[flagged]

More nuanced laws can prevent such behaviour without impacting free expression. For example, Public Nuisance laws. That way the content itself isn't legislated again, just the appropriateness of the time and place, and the society isn't prevented from having fictional works, history texts, art containing the banned topic.

▲

debo_ 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank you, Godwin.

	▲	direwolf20 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Godwin's law is not a useful heuristic, and Godwin himself regrets it. Every universal principle should have its extreme cases tested. If you claim it should be fine to say anything at all, then you have to test that against the limits like HH, or North Korean propaganda, or death threats, etc.

▲

gadflyinyoureye 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. Now you don't know who to watch. Forcing conversations under ground just requires a larger intelligence network. Let them say things on Reddit and the like to simply keep track using simple tools.

	▲	nomilk 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Even better than tracking them, reason with them (à la Daryl Davis [0]), even if only a few minds are changed, it's a big win for society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

▲

njhnjh 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]