Free speech absolutists believe that any limitation on political speech is veering into dangerous territory.
They believe that restricting free speech in any way, including curbing insulting or factually incorrect speech, means assigning gatekeepers who decide what can and cannot be expressed in public.
This process is littered with hazards – it’s ripe for abuse, there’s no clear consensus on who would be qualified to determine this
I think restricting any kind of speech leads down a slippery slope where free speech is not treated as a right, but instead as something with conditions.
Who decides what should be allowed and what shouldn't be. Its arbitrary and infringes on the rights of individuals.
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
Limits to free speech should be limited. Only speech used in pursuance of another crime – threats, incitement to panic, incitement to crime, corruption, bribery, etc., should qualify as "illegal" forms of speech, not because of the speech itself, but because of the illegal consequences and intentions (mens rea in Latin) of the speech.
I AM ALBERT MOOSHY TITS
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN
SIX SEVENSIX SEVEN