> ... and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument, Strong disagree. That kind of content is very

> ... and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument, Strong disagree. That kind of content is very effective at changing attitudes and shifting political pressures, which is the core purpose of first amendment protections. I completely understand not wanting to see it, but disagree with preventing others from choosing to see and share it. The idea that content that is "clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video" is justification for censorship is backwards, since that content has particularly large potential to drive change.