And I'm arguing that it's a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.
gapbetweenus
joined 2 years ago
Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.
Good question. But than again - not sure you want to be judged on sensitive topic by a group of peers, I'm not a huge fan of that concept to be honest.
Terrorist for ones are maybe freedom fighters for others - kind of sketchy line over there.
What could go wrong? Assange and Manning would like a word with you.
Kind of depends? There are books around that are rather direct in their hurtful message.
Than I will rephrase the question. Who should draw the line and do you trust people in power to draw it in a fair way? What if conservatives are holding that power against opinions they think are dangerous?
Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?
So it's about how a law is applied. And you still don't see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won't agree on this one.
I don't really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won't stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.