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.

  • Fedditor385@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Who gets to decide what “hurt” means? The person hurting or the person being hurt? And how do you get both of them to agree what hurt means?

    • traches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It would be defined as part of the law, hopefully with something reasonable and robust.

      Take genocide advocacy - it pretty clearly leads to people getting hurt even if we don’t know exactly who.