|
| ▲ | rayiner 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| But not because I think people who don’t like nazi content should simply not buy nazi content. It’s because I don’t trust the government to ban any kind of political speech. |
| |
| ▲ | akerl_ 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Why do you trust the government to ban non-political speech? | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t, I just don’t think non-political speech is as important. | | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | One of the big problems here is that once you start letting the government ban a class of speech, you’re also implicitly letting them classify speech. Their definition of what is or isn’t protected political speech is going to be warped by their capability to ban non-political speech. | |
| ▲ | JamesBarney 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you trust the government to determine what is and isn't political speech? The left has been talking for years about how what would we have classified 20 as political speech 20 years ago is not really political speech but hate speech, and inciting people to violence. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Do you trust the government to determine what is and isn't political speech? Even in the U.S., which is highly protective of speech, we've had carve outs for obscenity, etc., that have been fairly workable. It's hard to take a rule directed at banning porn and apply it to political speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hollerith 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| He is a lawyer in the US and most lawyers in the US oppose the banning of Nazi content, which is why Nazi content is not and has never been unlawful in the US. |
|
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
