4 ms·
Parent is clear about their point, which is that the two laws have opposite intent, regardless of corruption or abuse like you're focused on. Laws not being ef
by collingreen 11mo ago
Parent is clear about their point, which is that the two laws have opposite intent, regardless of corruption or abuse like you're focused on.
Laws not being effective as written, not being enforced well, or even being used as weapons are all important, relevant problems that are core to the reality of governing people.
I think this is worth talking about but I don't think this is a refutation of the parent or a valid "both sides" argument.
- u_sama 11mo agoYou are missing that the intent is to censor the scope of acceptable discourse, the justification given can have different paths (protect, kids, protect migrants, protect trans people) but the intent itself is the same. The laws are effective and their objective is to censor speech and behaviour, the fact you agree with the censored speech doesnt take that the state deems some speech deserving to be censored. The issue is that democracies go in a oscillatory manner and the speech you deem bad will some day became part of the institutions, and then they will have the same power to censor what before was allowed.