3 ms·

I get what you are saying, but these groups effectively operate as a DDoS attack against content they do not like. Content which is not promoting or showing any

by brk 4y ago

I get what you are saying, but these groups effectively operate as a DDoS attack against content they do not like. Content which is not promoting or showing anything "bad", it just violates their beliefs. Those groups are, and would be, free to voice their concerns and beliefs on their own platforms, in their own buildings, etc. I am not saying they should not have an equal right to free speech, just that their should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
But isn't this category of "bad" the entire dispute? People opposed to pornography don't typically agree with your perception that it's just about their individual tastes; they argue that it is "bad", in precisely the same way as racial slurs or planning a crime or any of the things that you and I think obviously need to be prohibited.
davidro80 4y ago
cratermoon 4y ago
> should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions. At least in the US, "organized actions" would be protected under "right of the people peaceably to assemble" part of the First Amendment. Unless those organized actions presented a "clear and present danger"[1], it's difficult for me to see how a government could restrain organizing. 1 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)