Talk:Freedom of speech: Difference between revisions
Created page with "There's actually quite a lot of other speech that's prohibited, because the nine categories listed here. For example, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is arguably a form..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There's actually quite a lot of other speech that's prohibited, because the nine categories listed here. For example, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is arguably a form of speech (especially if it has some saying on it like "Congratulations"), but the government will compel a baker to bake it. | There's actually quite a lot of other speech that's prohibited, because the nine categories listed here. For example, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is arguably a form of speech (especially if it has some saying on it like "Congratulations"), but the government will compel a baker to bake it. | ||
So then, why not also compel them to bake a cake for little [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/17/little-adolf-hitler-denied-birthday-cake-at-new-jersey-grocery-store.html Adolf Hitler Campbell]? Oh, because the public doesn't like that kind of speech, but they like pro-LGBT speech. | |||
We're living in an era that's decidedly unfriendly toward dissident speech, and it's probably going to get worse, if the attitudes of today's college students are any indication. They're all about having "safe spaces" where they can be protected from speech that makes them uncomfortable. | |||
Come to think of it, the anti-child porn laws are, at this point, largely an effort to create a "safe space" for victims where they can feel secure that they'll never run into a person who has viewed child porn of them. For this reason, I think people like [https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/nv/news/2010/04282010.html Gregory Hoffman] are pretty cool, because they deliberately try to thwart that goal and awaken victims to the reality that child porn is actually pretty cool. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 10:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:28, 6 May 2016
There's actually quite a lot of other speech that's prohibited, because the nine categories listed here. For example, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is arguably a form of speech (especially if it has some saying on it like "Congratulations"), but the government will compel a baker to bake it.
So then, why not also compel them to bake a cake for little Adolf Hitler Campbell? Oh, because the public doesn't like that kind of speech, but they like pro-LGBT speech.
We're living in an era that's decidedly unfriendly toward dissident speech, and it's probably going to get worse, if the attitudes of today's college students are any indication. They're all about having "safe spaces" where they can be protected from speech that makes them uncomfortable.
Come to think of it, the anti-child porn laws are, at this point, largely an effort to create a "safe space" for victims where they can feel secure that they'll never run into a person who has viewed child porn of them. For this reason, I think people like Gregory Hoffman are pretty cool, because they deliberately try to thwart that goal and awaken victims to the reality that child porn is actually pretty cool. Lysander (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
