3 ms·
It's just amazing that you can talk about banning the religious texts and at the same time claim the speech is not under attack. That's some olympic-level menta
by olegkikin 9y ago
It's just amazing that you can talk about banning the religious texts and at the same time claim the speech is not under attack. That's some olympic-level mental gymnastics.
- FabHK 9y agoI am saying that this law discussed in the article constitutes no attack on free speech. By implication, hypothetical stricter laws might be defensible, even. Next, the Abrahamic texts do contain truly awful prescriptions (genocide, killing people for all sorts of silly reasons, such as blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, eating the wrong food, etc.), which one ought to argue against vigorously, and which could be illegal under (hypothetical, stricter) laws (insofar, for example, as quoting specific sections could be understood as a 'call for action' to murder people). I don't see the mental gymnastics there?