2 ms·
Your response sums up my objection to these kinds of policy. You frame my arguments as some kind of attachment to the most heinous crime in spite of any clarifi
by soraminazuki 3y ago
Your response sums up my objection to these kinds of policy. You frame my arguments as some kind of attachment to the most heinous crime in spite of any clarifications I make. Governments operate the same way. Any questionable policies they enforce, it's always for the people. Opposition are terrorists and child abusers.
I made my arguments very clear. I don't support crime, ever. But that doesn't mean I support taking away individual rights essential to a free society.
- verve_rat 3y agoI disagree that you argument is as clear as you say it is. This is what I'm trying to ask you: do you think that there is any speech, any expression, that can/should be a crime? You believe in free speech, good, so do I. But in a reasonable society everything has limits the only question is where those limits are. I'm not doing the "think of the children" thing, I'm trying to probe the edges of the argument you are putting forth. There are some people that think that possession and distribution of CSAM should not be illegal on free speech ground. That's a position I don't share. Where do you stand? Or, to remove you objections to that line of argument, what about revenge porn? Is that speech that shouldn't be punished? What rights does the subject of the revenge porn have and do they counter any free speech right the publisher has? This is a subtle and complex subject, I don't believe there are simple answers.