> The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives. What proposed rule? Please quote me so I know what you're talking about. > Each and

> The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives. What proposed rule? Please quote me so I know what you're talking about. > Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of Exactly! Which is why I oppose hate speech legislation. I believe that I, as an adult, have the freedom to hear whatever opinions or ideas I wish and the responsibility to come to my own conclusion on the truth of such ideas. To use the force of law to restrict the expression of ideas merely because they cause offense conflicts directly both with my rights and responsibilities. > Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online. My question to you, is what are you specifically threatening the context of this specific conversation? It sounds like you're not threatening anything beyond the powers granted to every user on this site, which makes your initial comment look like nothing but useless posturing.