>you can't have it both ways and choose who can speak freely and who cannot... Why not, exactly? I hear that people say "it's a slippery slope", or "who decide

>you can't have it both ways and choose who can speak freely and who cannot... Why not, exactly? I hear that people say "it's a slippery slope", or "who decides?" as if this puts an end to the argument. It doesn't. If one can formulate a set of rules and further judge on a case-by-case basis, there is little ambiguity left. I am against giving people who advocate or defend genocide or killing people for their ideas/race/etc. a platform to speak on. There's nothing ambiguous about this. You won't find me "defending to the death" the right for people to advocate killing of my friends.