> Do you think it stops them from thinking that? Because you made is illegal.
No, it does not stop people from thinking that (and of course that is not what is made illegal). It stops them from publishing and spreading those thoughts, because that is what is actually made illegal.
> This gets trotted out all the time and it is nothing but a sound bite.
So you don't actually have an argument against it?
> I haven't met anyone hear about an atrocity and genuinely say it was a good thing.
Then be happy that you haven't met such people. They most definitely exist:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/months-christ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacr...
https://www.hstoday.us/featured/extremists-praise-texas-atta...
> That doesn't happen.
That is exactly what is happening all over the internet. You have to wear pretty big blinders not to see it.
> If you stop people from talking freely what happens is that they will only talk with people that they believe to be on their side.
And those aren't gonna be a lot of people, so they won't be able to recruit others easily, and they won't start to think they're majority.
> It literally doesn't.
It very literally does.
> Because it allows other less odious things to be criminalised when it is criminally expedient. That is because the precedent has been set.
That slippery slope argument is so silly. There is no country on earth that has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Including the USA.
Germany has had very clear, well-defined hate speech laws since 1960, and it's ranked higher than the USA in the Press Freedom Index.
No, it does not stop people from thinking that (and of course that is not what is made illegal). It stops them from publishing and spreading those thoughts, because that is what is actually made illegal.
> This gets trotted out all the time and it is nothing but a sound bite.
So you don't actually have an argument against it?
> I haven't met anyone hear about an atrocity and genuinely say it was a good thing.
Then be happy that you haven't met such people. They most definitely exist:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/months-christ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacr...
https://www.hstoday.us/featured/extremists-praise-texas-atta...
> That doesn't happen.
That is exactly what is happening all over the internet. You have to wear pretty big blinders not to see it.
> If you stop people from talking freely what happens is that they will only talk with people that they believe to be on their side.
And those aren't gonna be a lot of people, so they won't be able to recruit others easily, and they won't start to think they're majority.
> It literally doesn't.
It very literally does.
> Because it allows other less odious things to be criminalised when it is criminally expedient. That is because the precedent has been set.
That slippery slope argument is so silly. There is no country on earth that has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Including the USA.
Germany has had very clear, well-defined hate speech laws since 1960, and it's ranked higher than the USA in the Press Freedom Index.