It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.
Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.
As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.
Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.
If it wasn’t for a certain south African man child, I would have called myself a free speech absolutist.
I believe that free speech is a vital component of a healthy democracy. And as it is the most fragile one that is easy to take away, it’s also among the most important ones.
But like any other tool, it can be abused. Of course freedom of expression is not the same as freedom from consequence, and certain things should therefore be illegal. Exactly what should be, and the definition of such, needs to be determined by some of ne smarter than I.
For example, stochastic terrorism should not be legal, but that’s a very Grey area that can be very prone to abuse - Who determines what is and isn’t stochastic terrorism?