Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Numerous current democracies do in fact place limitations on speech, of varying kinds.
- Germany, and iirc France, both ban Holocaust deniers
- Israel has a series of censorship laws
- India has censorship laws that target religious issues; Hindus also often set up organized protests for what they view as illicit behavior (including a man and a woman kissing on the lips, as Richard Gere found out the hard way)
- The current Italian prime minister owns most of the TV media in Italy, and often uses his ownership to keep his various scandals out of the news
- In Thailand, it is illegal to insult the King
- In the US, as in most nations, child pornography is illegal to produce, disseminate and possess.
And in the US, it's not like all speech was suddenly acceptable in 1776. For example, laws against obscenity were in effect until quite recently.
Nor has this been a one-way and smooth process towards the liberalization of speech. For example, Edwin Meese and Tipper Gore were notorious for their attempts to impose additional restrictions on content they considered pornographic and/or harmful to children.
It really does not require a great deal of imagination to say that the US could reinstate restrictions on obscenity and certain other forms of speech.
|
All great points, but unless I don't see it, I don't think you answered the original question?
Quote:
|
No government democracy in human history thinks banning books is a good idea.
|
Are we both too lazy to check to see if I'm wrong
