Spice,
when does keeping the peace turn into a cowards way out of not trying to make anyone mad and lead to getting walked on and end up with never taking a stand?
One example would be the case cited earlier of a child locked in a hot car with the windows up. I'd be surprised at (and full of contempt for) anyone who wouldn't do what was needed--try and locate the parent, call the police, even smash the car window--depending on how much obvious distress the child was in.
Years ago I saw a parent beating a child repeatedly for what I considered no good reason. I called Children's Services. Apparently my name was given to the parents because the father (who wasn't there) later let it be known "some people should keep their mouth shut."
Everyone has things that are definite "I'm going to say something" issues, I'm sure. As TJ said, people, the issue, their culture, are going to be some factors that make them choose how to respond. Maybe giving someone a bit of a "pass" now might open up a chance for dialogue and change later?
Speaking up infringing on other's rights...well, if a person criticizes affirmative action in a recently riot-torn city and by doing that increases the chances of mob action against particular minority groups, that's a case for toning it down. Same with using hate speech to work for the defeat of some legislation that "benefits" some group you have a moral issue with--"hate speech" meaning slurs, appeals to stereotypes, etc.
The question of speech infringing like that...a problem here and elsewhere is that ideas are supposed to be what's being batted around, but soon it's people instead. If A says "Here's what I think about ______," and B asks questions with a desire to know more, great. But when B responds with flames, A gets defensive and the mortar rounds fall. Are flame wars inevitable? My guess: no, but sometimes very difficult to avoid.
I'd say that if by one person speaking, that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, cool. If the speaker has the power to enforce their view, and does so, that's wrong. For example, a police officer who allows (or let's say doesn't work hard to prevent) vandalism of patron's cars at a strip club, but tickets and harasses the customers for any minor infraction possible. The message sent is obvious, and rights aren't being equally enforced.
To label someone's actions when faced with a series of choices like this as either avoidance or getting alone--how would you score it? What's right for me may be seen as cowardice by someone else.