professor Lord Robert Winston who, a few weeks ago, said: "Denying people the right to procreate is a fundamentally hostile idea. It's very close to the worst form of eugenics."

In fact, legislation took another step forward last month when the House of Commons approved the use of mitochondria from a separate egg to prevent babies inheriting deadly genetic diseases. The first so called "three- parent baby" could be born in 2016.

What is lurking under the surface of this public spat is the implication that it's IVF for gay people that Dolce and Gabbana are really objecting to. In a joint statement they are quoted as saying: "The only family is the traditional one."

This criticism from within the fold will be seen as a betrayal by gay couples who, like Elton John and David Furnish, have become parents. It will also anger those in the gay community who feel they may one day want to have a family. The views are an echo of historic values that many hoped had been buried forever.

However, in my view, this spat highlights an important issue about free speech and the bullying power of the internet to deliver a "punch in the nose" to anyone who is deemed to have caused offence. Jon Ronson charts the dangers of falling foul of the online world in his latest book So You've Been Publicly Shamed.

He notes the poverty of empathy in the online mob. He writes: "When shamings are delivered like remotely delivered drone attacks, nobody needs to think about how ferocious our collective power might be ... The snowflake never needs to feel responsible for the avalanche."

It is an ancient habit, this shaming. I remember visiting a remote village in Umbria about 20 years ago and seeing writing daubed on the outside walls of the houses. I was with a guide who translated. It was the local gossip writ large. X was sleeping with Y and so on.

But, in time, walls would have been whitewashed and the shame covered over if it hadn't worn away. As Ronson points out, the internet, by contrast, never forgives and forgets.

So the designers, who jointly claim the quotes, may forever remain associated with a verbal assault on our most modern families. What they presumably saw as a simple expression of views they genuinely hold is costing them and may continue to do so.

Do they deserve the antipathy they have unleashed? Well, they did stick their heads in a hornet's nest. The children they spoke about are flesh-and-blood human beings. They are loved by flesh-and-blood parents. Any explanation they may need to hear in the fullness of time will not be aided by terms like "synthetic" and "chemical".

The designers' statements, however sincerely held, were lacking in empathy and likely to wound.

So what now of free speech? When subjects are as sensitive and potentially as painful as this one, how many of us remain Charlie Hebdo? The Italian designers tried an Instagram: "Je suis D&G." It fell flat.

I think that's a pity. I don't like what they said. I don't agree with what they said. I do understand how their views will upset gay parents and heterosexual couples who conceived joyously through IVF and who see it as a miracle worker. But I do still defend their right to state their view.

Isn't that the point of free speech? We may disapprove of what they say, but shouldn't we defend to the death their right to say it?

Because of that I think Elton John's boycott is concerning. When all is said and done, I think his campaign against Dolce and Gabanna is the greater offence.