> For me Porn is easy too. If it only involves consenting adults, it's fine. If it doesn't then other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto

> For me Porn is easy too. If it only involves consenting adults, it's fine. If it doesn't then other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto complicity by association in those crimes. You only have to deal with what "consenting adults" means(currently a hotbed of political discussion and activity), and what "distribution" means(a fundamental question behind the drug war, copyright infringement, and so on). > I'd add incitement to commit crimes as an issue. But that falls under complicity or conspiracy to commit a crime. If the speech in question doesn't cross that line, then it should be free. And where this line lies is not a topic of contention. > That only leaves slander and libel. These are civil, not criminal matters and should be prosecuted as private matters based on the harm done to the individuals so slandered or libeled That doesn't really explain how to define slander or libel, whether there should be exceptions to them ("fair commentary" based on presented facts, statements about public figures, minor errors..), whether there's a mens rea requirement to defamation, etc. Most of these things are examples of contentions with not just a moral idea of freedom of speech but with the narrower First Amendment in the US. Legislating speech is complicated precisely because it has so much power and value. If it weren't both wonderful and dangerous, we wouldn't bother...talking...so much about it.