|
Let's talk specifics!
Has everyone read the original article?
Exactly which banned acts do you think should be acceptable to describe in publicly available literature and why?
Surely people accept that some subjects, like kiddie porn, for example, are obviously so objectionable and reprehensible that they are not acceptable under any conditions? If yes then that means a general acceptance of a level of "censorshop" over the basest interests of a certain portion of the population. QED.
Yes, I understand the argument about the slippery slope and all that, but based on the Specifics of this case, it seems to me the bar is set pretty low and no-where near banning anything of any redeeming social value.
|