It's interesting to consider that Saudi Arabia could justify their actions in the exact same way. Keep in mind that they still sentence individuals to death for

It's interesting to consider that Saudi Arabia could justify their actions in the exact same way. Keep in mind that they still sentence individuals to death for everything from sorcery, to adultery, to apostasy. Their views on "these terrible ideas that must not be promulgated" are going to be different than ours. Interestingly enough even our ideas on this constantly change throughout time. If we lived in a country without such rigid protections of free speech there is every reason to believe we would have, not that far back in the past, declared things such as discussions of suffrage, or the abolition of slavery as "terrible ideas which must not be allowed to be promulgated." Suppression of free speech is a cornerstone of despotism. It is paradoxical to me that people are lobbying for this given the state of our government today. I could, to some degree, understand thoughts of enabling the government to suppress free speech if we had a practical utopia of a government which you could fully trust to be judicious, responsible, and deliberate with any utilization of said powers. But that is certainly not our present situation. And that is the issue that is confusing to me. One needs not appeal to some possible future situation to see why this would be an undesirable idea. Look at our president, look at our congress. Does anybody truly want to give these people the power to criminalize words? How long would it take before we'd have an act with a 3 or 4 letter acronym that was aimed at using said powers, we've now vested in our government, to deter critique of the government itself? I'm sure they could come up with an excellent name like the "Freedom of Speech Expansion Act". FSEA. Of course we would go into an outrage and use all of our social media power to write lots of angry letters, start some digital petitions, and maybe even get facebook and google to show an icon on their homepages to 'raise awareness.' And the government would relent. Of course before we'd even finished cheering our amazing victory, an "Amendment for Socially Constructive Discussion" (which is oddly identical to the FSEA) would be quietly attached to a defense or other must-pass bill, and the FSEA becomes law. Feel free to complain. Hopefully it would still be legal to do so. Does this sound in any way unbelievable or hyperbolic? Now take the contrary. Our government reluctantly passes the bill granting themselves substantially more power, but uses it only judiciously, fairly, and with the utmost concern for the implications of their actions. Constantly ensuring they never give way to companies lobbying for "speech modifications" and ensuring to never overstep any invisible boundaries that would hinder the rights of citizens. Oh yes, and this also continues on indefinitely through each and every congress. Which sounds more probable?